View Full Version : Liberalism as Pathology
Outlander Systems
11-01-09, 18:59
Maybe I'm the one taking "crazy pills" here.
Someone on my Facebook page posted: "Think of carbon mitigation as being your environmental 401k. Well, actually your environmental Roth IRA."
I couldn't help but post: "Just sayin'. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe. It is present in all known lifeforms, and in the human body carbon is the second most abundant element by mass after oxygen. This abundance, together with the unique diversity of organic compounds and their unusual polymer-forming ability at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth, make this element the chemical basis of all known life."
Seriously people. Maybe I *AM* the asshole everyone says I am, but for God's sake, enough is enough. I can't take it anymore.
Let me get this straight, how someone can hold, simultaneously I might add, the beliefs that:
1) Killing human babies is like, totally cool
2) Killing convicted felons who've been on a binge of rapine and slaughter is like, totally bogus
It's called cognitive dissonance, folks.
The disease of liberalism is like a childish social disorder. I think this camel's back is broken.
My favourites are the "vegans". Don't even get me started on "vegans".
Dude, what the hell are people smokin'?
CharlieMike
11-01-09, 19:20
POST DELETED. Nevermind. I should have read the OP more carefully. Reading is fundamental. :(
Like that line from Buffy the Vamp Slayer movie. "What about like the Ozone layer.............yeah we totally got to get rid of that!"
I think people watched to many lawyer shows and got used to the idea that "This" in no way effects "That".......until the next show were it does but doesn't make the last show right.
Belmont31R
11-01-09, 19:42
Liberals are people who have bought into far fringe ideas that over time have become more accepted.
Like you posted...killing babies is ok but killing murderers and rapists isnt.
How can any logical person believe in those two beliefs? Ok to kill a baby but no ok to kill someone who murdered people?
Many of them push an agenda without the most basic understanding behind their beliefs. Like green energy is going to save the Earth. They take loon like Al Gore, and run with his beliefs. The fact Al Gore has a mansion, private jets, and rides around in motorcades of SUV's doesnt seem to phase them. The fact he stands to make tens of millions on selling this idea doesnt bother them. But a "rich CEO" is evil because he made a few million in the financial world, and should be brought down to the level of the "common man". Its ok for Bill Clinton to make millions giving speeches and writing books but CEO's and execs dont work has hard as the people on the bottom end of the totem pole and should be punished.
Somehow Obama made enough as a "community organzier" to afford a million dollar home in the good part of town but they think he represents the little man.
Its ok to tax people 70%+ but its inhuman to reduce the amount we spend on welfare so we don't drive our country further into insolvency.
There is no logic or factual basis behind their arguments and beliefs. My Obama loving MIL refuses to talk politics with me because she doesnt want her entire belief system shattered. I mentioned ACORN to her, and she said she didn't care at all about it.
They have their own little world, and the best we can do is to make sure it doesnt become all of ours world. It has to be snuffed out at any opportunity otherwise their illogical and non-factual beliefs will be imposed on us.
There was an article in the WSJ on thurs or fri last week about the biggest windfarm in western TX is upgrading it's turbines and ,drum roll please, buying them from China....
Shadow1198
11-01-09, 20:30
This vid is long, at 47min, but well worth watching as he hits the nail on the head perfectly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
The short version, basically Modern Liberalism is a mental disorder, and is actually not even true liberalism in the classical sense. Modern Liberals are child-like in mentality, which is one of the reasons you can't really argue with them and why facts don't matter. They basically run purely on emotions and basically are grown ass 5 year olds, and honestly they should be treated as such. Unfortunately some of those grown ass 5 yr olds actually end up in positions of power in determining the future of this country. In that regard, it's sort of like giving the keys to a brand new 612hp Porsche Carrera GT........to a 5 year old, the wreck is basically inevitable. :rolleyes:
Outlander Systems
11-01-09, 20:54
Modern Liberals are child-like in mentality, which is one of the reasons you can't really argue with them and why facts don't matter.
Emphasis mine. That's the real ball burner for me. Or why there's so many double-standards, self-hatred cloaked as self-righteousness, and a general holier-than-thou attitude.
parishioner
11-01-09, 21:15
...and a general holier-than-thou attitude.
That is what gets on my tits.
Hard to argue with any of your points, dude. Makes me sad.
Y'all are sounding like AR15.com now...
Language is the means through which we communicate. It's our responsibility to be as clear as possible so that we can worry about the things worth worrying about and not about figuring out what he/she said. Every time you screw up this distinction between conservative this and liberal that you help keep people divided along make-believe ideological lines. Conservatism and liberalism are not belief systems. They're methods of accomplishing something. That's it. Every successful act of liberalism is maintained by an act of conservatism, and every act of liberalism must first overcome an act of conservatism. Gilbert Keith Chesterton described it pretty damn well: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."
Wanna guess what District of Columbia v. Heller was? Liberalism. Roe v. Wade? Liberalism.
Flip side: Keeping the NFA? Conservatism. Maintaining that terrorists outside the country don't have the same rights as those inside the country? Conservatism.
Every time we fight legally and politically to take back freedoms taken away from us, we're being liberal. Every time we fight legally and politically to keep the freedoms we have, we're being conservative. The idiocy of calling one word 'bad' because the vast majority of those using it are blind to what it means can't be overstated. If you well and truly believe in the evil of liberalism, go right ahead and denounce every single instance of it in our society (you'll be at it a while). Or you can take the easy way out and resort to catch-phrases, overgeneralizations, and self-imposed ignorance. They work too. :rolleyes:
-B
Y'all are sounding like AR15.com now...
Language is the means through which we communicate. It's our responsibility to be as clear as possible so that we can worry about the things worth worrying about and not about figuring out what he/she said. Every time you screw up this distinction between conservative this and liberal that you help keep people divided along make-believe ideological lines. Conservatism and liberalism are not belief systems. They're methods of accomplishing something. That's it. Every successful act of liberalism is maintained by an act of conservatism, and every act of liberalism must first overcome an act of conservatism. Gilbert Keith Chesterton described it pretty damn well: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."
Wanna guess what District of Columbia v. Heller was? Liberalism. Roe v. Wade? Liberalism.
Flip side: Keeping the NFA? Conservatism. Maintaining that terrorists outside the country don't have the same rights as those inside the country? Conservatism.
Every time we fight legally and politically to take back freedoms taken away from us, we're being liberal. Every time we fight legally and politically to keep the freedoms we have, we're being conservative. The idiocy of calling one word 'bad' because the vast majority of those using it are blind to what it means can't be overstated. If you well and truly believe in the evil of liberalism, go right ahead and denounce every single instance of it in our society (you'll be at it a while). Or you can take the easy way out and resort to catch-phrases, overgeneralizations, and self-imposed ignorance. They work too. :rolleyes:
-B
Yes and No. Words have meaning, but words also have generally accepted meaning, even if it is wrong according to the sense of the history of the language.
Today "liberal" = "progressive"
The old definition of "liberal", in the USA at least, is not really important any more.
The commonly accepted use of it is
liberal is a progressive is a left winger
conservative is a right winger
This is why we have the term libertarian. Libertarianism generally holds to classical liberal ideas. But since the progressives have co-opted liberal in the USA, we now call it libertarian.
It is like the word "gender". Gender is not your sex. It is a grammatical term. Words have gender -- animals don't. Animals have a sex, male or female. But today gender has taken over for sex as a characteristic of animals. It is not worth fighting the change in that word.
self-hatred cloaked as self-righteousness
This is what gets me here... Hatred and self-hatred labeled as tolerance.
I dislike Michael Savage but he is 100% correct -- liberalism is a mental disorder
Emphasis mine. That's the real ball burner for me. Or why there's so many double-standards, self-hatred cloaked as self-righteousness, and a general holier-than-thou attitude.
Guys,this statement,as most of the above just about sum it up.Liberalism is some sort of delusional/emotionally retardation.It is a mental disorder that seems to affect the weak minded. They are too weak to make rational decisions for themselves.They are almost like pre-teens who are unfortunately stuck in adult bodies.
The biggest thing that I have found with Liberals or the far left is their arguments are based on an emotional response not a logical response.
About a year ago I was involved in a discusion with my girlfriends best friend about Iraq. She went on a rant how it was all George W's fault yada yada!
My response, "Do you know the number provinces in Iraq, and can you name at least 3?, Can you tell me the major religous sects of Iraq?, Can you tell me the first time that women where allowed to vote in Iraq?"
She could not answer these questions, could not even come close, my response, "We can not have a conversation or debate on this issue because you do not know the facts or have any idea about the current events or history about Iraq! So I can not debate this issue with someone that has no idea what the hell they are talking about!"
Her response, "Your an asshole!" :D
ThirdWatcher
11-02-09, 07:28
This is why we have the term libertarian. Libertarianism generally holds to classical liberal ideas. But since the progressives have co-opted liberal in the USA, we now call it libertarian.
I believe you are right on target. I used to consider myself conservative, but in the last decade or so I've drifted towards libertarianism. I have a real problem with the rampant hypocrisy of the people that make the rules.
John Stossel addressed this in "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity". I could go on and on but I think you know what I mean.;)
I couldn't help but post: "Just sayin'. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe. It is present in all known lifeforms, and in the human body carbon is the second most abundant element by mass after oxygen. This abundance, together with the unique diversity of organic compounds and their unusual polymer-forming ability at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth, make this element the chemical basis of all known life."
Not to jump into a "global warming" argument here, but honestly, the fact that carbon is vital to life and the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas really have nothing scientifically to do with each other. There are a plenty of good arguments out there you can use to argue against climate change; this just really isn't one.
And yeah, vegans are retarded :cool:
I remember when the same over-educated enviro-nazis were claiming we were headed for the next ice age back in the '70s. When will they realize that that big ball of hydrogen fusion about 93million miles from here has more of an effect on our climate than anything man-made?
BTW - follow the money. Al Gore and his buds stand to rake in 100's of millions of dollars brokering carbon credits. Don't think his interest is magnanimous.
Belmont31R
11-03-09, 01:26
Y'all are sounding like AR15.com now...
Language is the means through which we communicate. It's our responsibility to be as clear as possible so that we can worry about the things worth worrying about and not about figuring out what he/she said. Every time you screw up this distinction between conservative this and liberal that you help keep people divided along make-believe ideological lines. Conservatism and liberalism are not belief systems. They're methods of accomplishing something. That's it. Every successful act of liberalism is maintained by an act of conservatism, and every act of liberalism must first overcome an act of conservatism. Gilbert Keith Chesterton described it pretty damn well: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."
Wanna guess what District of Columbia v. Heller was? Liberalism. Roe v. Wade? Liberalism.
Flip side: Keeping the NFA? Conservatism. Maintaining that terrorists outside the country don't have the same rights as those inside the country? Conservatism.
Every time we fight legally and politically to take back freedoms taken away from us, we're being liberal. Every time we fight legally and politically to keep the freedoms we have, we're being conservative. The idiocy of calling one word 'bad' because the vast majority of those using it are blind to what it means can't be overstated. If you well and truly believe in the evil of liberalism, go right ahead and denounce every single instance of it in our society (you'll be at it a while). Or you can take the easy way out and resort to catch-phrases, overgeneralizations, and self-imposed ignorance. They work too. :rolleyes:
-B
The easiest way to put is this:
Liberals = Change
Conservatives = Stay the same
Our Founding Father's were classic liberals but that is because they wanted to change their current government into something else. The conservatives of that era were the Loyalists.
Today the people with the same wants of government are conservatives because they want to keep the system as is.
Today's liberals want to change the current system into something else.
If you apply that VERY STRICTLY then yes Heller v. DC was a liberal act because Heller wanted to change the current gun laws in DC...but he wanted to change them back to how they were. Regression not progression.
Modern liberal ideology hinges on progression of their agenda.
Modern conservative ideology hinges on regression.
But are both liberals because they are trying to change the system?
Or are the only TRUE conservatives the people who simply want NOTHING to change at all?
The_War_Wagon
11-03-09, 09:04
The best reaction to any liberal, or liberal nonsense, is laughter. It reinforces that they're loons, who can't be taken seriously. It's good medicine for us, and only makes them madder, which makes them sillier! :p
I couldn't help but post: "Just sayin'. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe. It is present in all known lifeforms, and in the human body carbon is the second most abundant element by mass after oxygen. This abundance, together with the unique diversity of organic compounds and their unusual polymer-forming ability at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth, make this element the chemical basis of all known life."
I'm not going to get into the bandwagon rant about your current issues with liberals. Hell, if you gave me a 500 word limit I would write a very scientific thesis on why vegans are idiots. I would also write a constitutional argument quoting our founding fathers about why extreme fundamentalist christians that insist on excluding real science from the classroom are equally as stupid. But, I wont go there...;)
Rather I have a question for you. The above statement scientifically does nothing, NOTHING AT ALL to disprove or even question the data supporting climate change. All it does is state known data showing Carbon's place within the natural environment. In fact you are just rambling data in order to make your point sound valid in order to support your subjective ideology. Please elaborate on your statement for us! Show us links and peer reviewed articles that offer the reader consistent data stating that an increase in carbon within the natural environment is either not harmful, or beneficial. Please? Links would be great too, not quotes.
Oh and before you respond look up the definition of "Peer Reviewed".
parishioner
11-04-09, 03:23
I'm not going to get into the bandwagon rant about your current issues with liberals. Hell, if you gave me a 500 word limit I would write a very scientific thesis on why vegans are idiots. I would also write a constitutional argument quoting our founding fathers about why extreme fundamentalist christians that insist on excluding real science from the classroom are equally as stupid. But, I wont go there...;)
Rather I have a question for you. The above statement scientifically does nothing, NOTHING AT ALL to disprove or even question the data supporting climate change. All it does is state known data showing Carbon's place within the natural environment. In fact you are just rambling data in order to make your point sound valid in order to support your subjective ideology. Please elaborate on your statement for us! Show us links and peer reviewed articles that offer the reader consistent data stating that an increase in carbon within the natural environment is either not harmful, or beneficial. Please? Links would be great too, not quotes.
Oh and before you respond look up the definition of "Peer Reviewed".
This all needs to be taken to the global warming thread.
Outlander Systems
11-04-09, 06:10
I'm not going to get into the bandwagon rant about your current issues with liberals. Hell, if you gave me a 500 word limit I would write a very scientific thesis on why vegans are idiots. I would also write a constitutional argument quoting our founding fathers about why extreme fundamentalist christians that insist on excluding real science from the classroom are equally as stupid. But, I wont go there...;)
Rather I have a question for you. The above statement scientifically does nothing, NOTHING AT ALL to disprove or even question the data supporting climate change. All it does is state known data showing Carbon's place within the natural environment. In fact you are just rambling data in order to make your point sound valid in order to support your subjective ideology. Please elaborate on your statement for us! Show us links and peer reviewed articles that offer the reader consistent data stating that an increase in carbon within the natural environment is either not harmful, or beneficial. Please? Links would be great too, not quotes.
Oh and before you respond look up the definition of "Peer Reviewed".
Ummm. How about, "no".
See, Mr. Peer Review, there's this place called the University of Common Sense.
My liberal buddy finally hit a raw nerve with me. If we're going to "mitigate carbon"; hell, the wording of that statement is asinine at best. I was pointing out the complete absurdity of his comment, as well as being a wise ass. Obviously you didn't get it.
I ain't your monkey, hoss. I ain't gonna do a trick on command. If my perspective butts into your global warming religion, tough titty.
I ain't your monkey, hoss. I ain't gonna do a trick on command. If my perspective butts into your global warming religion, tough titty.
I have no religion. But thanks for supporting a theory I have.
Outlander Systems
11-04-09, 17:22
Found this pertinent:
"Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum.
"This information was posted a few days ago by "jshowell" and was titled "Troll Techniques", but since this type of activity is still going on here at the DP, I think it's important to keep it front and center. This one's for you, "ronbarr".
There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.'
Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.
Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'
A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'
Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.
Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION'
Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.
Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'
Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.
Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'
It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.
CONCLUSION
Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.
Personal thoughts: If you stay around here long enough it becomes obvious that these techniques are being intentionally used by a small number of people to dilute the power of freedom minded people who are coming together here to discuss important and sensitive issues. This forum is a powerful tool, and its educational effects cannot be underestimated, especially for those newcomers who aren't yet up to speed on the level of corruption in our government. Many people are just learning and coming to grips with the big issues. That's exactly what the neocons DON'T want, and it's why they send in their vermin....those who use these tactics to distract readers and keep them from hearing different viewpoints on things such as 9/11, Palin, and Bob Barr. The more ignorant the people are, the easier they are to manipulate and control with bullshit propaganda such as the bogus 'war on terror', 9/11 'debunking', and political ploys such as Sara Palin's V.P. run with McCain.
UPDATE: Well, of course the trolls are attacking, and are attempting to say that fights like this one are unimportant in an attempt to marginalize the above information. Here's why I think it's vitally important. The Ron Paul Revolution is about exposing the truth. It's about returning to a Constitutional form of government. By necessity, that implies that we have been lied to and that we DON'T have a Constitutional government. If you dispute that, then you are in the wrong place, to say the least. How did we get from what the founders intended to the FUBAR mess we're in right now? Was it a military campaign against the people of America? No, our freedoms and Constitutional form of government have been eroded over time by slick talking politicians, corrupt media, and people sitting behind closed doors trying to figure out ways to strip us of our money and basic 'God given' rights and turn us into slaves. Up until now, the insidious plan has been working, but as you can see, people are waking up. This forum is a great example of what the neocons most fear.....people thinking for themselves and becoming more and more informed about the lies and abuses of government which threaten to destroy the America that the Founders intended. This is not an ego thing with me at all. It's a life or death struggle for the survival of the Constitiuion and America as we know it. "Trolls" (whether politicians, press, or internet trash) ARE what have slowly brought this country down, and the fight to preserve the principles of freedom as embodied by sites like the DailyPaul are as important as anything we could be doing. Sites like this are making a difference, otherwise the establishment wouldn't be threatened enough to send in their lackeys to try to destroy it."
Disagreeing and asking that you back up wild accusations and claims is far from trolling. I have received a number of personal messages from various active members of this forum thanking me for bringing a different voice to the General Discussions board.
Just because we all have one common interest doesn't mean we all walk to the exact same tune all the time. Accusing someone of trolling sounds more like you are diluting the thread. You started a topic using the a very odd interaction you had with a friend as justification to complain about a certain political view. Expecting not to be questioned on your reasoning seems pretty hypocritical if you ask me.
And don't forget that I agreed with you regarding the insanity of veganism...;)
Outlander Systems
11-04-09, 20:08
Sorry for going so far as to insinuate trolling. The original thesis of this thread was the skull-burning frustration I get when dealing with folks who align themselves so heavily on the left.
Don't let this confuse your, or act as some sort of inference that I am right-leaning.
As the old saying goes, the left wants government to run my life, the right wants big business to run my life.
As far as global warming, it should be reserved for a different thread. That being said, I have my own silly religion of "Peak Oil".
While I personally believe Peak Oil to be a reality, it doesn't mean I can't be wrong about my assumptions, and personal pondering of the matter.
Like GW, the burden of proof is incumbent upon those making the claim that such phenomena has merit. From what I've seen of GW, I'm not sold on it. I might also make mention that I do possess, and have viewed, Al Gore's power point presentation on DVD. I saw it in theatres. I'm all for the reduction of individual waste. I'm against the destruction of the environment. The well being of nature's beauty isn't a partisan issue.
That being said, what I do take issue with, is the government getting involved and mandating changes, in order for me to recycle more beer cans.
If the government really wanted to make a difference, a law could be passed, eliminating the ability of a HOA to deny residents the installation of solar panels.
In short, here's my take. If the people, the bulk of the American public, suffer because of something, whilst simultaneously empowering another group of people, regardless of the nobility of "the cause", I see foul play. That's just my point of view. It could be wrong, but it's my simple equation that:
1) Bill turns into Law
2) Said Law eliminates freedom/feeds the power elite
3) Said Law creates a new business enterprise for the power elite to profit from
4) Profits come from those whose freedoms were eliminated
Equals Raw Deal for John Q. Citizen.
Global Warming, and all its periphery, in my humble opinion, does just that. That, and for me, the science is NOT settled that the phenomena is attributed to mankind.
Outlander Systems
11-05-09, 10:37
Here's more proof I can believe in that human activity has caused some issues with the environment. It's, IMO, pretty disgusting.
http://chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=11
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.