PDA

View Full Version : Liberals=Clinically insane



theabaud
Feb 19th 2008, 05:40 PM
I just want to say that I am not a big fan of world net, and definatly am not a proponent of Freudian Psychology which suggests that "getting stuck" in a stage of development cause psychosis, i just wanted to post this article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494) cause it was funny. The quotes and explanations of the Doctor's book sound more like political rants than psychological theory, so don't be duped by the article.


Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

Fenris
Feb 19th 2008, 05:47 PM
Well, I disagree with liberals for ideological reasons. I wouldn't insult them by calling them insane though. :P

It's one thing to disagree with someone's position, it's another thing entirely to attack them personally.

theabaud
Feb 19th 2008, 06:30 PM
Well, I disagree with liberals for ideological reasons. I wouldn't insult them by calling them insane though. :P

It's one thing to disagree with someone's position, it's another thing entirely to attack them personally.my thoughts too, and the commentary being passed off as research is disturbing as well. I am sure there are some liberal Docs who think the same thing about some of us.

Fenris
Feb 19th 2008, 07:28 PM
my thoughts too, and the commentary being passed off as research is disturbing as well. I am sure there are some liberal Docs who think the same thing about some of us.I've actually seen some articles about that, yes. :lol:

th1bill
Feb 20th 2008, 12:11 AM
I still love my dad's words on the matter. "If a man is not a bleeding heart liberal by the time he is twenty, it proves he has no heart. If that same man is not a conservative by the time he is forty, that proves he has no brains."
.. Every time I recall that 5'3 1/2" frame speaking those words, I just love him all the more, such humorous wisdom from a staunch, straight laced little man.

theabaud
Feb 20th 2008, 12:49 PM
I noticed there were no posting from those i often disagree with here, I guess I regret not putting a question mark on the end of the title, as I was commenting more on the article than liberals.

Free Indeed
Feb 20th 2008, 03:47 PM
Well, I disagree with liberals for ideological reasons. I wouldn't insult them by calling them insane though. :P

It's one thing to disagree with someone's position, it's another thing entirely to attack them personally.

Agreed. A study was published a few years ago that concluded conservatives were mentally ill, and I thought that was pretty silly as well (except, of course, for Ann Coulter, who is nuttier than a fruitcake).

Free Indeed
Feb 20th 2008, 03:52 PM
I still love my dad's words on the matter. "If a man is not a bleeding heart liberal by the time he is twenty, it proves he has no heart. If that same man is not a conservative by the time he is forty, that proves he has no brains."
.. Every time I recall that 5'3 1/2" frame speaking those words, I just love him all the more, such humorous wisdom from a staunch, straight laced little man.


That quote has long been falsely attributed to Churchill. Personally, I prefer Robert Frost:

"I never dared be radical when young for fear it would make me conservative when old."

Fenris
Feb 20th 2008, 04:50 PM
(except, of course, for Ann Coulter, who is nuttier than a fruitcake).
She's not nutty.

She acts nutty because it sells her books. :lol:

Free Indeed
Feb 20th 2008, 06:55 PM
She's not nutty.

She acts nutty because it sells her books. :lol:

I don't know, anybody who would say everything she says just to make a few bucks is probably nuttier than someone who actually believes it!

corijoysdad
Feb 21st 2008, 12:49 AM
I don't know, anybody who would say everything she says just to make a few bucks is probably nuttier than someone who actually believes it! Ha! I think the same thing whenever someone mentions Al Fraknen's name.

Confused64
Feb 21st 2008, 02:14 PM
Ha! I think the same thing whenever someone mentions Al Fraknen's name.

You beat me to it. I was actually out looking for a stupid quote of his, too many to chose from.

dan
Feb 21st 2008, 04:09 PM
...Quote, as usual:

IS 32:5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
IS 32:6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
IS 32:7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
IS 32:8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

Free Indeed
Feb 21st 2008, 05:31 PM
...Quote, as usual:

IS 32:5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
IS 32:6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
IS 32:7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
IS 32:8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

Amen to that! When I tell my Baptist friends that Jesus was a liberal Jew, they usually look at me funny. :lol:

Concerning Al Franken, another liberal Jew, it should be pointed out that he is a comedian, whereas Ann Coulter is supposedly serious.

theabaud
Feb 21st 2008, 07:01 PM
Amen to that! When I tell my Baptist friends that Jesus was a liberal Jew, they usually look at me funny. :lol:

Concerning Al Franken, another liberal Jew, it should be pointed out that he is a comedian, whereas Ann Coulter is supposedly serious.In the way that Jesus was a "liberal" we ought all to be. "Liberality" refers to giving in the Bible. Liberalism in politics refers to taking. There is a stark contrast.

Free Indeed
Feb 21st 2008, 07:10 PM
In the way that Jesus was a "liberal" we ought all to be. "Liberality" refers to giving in the Bible. Liberalism in politics refers to taking. There is a stark contrast.

"Liberalism" in politics refers to emphasis on individual liberty. All of our forefathers, from Washington to Jefferson to Franklin to everyone else, identified themselves as Liberals for that reason.

Conservatives, on the other hand, generally feel that their idea of the "social order" supercedes individual liberty. This is why, for example, conservatives make such a big deal about gay marriage or civil unions, and are much more interested about what people do in the privacy of their own homes, as opposed to liberals.

theabaud
Feb 21st 2008, 07:33 PM
"Liberalism" in politics refers to emphasis on individual liberty. All of our forefathers, from Washington to Jefferson to Franklin to everyone else, identified themselves as Liberals for that reason.

Conservatives, on the other hand, generally feel that their idea of the "social order" supercedes individual liberty. This is why, for example, conservatives make such a big deal about gay marriage or civil unions, and are much more interested about what people do in the privacy of their own homes, as opposed to liberals.


Liberalism is more responsible for imposing regulation on individual liberty than any other group. Before the most recent changes in the supreme court a liberal panel of judges decided that if a municipality decided that a private property would better serve the community if it was condemned and sold to another private party for commercial use is acceptable under law. Liberals in many municipalities across the country have told business owners that they cannot allow smoking in their establishment, which is a legal activity. The worst part, is that Liberals have told us that our tax dollars ought to support their agendas, rather than giving me the freedom to choose how to allocate my money.

British Liberals are now telling people what they can and cannot do if they want to use the health coverage that they had paid for. Liberals in New York banned certain kinds of foods. Liberals in Communist countries tell people what kind of employment they will have.

The worst part of it is, Liberals tell us daily what we should be thinking as intelligent design has been banned as a legitimate THEORY. Liberals universities frequently censor and fire professors who support ID or refute Global warming.

I can see your arguments as to why conservatives limit freedom, but don't be so ignorant as to call liberals and democrats the party of freedom.

Free Indeed
Feb 21st 2008, 07:43 PM
The worst part, is that Liberals have told us that our tax dollars ought to support their agendas, rather than giving me the freedom to choose how to allocate my money.

I see your point. Maybe Bush'll give me my Iraq money back? :hmm:


Liberals in Communist countries tell people what kind of employment they will have.

Actually, liberals in Communist countries and jailed, and often tortured and executed. As of today, about 30% of the Cuban prison population is made up of liberal political prisoners.


The worst part of it is, Liberals tell us daily what we should be thinking as intelligent design has been banned as a legitimate THEORY.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is a religious belief.


Liberals universities frequently censor and fire professors who support ID or refute Global warming.

ID is fine for, say, a philosophy or religious class. But science classes concern natural (not supernatural) study.

Climate change is a simple fact. There's no longer any real argument, and the people who attempt to "refute" it are generally conservative pundits on the payroll of an oil company. If you read scientific journals, you will see no serious dissent from the fact of climate change. You only see that sort of stuff in Rush Limbaugh books.


I can see your arguments as to why conservatives limit freedom, but don't be so ignorant as to call liberals and democrats the party of freedom.

The Democratic Party isn't perfect; I support it only because it's a lot closer to true freedom than the others.

theabaud
Feb 21st 2008, 09:05 PM
Climate change is a simple fact. There's no longer any real argument, and the people who attempt to "refute" it are generally conservative pundits on the payroll of an oil company. If you read scientific journals, you will see no serious dissent from the fact of climate change. You only see that sort of stuff in Rush Limbaugh books.

There is no such thing as settled science, and Man Made Global Warming is not a simple fact, it has just been declared to be so by the Liberal Establishment (yeah, you guys have one too) to be so. Most people have agreed to the fact that things are getting warmer, but there is great dissent as to why.

Free Indeed
Feb 21st 2008, 09:19 PM
There is no such thing as settled science, and Man Made Global Warming is not a simple fact, it has just been declared to be so by the Liberal Establishment (yeah, you guys have one too) to be so. Most people have agreed to the fact that things are getting warmer, but there is great dissent as to why.

My point is that there is not great dissent among scientists. The dissent is among conservative partisans, not the scientific establishment.

We know that certain products produce greenhouse gases, and we know that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmsophere. We know that this in turn is causing slow but steady warming. For the first time in known history, polar bears are drowning in the arctic because ice is melting. It was almost Thanksgiving in New England before the leaves began changing in 2006.

I just can't for the life of me figure out why conservatives prefer ideology over scientific fact. It was like this with Galileo, it was like this with Darwin, and it's the same way with climate change. :giveup:

theabaud
Feb 21st 2008, 10:06 PM
My point is that there is not great dissent among scientists. The dissent is among conservative partisans, not the scientific establishment.

We know that certain products produce greenhouse gases, and we know that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmsophere. We know that this in turn is causing slow but steady warming. For the first time in known history, polar bears are drowning in the arctic because ice is melting. It was almost Thanksgiving in New England before the leaves began changing in 2006.
I don't deny it, I just recognize that science is not proof, but rather support. You cannot prove anything with science, read any science text book and this is a theme.


I just can't for the life of me figure out why conservatives prefer ideology over scientific fact.

You can't see the hypocrisy in that statement?


It was like this with Galileo, it was like this with Darwin, and it's the same way with climate change. :giveup:Up until Galileo, it was considered a fact that we lived in a geocentric universe. This would seem to be a contrary point to your argument.

Fenris
Feb 21st 2008, 10:40 PM
My point is that there is not great dissent among scientists. The dissent is among conservative partisans, not the scientific establishment.
Have a look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

skc53
Mar 2nd 2008, 09:06 PM
I read somewhere or saw on t.v. a few weeks back that someone said if Democrats had any brains they would be republicans.:) I can't remember who said that. I thought it was funny.:rofl:Just thought I would throw that in.;)

Gulah Papyrus
Mar 2nd 2008, 10:15 PM
I still love my dad's words on the matter. "If a man is not a bleeding heart liberal by the time he is twenty, it proves he has no heart. If that same man is not a conservative by the time he is forty, that proves he has no brains."
.. Every time I recall that 5'3 1/2" frame speaking those words, I just love him all the more, such humorous wisdom from a staunch, straight laced little man.
...I had always heard that quote attributed to Churchill but a little research shows that it very well could have been your fathers words...nice!


"Conservative by the time you're 35"
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

NHL Fever
Mar 2nd 2008, 10:56 PM
Have a look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

Is that support for or against anthropomorphic climate change? The article itself acknowledges the existence of a scientific consensus when it says 'Within this general agreement, some individual scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that most of this warming is attributable to human activities.'

About same individuals, it states:
Each individual has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field related to climate.

So in other words there's no guarantee any of them know anything specifically about this topic.

I haven't reviewed the lit in awhile, maybe there is more support against human causes of climate change, but this article does not contribute any. When I last had a look at this stuff about a year ago, I found that the large majority of scientists actively denying anthropomorphic climate change had in the past denied climate change altogether until they were forced to accept it, and before that stood against beliefs such as smoking being bad for you. There was a pattern, but it wasn't scientific.

Brother Mark
Mar 2nd 2008, 10:58 PM
Anyone looked at the latest tempt measurements for this past winter? It might be interesting.

theabaud
Mar 3rd 2008, 02:52 AM
Anyone looked at the latest tempt measurements for this past winter? It might be interesting.
For the first time in recorded history Tropical fish were dying by the thousands because their native waters were too cold.

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 02:56 AM
For the first time in recorded history Tropical fish were dying by the thousands because their native waters were too cold.

The temp dropped very fast this year. What took years to heat up, has cooled in one year. :hmm:

Global warming was never debated though the cause was debated. There is still some disagreement among scientist as to the cause.

As far as I am concerned, we should not pollute anyway. But the global warming thing often comes across as an agenda. Shoot, both sides seem biased at times to me and it all centers around how one views industry and business. Big business is bad - Global warming is caused by industry. Big business is good - global warming is caused by the sun.

Either way, we need to be careful about polluting that which God gave us dominion over.

theabaud
Mar 3rd 2008, 12:52 PM
The temp dropped very fast this year. What took years to heat up, has cooled in one year. :hmm:

Global warming was never debated though the cause was debated. There is still some disagreement among scientist as to the cause.

As far as I am concerned, we should not pollute anyway. But the global warming thing often comes across as an agenda. Shoot, both sides seem biased at times to me and it all centers around how one views industry and business. Big business is bad - Global warming is caused by industry. Big business is good - global warming is caused by the sun.

Either way, we need to be careful about polluting that which God gave us dominion over.
How very true. We are stewards over what God has given us, and we should take care of it. We need to be conscious about our fossil fuel consumption for a lot of reasons, including personal health, possible global warming and the security of our nation.

But we cannot allow the idea of Global Warming to push us to hasty decisions. Most of the solutions currently being contemplated either use too much water or endanger our water supplies with contamination (ie. swirlee light bulbs and batteries) . Through the years our "solutions" to problems tend to create new ones.

Free Indeed
Mar 3rd 2008, 05:05 PM
"Global warming" is sort of a misnomer. "Climate change" is better terminology because "global warming" confuses some people when it gets cold.

The effect of climate change is that, regardless how much snow you get in the middle of winter, winter is coming later and ending earlier. The summers will be hotter, and will trigger more hurricanes. And the nightmare scenario of the polar ice caps melting is happening as we speak. This will eventually lead to an apocalyptic scene in some parts of the US, because the east coast will be under water while millions upon millions will be forced to migrate to the central US.

teddyv
Mar 3rd 2008, 05:17 PM
"Global warming" is sort of a misnomer. "Climate change" is better terminology because "global warming" confuses some people when it gets cold.

The effect of climate change is that, regardless how much snow you get in the middle of winter, winter is coming later and ending earlier. The summers will be hotter, and will trigger more hurricanes. And the nightmare scenario of the polar ice caps melting is happening as we speak. This will eventually lead to an apocalyptic scene in some parts of the US, because the east coast will be under water while millions upon millions will be forced to migrate to the central US.

KT, the IPCC forecasts only something like a maximum of 70cm sea level rise (although there is still much uncertainty). Nothing in the "apocalyptic" scenario is going to swamp the first-world coastlines to this extreme you suggest. We can engineer our way out of this. The poorer coastal countries (Bangladesh comes to mind) will not be so fortunate.

Dealing with the global warming scenario, if borne out, will have to be an altruistic response by the first world for the rest of the world.

theabaud
Mar 3rd 2008, 05:21 PM
"Global warming" is sort of a misnomer. "Climate change" is better terminology because "global warming" confuses some people when it gets cold.

The effect of climate change is that, regardless how much snow you get in the middle of winter, winter is coming later and ending earlier. The summers will be hotter, and will trigger more hurricanes. And the nightmare scenario of the polar ice caps melting is happening as we speak. This will eventually lead to an apocalyptic scene in some parts of the US, because the east coast will be under water while millions upon millions will be forced to migrate to the central US.
This is actually a popular false hood. I am not calling you a liar, just saying that people have assumed based on the theory of Global warming that the ice caps were receding, but the actual data shows that the ice caps actually thickened and expanded during the 90's and that the trend will likely continue. The article linked is from a conservative source, but it cites its sources.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 05:29 PM
"Global warming" is sort of a misnomer. "Climate change" is better terminology because "global warming" confuses some people when it gets cold.

The effect of climate change is that, regardless how much snow you get in the middle of winter, winter is coming later and ending earlier. The summers will be hotter, and will trigger more hurricanes. And the nightmare scenario of the polar ice caps melting is happening as we speak. This will eventually lead to an apocalyptic scene in some parts of the US, because the east coast will be under water while millions upon millions will be forced to migrate to the central US.

The leading hurricane expert in the country will disagree with you about it causing more hurricanes. Oh, incindentally, we haven't had any land falling major hurricanes on the US in over 2 years.

Climate change is a better term. But as I mentioned earlier, there are reasons for climate change outside of human control. Did you know the earth has lost most of the heating gains over the last 100 years just this year?

Global cooling article (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm)

There are links in the article to the data as well if you are interested in seeing it. There are plenty of scientist that believe the sun has far more impact on the global warming/cooling than carbon. We still should clean up our act. But it's no co-incidence that those who are pushing HARD about man caused global warming are also anti-industry in a big way. There is little balance on this issue coming from the left. Dr. Bill Gray, the nations leading hurricane scientist believes we are about to enter a global cooling phase. He is saying that he expects the cooling to start in the next 5 to 10 years. He is so established he can say such things. He also says that many of his colleagues agree with him but can't say much for fear of losing funding.

Free Indeed
Mar 3rd 2008, 08:51 PM
This is actually a popular false hood. I am not calling you a liar, just saying that people have assumed based on the theory of Global warming that the ice caps were receding, but the actual data shows that the ice caps actually thickened and expanded during the 90's and that the trend will likely continue. The article linked is from a conservative source, but it cites its sources.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281

Actually, the arctic temperatures are rising twice as fast as other parts of the world. For the first time in the known history of the world, polar bears are drowning because of ice melt. The ice receded a record 160 miles north, instead of expanding.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB113452435089621905-vnekw47PQGtDyf3iv5XEN71_o5I_20061214.html

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp

Free Indeed
Mar 3rd 2008, 09:01 PM
The leading hurricane expert in the country will disagree with you about it causing more hurricanes.

I'm sorry friend, but Dick Cheney is not the leading hurrican expert. :P

Concerning William Gray's stance on the issue, Wikipedia says:

Gray's statements on Global Warming have been the subject of criticism. Peter Webster (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Webster_%28atmospheric_scien tist%29&action=edit&redlink=1), a Georgia Institute of Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Institute_of_Technology) professor, has been part of the anonymous peer review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) on several of Gray's National Science Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation) proposals. In every case he has turned down the global warming research component because he believed it was not up to standards, but recommended that Gray's hurricane research be funded.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray#_note-skeptic)
Webster, who has co-authored other scientific papers with Gray, is also critical of Gray for his personal attacks on the scientists with whom he disagrees. "Bill, for some very good reasons, has been the go-to man on hurricanes for the last 35 years," says Webster. "All of a sudden there are a lot of people saying things Bill doesn't agree with. And they're getting a lot of press—more press than I like, actually. I like the ivory tower. But he's become more and more radical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray



Oh, incindentally, we haven't had any land falling major hurricanes on the US in over 2 years.

Where the hurricane makes landfall is irrelevant to the power that they punch. When they *do* hit the USA, it's a catastrophe for us, just like they're catastrophes in Cuba and Mexico when they get hit by them.

Brother Mark
Mar 3rd 2008, 09:06 PM
I'm sorry friend, but Dick Cheney is not the leading hurrican expert. :P

Concerning William Gray's stance on the issue, Wikipedia says:

Gray's statements on Global Warming have been the subject of criticism. Peter Webster (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Webster_%28atmospheric_scien tist%29&action=edit&redlink=1), a Georgia Institute of Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Institute_of_Technology) professor, has been part of the anonymous peer review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) on several of Gray's National Science Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation) proposals. In every case he has turned down the global warming research component because he believed it was not up to standards, but recommended that Gray's hurricane research be funded.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray#_note-skeptic)
Webster, who has co-authored other scientific papers with Gray, is also critical of Gray for his personal attacks on the scientists with whom he disagrees. "Bill, for some very good reasons, has been the go-to man on hurricanes for the last 35 years," says Webster. "All of a sudden there are a lot of people saying things Bill doesn't agree with. And they're getting a lot of press—more press than I like, actually. I like the ivory tower. But he's become more and more radical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray




Where the hurricane makes landfall is irrelevant to the power that they punch. When they *do* hit the USA, it's a catastrophe for us, just like they're catastrophes in Cuba and Mexico when they get hit by them.

Very few hurricane researchers, if any, think global warming is tied to hurricane traffic. It's currently in an up cycle. The cycle will turn and fewer hurricanes will develop. That's been the pattern for as far back as we can see.

Oh, that was an interesting article above about global temp. wasn't it? ;)

As I said, global warming is a political hot cake. Dr. Gray can get away with his stuff and of course he will be funded with rebuke. Those of lesser stature won't be funded, which is one reason so many are silent on the issue.

dan
Mar 9th 2008, 12:06 AM
"Liberalism" in politics refers to emphasis on individual liberty. All of our forefathers, from Washington to Jefferson to Franklin to everyone else, identified themselves as Liberals for that reason.

Conservatives, on the other hand, generally feel that their idea of the "social order" supercedes individual liberty. This is why, for example, conservatives make such a big deal about gay marriage or civil unions, and are much more interested about what people do in the privacy of their own homes, as opposed to liberals.

Nowadays, liberalism is an excuse to act or believe in sinfulness for personal benefit.
Gays for personal pleasure.
Politicians, at least those that gave us the "new" Eminent Domain, for love of power.
Drug dealers for love of money.

Real Conservatives, IMO, believe in true liberalism. The kind that does not involve sin.

intricatic
Mar 13th 2008, 01:18 PM
I disagree with the article. However, I would agree that all politicians are clinically schizophrenic, in that they function in a world so far removed from reality that it makes Alice seem normal.

Luke34
Mar 14th 2008, 02:33 AM
Nowadays, liberalism is an excuse to act or believe in sinfulness for personal benefit.
Gays for personal pleasure.
Not all gays are liberals, assuming that that is what you meant by this; try columnist and political commentator Andrew Sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan) (Wikipedia), for example.


Politicians, at least those that gave us the "new" Eminent Domain, for love of power.
Are you suggesting that only liberal politicians like power? And I'm not sure what the "new" Eminent Domain is, but the Constitution does grant the government the power to take private property for public use, provided that the owners are given "just compensation." Not the best idea in the Constitution, in my opinion, but it's there.


Drug dealers for love of money.
What do drug dealers have to do with political liberalism?
(If comments one and three were meant to suggest that liberal politicians neccessarily support homosexuality and drug dealing because they are in favor of gay rights and [sometimes] decriminalization of certain drugs, this is still not true. It is possible to support someone's right or freedom to do something without personally approving of it . For example, I believe Nazis and the members of KKK and of the Westboro Baptist Church are despicable, but I support their right to assembly and free speech [if it does not directly incite listeners to violence or break other laws]. In short, liberalism does not "support" sin [assuming you think homosexuality and drug addiction are sins], it supports the people's [I]right to sin as long as said sin does not harm any other person.)
[/quote]

theabaud
Mar 14th 2008, 03:25 AM
Are you suggesting that only liberal politicians like power? And I'm not sure what the "new" Eminent Domain is, but the Constitution does grant the government the power to take private property for public use, provided that the owners are given "just compensation." Not the best idea in the Constitution, in my opinion, but it's there.

I just want to point out that the supreme court ruling that allowed a municipality to seize a private citizens property and turn it over to another private organization with the idea it was better for the community was a split vote straight down party/ideological lines with the libs deciding that this practice was ok. This is not the same Eminent domain of the founders.

Luke34
Mar 14th 2008, 03:54 AM
I just want to point out that the supreme court ruling that allowed a municipality to seize a private citizens property and turn it over to another private organization with the idea it was better for the community was a split vote straight down party/ideological lines with the libs deciding that this practice was ok. This is not the same Eminent domain of the founders.
Maybe not. As a liberal libertarian, I'm not defending eminent domain; I'm just pointing out that a form of it is constitutional. In general, though: not a good idea.

theabaud
Mar 14th 2008, 04:17 AM
Maybe not. As a liberal libertarian, I'm not defending eminent domain; I'm just pointing out that a form of it is constitutional. In general, though: not a good idea.
It makes me curious when you say "Liberal Libertarian," what does that mean? As we discussed in another thread "Liberal" is a word in constant and confusing flux, and I myself could describe myself in this manner and another person meaning something different could do the same. I have a feeling that you and I are pretty close in our political doctrines but want to check and see.

To be open in that, I will say that I oppose about 95% of all government regulation and long for a return to the hands off approach of our founding fathers. I believe in the market and the ability of that to make a larger influence in the lives of people than anything we can force on people. I would call my self a republitarian. :lol:

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 15th 2008, 06:39 PM
republitarian

I am going to patent that word and receive royalty payments everytime this thread is refreshed.

NHL Fever
Mar 15th 2008, 08:31 PM
I am going to patent that word and receive royalty payments everytime this thread is refreshed.

If you like that, here's an article about 'suburblicans'
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/foreman.suburblican/index.html

dan
Mar 16th 2008, 11:20 PM
Not all gays are liberals, assuming that that is what you meant by this; try columnist and political commentator Andrew Sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan) (Wikipedia), for example.

If anyone is Gay, assuming it is by choice, that is a liberal position IMO. His feelings that support Conservative Values are greatly appreciated, except for the division that it demonstrates.:lol:


Are you suggesting that only liberal politicians like power? And I'm not sure what the "new" Eminent Domain is, but the Constitution does grant the government the power to take private property for public use, provided that the owners are given "just compensation." Not the best idea in the Constitution, in my opinion, but it's there.

No. I'm suggesting that liberal politicians are more likely to abuse their power. The "new" Eminent Domain allows a governmental entity to acquire private property at a fair price, and turn it over to another private entity just because it would be an enhancement to the community. Abused!


What do drug dealers have to do with political liberalism?
(If comments one and three were meant to suggest that liberal politicians neccessarily support homosexuality and drug dealing because they are in favor of gay rights and [sometimes] decriminalization of certain drugs, this is still not true. It is possible to support someone's right or freedom to do something without personally approving of it . For example, I believe Nazis and the members of KKK and of the Westboro Baptist Church are despicable, but I support their right to assembly and free speech [if it does not directly incite listeners to violence or break other laws]. In short, liberalism does not "support" sin [assuming you think homosexuality and drug addiction are sins], it supports the people's [I]right to sin as long as said sin does not harm any other person.)
[/QUOTE]

I support evil's right to exist because the Constitution says that is correct. But their existence does incite others IMO.

ddlewis86
Mar 22nd 2008, 08:52 AM
I don't know, anybody who would say everything she says just to make a few bucks is probably nuttier than someone who actually believes it!

Call me a nut then. That woman knows what she's talking about and she isn't afraid to speak her mind. Offending someone isn't a crime. I like her straight talk.

skc53
Mar 22nd 2008, 09:50 AM
She does speak her mind and makes sense. By the way, she wrote the book that I was talking about in an earlier post about if democrats had brains, they would be republicans.;)

Luke34
Mar 23rd 2008, 12:26 AM
It makes me curious when you say "Liberal Libertarian," what does that mean? As we discussed in another thread "Liberal" is a word in constant and confusing flux, and I myself could describe myself in this manner and another person meaning something different could do the same. I have a feeling that you and I are pretty close in our political doctrines but want to check and see.

To be open in that, I will say that I oppose about 95% of all government regulation and long for a return to the hands off approach of our founding fathers. I believe in the market and the ability of that to make a larger influence in the lives of people than anything we can force on people. I would call my self a republitarian. :lol:
Basically by "liberal libertarian" I mean that I'm generally a libertarian, but more so on the social side than on the economic, and that I support more of economic liberals' policies than a more traditional libertarian would. For example, I support a moderate amount of welfare in addition to a generally free market. According to the Political Compass test, I'm exactly neutral (0.0) on the economic scale.

Luke34
Mar 23rd 2008, 12:34 AM
If anyone is Gay, assuming it is by choice, that is a liberal position IMO. His feelings that support Conservative Values are greatly appreciated, except for the division that it demonstrates.
That's not really a "position" in the normal sense of the word; "I like men" can't be called a political position in the same way that "I support the death penalty" is one. (I do not do either one, by the way.) As for its being a liberal position, it doesn't really indicate that the gay person believes that the government should abstain from interfering in personal matters but involve itself to a certain degree in economic ones.



No. I'm suggesting that liberal politicians are more likely to abuse their power. The "new" Eminent Domain allows a governmental entity to acquire private property at a fair price, and turn it over to another private entity just because it would be an enhancement to the community. Abused!

To convince me that liberal politicians are more likely to abuse power, you'd have to either find a consistent pattern of abuse or something inherent in liberalism that causes it; one example is not sufficient.


I support evil's right to exist because the Constitution says that is correct. But their existence does incite others IMO.
Possibly, but that doesn't negate one's right to sin if it does not hurt another (and "hurt" in the sense of causing someone else to sin is far too vague and impossible to determine to legislate against).

dan
Mar 27th 2008, 01:20 PM
That's not really a "position" in the normal sense of the word; "I like men" can't be called a political position in the same way that "I support the death penalty" is one. (I do not do either one, by the way.) As for its being a liberal position, it doesn't really indicate that the gay person believes that the government should abstain from interfering in personal matters but involve itself to a certain degree in economic ones.

...Split personality.
You've never heard of a person being, "morally liberal", but, "economically conservative"?


To convince me that liberal politicians are more likely to abuse power, you'd have to either find a consistent pattern of abuse or something inherent in liberalism that causes it; one example is not sufficient.

Oh, please! The list is endless! The house banking scandal, Savings and Loan Scandal, Keating five, Chinese influence sting, Arabgate.
Although, the cause is flawed people, liberalism is just the current label.


Possibly, but that doesn't negate one's right to sin if it does not hurt another (and "hurt" in the sense of causing someone else to sin is far too vague and impossible to determine to legislate against).

I wouldn't dream of interfering at all, as long as I get to read about it. How else will I know who the "bad guys" are.:lol:

HisLeast
Mar 27th 2008, 02:09 PM
She does speak her mind and makes sense. By the way, she wrote the book that I was talking about in an earlier post about if democrats had brains, they would be republicans.;)

I think she's a hack and does nothing to forward conservative politics. She's not here to progress conservative causes, she's here to lay vitriol at the feet of people who don't agree with her and turn a handsom profit in the meantime.

And to address an earlier post... no she doesn't know what she's talking about. She's more politically aware than the avg person, but if the facts don't suit her agenda then they mustn't be facts. Example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKF4Z36hyQ).

That was shortly after this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFQs9sVvujE).

Free Indeed
Mar 27th 2008, 06:21 PM
no she doesn't know what she's talking about. She's more politically aware than the avg person, but if the facts don't suit her agenda then they mustn't be facts.

You're absolutely right. I remember seeing her on some talk show, insisting with all her might that Canada sent troops to Vietnam! :lol:

ddlewis86
Mar 29th 2008, 03:20 AM
You're absolutely right. I remember seeing her on some talk show, insisting with all her might that Canada sent troops to Vietnam! :lol:

But Canada DID send troops. Although they didn't fight in the war, troops WERE sent. Canada DID support the war effort by producing and selling the United States munitions. Just because their troops didn't actually fight, doesn't mean they didn't support the effort.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War
Canada did not fight in the Vietnam War, and diplomatically it was officially "non-belligerent". The country's troop deployments to Vietnam were limited to a small number of peacekeeping forces in 1973.[1] Nevertheless, the war had considerable effects on Canada, while Canada and Canadians affected the war, in return.

Additionally, at the start of the Vietnam War, Canada was a member of the UN truce commissions overseeing the implementation of the Geneva Agreements, and thus was obliged to stay officially neutral. The Canadian negotiators were strongly on the side of the Americans, however.[citation needed] Some delegates even engaged in espionage on behalf of the Americans, with the approval of the Canadian government. Canada also sent foreign aid to South Vietnam, which, while humanitarian, was directed by the Americans.

Canada tried to mediate between the warring countries, aiming for a conclusion that could allow the U.S. to leave the conflict honourably, but also publicly (if mildly) criticised American war methods, occasionally.[citation needed] Meanwhile, Canadian industry exported military supplies and raw materials useful in their manufacture, including ammunition, napalm and Agent Orange,[2] to the United States, as trade between the two countries carried on unhindered by considerations of the purposes to which these exports were being put. Although these exports were sales by Canadian companies, not gifts from the Canadian government, they benefitted the American war effort, none the less.

HisLeast
Mar 29th 2008, 03:57 AM
But Canada DID send troops. (1)Although they didn't fight in the war, (2)troops WERE sent. (3)Canada DID support the war effort by producing and selling the United States munitions. Just because their troops didn't actually fight, doesn't mean they didn't support the effort.

1. Minus one point for Coulter, who claims Canada fought in the war.
2. Sent in a peacekeeping capacity, not as a supplement to American forces.
3. Strictly an opinion, which is why wikipedia has all the "citation needed".

Luke34
Mar 30th 2008, 11:08 PM
...Split personality.
You've never heard of a person being, "morally liberal", but, "economically conservative"?
I mentioned social (well, "personal," to quote myself) as well as economic issues in my post, so I wasn't referring only to economic leftism. And if by "morally liberal" you meant the same thing as "socially liberal," then, yes, I have heard of that - it's known as libertarianism (I consider myself mostly libertarian). But if you didn't mean that, then "morally liberal" has an entirely different sense than the political one in which we have been using the word liberal. Just because it has the same word in it doesn't mean the phrases are really related; as I might have said before, a "conservative estimate" (i.e., erring on the side of under- rather than overestimation) has nothing to do with political conservatism. So what I said before is still valid: a gay person can easily believe in some government involvement in the social sphere and less in the economic one. (Admittedly, gays are probably less likely to support laws directed against them - this shouldn't come as a surprise any more than blacks protesting racially discriminatory legislation does - but a gay-rights supporter does not a liberal automatically make.)


Oh, please! The list is endless! The house banking scandal, Savings and Loan Scandal, Keating five, Chinese influence sting, Arabgate.
Although, the cause is flawed people, liberalism is just the current label.
I admit that I was not sure what these things were until I Googled them (and I still do not know what "Chinese influence sting" means), but: The house banking scandal involved Republicans as well as Democrats, just not as many (which was the reason Gingrich et al. decided to publicize it); the list of causes for the Savings and Loan crisis (from the Wikipedia article on same (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis#The_major_causes_of_Saving s_and_Loan_crisis_according_to_United_States_Leagu e_of_Savings_Institutions)) does not include abuse of political power; the Keating five included GOP Sen. McCain, and also the case appears to be one of straightforward political corruption, which affects many politicians but not liberals particularly; and the only thing I could find that was called "Arabgate" was the recent aborted sale of U.S. ports to the UAE, which was a Bush administration plan. None of this proves or even gives evidence that corruption or power-hunger is particularly related to contemporary liberalism as a philosophy.

ddlewis86
Apr 2nd 2008, 12:08 AM
1. Minus one point for Coulter, who claims Canada fought in the war.
2. Sent in a peacekeeping capacity, not as a supplement to American forces.
3. Strictly an opinion, which is why wikipedia has all the "citation needed".

Canada and the Vietnam War: Peacekeeper or Arms Merchant

by Bill Skidmore

An essential tenet of Canadian mythology is the belief that ours is a nation of peacekeepers, not warmakers. Supposedly, we even invented peacekeeping. Long after his death, former prime minister and Nobel Prize winner Lester Pearson is best remembered as the father of peacekeeping. A monument to Canadian peacekeepers dominates the approach to the National Gallery in Ottawa. but perhaps more important, at least in symbolic terms, is the monument's location adjacent to the future site of the American Embassy.

Lester Pearson was Canada's prime minister from 1963 to 1968, years of escalating American armed intervention in Vietnam. American forces in Vietnam increased from 23,000 in January, 1965 to 525,000 in February, 1968. Throughout the war Canada portrayed itself as neutral, and indeed as an actor promoting peace in Indochina. That Canada provided refuge to thousands of American deserters and draft evaders during the Vietnam War is often cited as evidence that Canada was no satellite of the United States.

But Victor Levant, author of Quiet Complicity: Canadian Involvement in the Vietnam War, offers a different version of history. Canada, he says, was a willing ally of the United States in Vietnam, sharing the same assumptions about the nature of the Vietcong insurgency, the strategic importance of Indochina, and the value to the world market system of trade and investment in Southeast Asia. The Pearson government, in accord with the United States, considered Vietnam a proving ground for national liberation struggles, dangerous movements that had to be checked.

Canada did not support the United States by sending troops to Vietnam. It did however supply a portion of the war material used by the American military in a war that claimed more than two million lives and traumatized countless millions more.

Yet in 1966 Lester Pearson insisted that, as a member of the International Control Commission (ICC), it would be inappropriate for Canada to ship arms to Vietnam. The ICC, which also included Poland and India, was charged with ensuring the implementation of the Geneva Accords, which set the details for French withdrawal from Vietnam and subsequent procedures for governance of the country by the Vietnamese.

And so, Canada did not ship arms to Vietnam. At least not directly. Between 1965 and 1973 Canada sold more than $2.5 billion worth of war material to the Pentagon, with sales to the United States jumping 55 percent in 1965 alone. These transactions, according to Levant, were largely solicited by Ottawa. The final destination of many Canadian goods was Vietnam.

Canadian products shipped to Vietnam via the United States included ammunition, grenades, aircraft, chemical defoliants, navigation systems, weapons release computers, artillery shells, rocket warheads, and demolition materials. Even Canadian boots, green berets, and rye whiskey made it to Vietnam. As did large quantities of napalm.

The Canadian government claimed to have no formal knowledge of products sold to the United States being shipped elsewhere. But Cabinet documents from that period released in 1986 indicate otherwise. In September 1965, then Secretary for External Affairs Paul Martin Sr. informed Cabinet that the Pentagon had procured items in Canada that were destined for Vietnam. Martin, says Levant, "candidly noted that he was bringing this matter to Cabinet's attention not because it represented any change in policy but because it might lead to criticism of the government."

The Pearson government clearly knew that Canadian armaments were reaching Vietnam, while proclaiming as unacceptable the shipment of Canadian arms to that country. Why did the Canadian government allow what amounted to a breach of its own policy?

For starters, says Levant, Canada-United States trade accounted for more than two-thirds of Canadian exports and almost a quarter of GNP. Further, the United States was by far the largest source of foreign investment in Canada.

Canada, or more precisely its business elite, was clearly dependent on the United States for its prosperity, and indeed identified with the economic interests that drove American policy in Vietnam. To have boldly opposed American intervention in Indochina would have meant risking American commercial retaliation. More importantly, it would have meant losing out on the business opportunities made possible by American military investment in Vietnam. Canadian business prospered partly from the sale of minerals and metals for use in American military production, partly by providing food and beverages to sustain American troops, and partly by producing armaments and other military items. In each instance, this commerce was encouraged and aided by the Canadian government.

External Affairs Secretary Paul Martin Sr. defended these sales. "It's all very well to talk about Vietnam," he said. "But what about Canada? Canada has an economic life to live." Strange priorities for a country that takes pride in being a peacekeeper.

Canada in 1995 continues its close economic association with the United States. If nothing else, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA make sure of that. This association continues to be an unequal one, meaning that Canada has little chance, and perhaps little inclination, to isolate itself from American policies. After all, American military might protects the global investments not only of the American business elite, but of their Canadian counterparts as well.

Bill Skidmore is a long-time supporter of COAT.

http://www.perc.ca/PEN/1995-10/s-skidmore.html





In 1973 the International Commission of Control and Supervision Vietnam (ICCS) was responsible for securing the armistice that lasted two years from 1973 to 1975, known as Operation Gallant. Canada, a member of the commission, contributed 240 Canadian Forces whose role was to monitor the cease-fire in South Vietnam, according to the Paris Peace Conference, and to arrange the release and exchange of more than 32,000 prisoners of war. In addition, ten to forty thousand Canadians, voluntarily served in Vietnam or during the Vietnam era with the American military, of whom 111 Canadians, were lost. One Canadian soldier, Toronto born Peter C. Lemon, won the Congressional Medal of Honor.

http://kerfuffle.wordpress.com/2006/10/11/ann-coulter-was-right-2/


Lets move that point BACK into Ann Coulter's column.......Coulter only claimed that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. They DID.

HisLeast
Apr 2nd 2008, 12:22 AM
Canada did not support the United States by sending troops to Vietnam. It did however supply a portion of the war material used by the American military in a war that claimed more than two million lives and traumatized countless millions more.


Lets move that point BACK into Ann Coulter's column.......Coulter only claimed that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. They DID.

Ooops. No they didn't... at least not in a support role to US forces. Again, negative 1 point for Coulter.

And mostly American owned arms dealers sell war material to Americans? Big shocker there.

theabaud
Apr 2nd 2008, 12:47 AM
Ooops. No they didn't... at least not in a support role to US forces. Again, negative 1 point for Coulter.

And mostly American owned arms dealers sell war material to Americans? Big shocker there.
OOps, he supplied a source and cited it. Now that source could very easily be faulty, but can you provide a more definitive one that says that Canada did not in any way supply material support to the war effort in Canada?

HisLeast
Apr 2nd 2008, 03:03 AM
OOps, he supplied a source and cited it. Now that source could very easily be faulty, but can you provide a more definitive one that says that Canada did not in any way supply material support to the war effort in Canada?

OOPS the source he cited completely validates my point: Canada did not send troops to Vietnam in support of the US (as Ms. Coulter contends). First sentence, fourth paragraph: " Canada did not support the United States by sending troops to Vietnam. "

As for the material support, the vast majority of our equipment manufacturers are American owned. Mostly American companies sell their own product (manufactured in Canada) to their home country does not make Canada the ally to the US in Vietnam that Ann Coulter wants everyone to believe. Interesting (if ineffective) strategy... changing the topic to material supply though. It had nothing to do with the Coulter clip originally brought forth. Even so, very weak case.

theabaud
Apr 2nd 2008, 03:17 AM
OOPS the source he cited completely validates my point: Canada did not send troops to Vietnam in support of the US (as Ms. Coulter contends). First sentence, fourth paragraph: " Canada did not support the United States by sending troops to Vietnam. "

As for the material support, the vast majority of our equipment manufacturers are American owned. Mostly American companies sell their own product (manufactured in Canada) to their home country does not make Canada the ally to the US in Vietnam that Ann Coulter wants everyone to believe. Interesting (if ineffective) strategy... changing the topic to material supply though. It had nothing to do with the Coulter clip originally brought forth. Even so, very weak case.
I will definately concede that there were no Canadian Combat troops in Viet Nam to support American operations there. the fact that Canada implicitly supported the Viet Nam war seems to be clear by the source which shows that Canadian Companies sold a product to support the US war effort with the Canadian government's tacit approval.

Regardless, this point would seem to be moot. I don't think you need to make much effort discrediting Coulter. I like her broad philosophies, but don't care much for how she crafts insults to make her points. This would be like me trying to discredit Michael Moore. WHy bother, he does it himself when ever he opens his mouth.

Luke34
Apr 2nd 2008, 03:51 AM
Also, Coulter didn't appear to be actually lying or giving false information (at least from transcripts of the interview wherein she made the "Canadian troops" claim); she clearly did not know what she was talking about and was just pulling claims at random out of the air. So it's a moot point whether she's right or not - it would be a complete coincidence if she were.

(Actually, Coulter seems to not know what she's talking about all too often in her work (I've read the entire Godless etc., biggest waste of time ever, and excerpts from other books), and by "all too often," I mean "basically always." E.g: The final few chapters of Godless, where Coulter's definitions and critiques of evolution resemble those of someone with no previous knowledge of biology who got her information by stopping random people on the street and asking them questions on the subject, then read three pages of Michael Behe and proceeded to write a third of her best-selling book based on this. In fact, I'm pretty sure that at one point she gave the correct definition for evolution and then said something like "This is not evolution.")

RevLogos
Apr 5th 2008, 01:03 AM
My point is that there is not great dissent among scientists. The dissent is among conservative partisans, not the scientific establishment.

We know that certain products produce greenhouse gases, and we know that greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmsophere. We know that this in turn is causing slow but steady warming. For the first time in known history, polar bears are drowning in the arctic because ice is melting. It was almost Thanksgiving in New England before the leaves began changing in 2006.



Fortunately there is rapid growing dissent within the scientific community. I believe that 5 years from now, we will look back at 2007 or 2008 as the year the global warming crisis theology began to fade.

The link between CO2 and warming is not in fact known nor demonstrated. Actually there is no correlation between CO2 levels and worldwide average temperatures. Temperatures do however correlate well with solar output.

Poor polar bears. I wonder why in the 1950's there were some 5000 polar bears, and today there are some 25,000. Of the 11 tribes of polar bear tracked in North America, 9 are increasing, 2 are stable. The drop in Arctic ice stopped in the 1990's and is now stable. Antarctic ice has been much heavier than normal.

In the last 4-5 years there has been a slight cooling of the sea temperatures. Not really significant, but definitely not increasing. JPL just recently posted results from the Argo sea buoys that measure this stuff.

Also it appears that global warming itself stopped about 10 years ago. The global average temperatures have not in fact been getting warmer, they are quite stable. This correlates very well with solar activity. Many scientists are now expecting a global cooling trend as the sun begins to drop in output and sunspots.

Man made global warming is a myth. Completely and totally false.

HisLeast
Apr 5th 2008, 05:09 AM
The drop in Arctic ice stopped in the 1990's and is now stable. Antarctic ice has been much heavier than normal.

And yet any peer reviewed science says the exact opposite (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-warn-arctic-sea-ice-is-melting-at-its-fastest-rate-since-records-began-461632.html). If you're resourceful enough you can even see satellite images between 5 years ago and today and visually tell the difference.


In the last 4-5 years there has been a slight cooling of the sea temperatures. Not really significant, but definitely not increasing. JPL just recently posted results from the Argo sea buoys that measure this stuff.

What happens when ice melts in a glass of water? The water cools.


Man made global warming is a myth. Completely and totally false.

Nobody is calling it global warming anymore since its so easy to point at 4 or 5 places in the world where its getting colder. Most scientists are calling it "climate change" which has countless examples of direct human intervention. I'll give you an example from my homeland: In Canada, the permafrost is melting and FAST. When scientists went up there, the whole land is dark from soil. Where is the soil coming from? China... because China is breeding gazillions of cashmir goats that eat the land bare, which causes the wind to pick up the soil, haul it in the atmosphere, and dump it en masse onto Canadian permafrost.

We know how carbon behaves in a lab. We can even replicate a greenhouse effect. The only thing mythical is that we somehow believe carbon (and the millions of gallons we pump into the atmosphere every day just from driving in the USA) behaves differently in nature than it does in a lab.

RevLogos
Apr 6th 2008, 12:19 AM
And yet any peer reviewed science says the exact opposite (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-warn-arctic-sea-ice-is-melting-at-its-fastest-rate-since-records-began-461632.html). If you're resourceful enough you can even see satellite images between 5 years ago and today and visually tell the difference.



Yes I have seen these satellite images. I was shocked actually to see how quickly the ice was melting. Stunned! The arctic ice is melting at a rapid rate!

But it didn't take too long to figure out the deception. Every year the ice melts in the summer. It re-freezes in the winter. Half the year is in total darkness when the ice re-freezes. The total ice coverage changes dramatically from summer to winter.

Satellite data has been available since about 1970. The Canadian government has been kind enough to document the ice coverage since then and provides this data. If we look at actual data instead of emotionally laden photos with dramatic captions warning of doom, we see the ice coverage has not been too far from normal. There are up years and down years. And most typically the variation is more in the summer than winter.

I have attached a typical chart of weekly ice coverage. Yes in the summer it is below the average but look carefully! In the winter it re-freezes back to normal. This was the year your linked article was warning about.

Of course the weekly average is since 1970, hardly representative of long term conditions. We know of two dramatic warming periods since Christ, the Medieval Warming Period (about 900-1200 AD), and another in the 1930's to 40's. Ever wonder why Greenland is called Greenland? A joke perhaps? The Vikings named it when they settled there during the Medieval Warming Period. It made for great farm land at the time. The Northwest passage was open in the 30's and 40's. The ice coverage is far higher today than in either of those periods.

Check your own Canadian news about a recent discovery of a redwood forest where ice receded more than usual. What would a redwood forest be doing there? Could it have been warmer, lots warmer, a few thousand years ago? These warming and cooling periods correlate well with the sun's output. Correlate not at all with CO2 concentrations. (Although there is some evidence CO2 increases because of a global warming trend - since the CO2 increased after the temperatures did. This is based on ice core samples in Greenland IIRC).

And in the 1970's the ice was a bit heavier than normal leading to cries of a Global Cooling crisis.

The link you provided was not "peer reviewed science". It was an interview by a left wing paper, with a left wing scientist in Denver, who made a few correct statements but mostly speculated about the future with an alarmist bent. Now that 2007 is over the chart attached shows how wrong it was.

Do not trust what the mainstream media tells you. Do not trust Al Gore. Do not trust liberal science. Be resourceful. And trust the Bible. Man does not destroy the earth.

RevLogos
Apr 6th 2008, 12:30 AM
Nobody is calling it global warming anymore since its so easy to point at 4 or 5 places in the world where its getting colder. Most scientists are calling it "climate change" which has countless examples of direct human intervention. I'll give you an example from my homeland: In Canada, the permafrost is melting and FAST. When scientists went up there, the whole land is dark from soil. Where is the soil coming from? China... because China is breeding gazillions of cashmir goats that eat the land bare, which causes the wind to pick up the soil, haul it in the atmosphere, and dump it en masse onto Canadian permafrost.



Ted Turner called it Global Warming just last week when he said we'd all turn into cannibals. Al Gore called it Global Warming just last week when he said skeptics were like people who believed the earth is flat. No, it's still called Global Warming. But you're right in that the term will go away as the theory falls flat.

And yes I totally agree the Chinese government is destroying their land and we do see effects across the planet. China is currently the highest polluter mainly due to coal fired energy. They are though, currently constructing 50 nuclear power plants. The US won't do that. Why? Liberal politicians and environmentalists.

I was in Beijing a couple years ago about this time and we had a huge dust storm overnight. In the morning the entire city was a dull red. This is the soil you are talking about. I've been to Beijing many times and I tell you I would not want to be an athlete at the Olympics.

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." -- GK Chesterton

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 6th 2008, 11:07 AM
The Vikings named it when they settled there during the Medieval Warming Period. It made for great farm land at the time.

I alwasy figured it was because Erik the Red was upset at the other Erik and wanted everyone to think he had it better on Greenland as opposed to Iceland.

Brother Mark
Apr 6th 2008, 01:28 PM
I suspect there will be far more debate in the coming years as solar activity gets it's fair shake in the scientific realm. Those scientist that come out against man made global warming are already saying that many more of their brethren believe it will go away but remain silent because of research dollars.

As for the change from global warming to climate change, I think that might be a wise move on. If and when, man made global warming is debunked, the crusade can continue because climate change will still be occurring. In the 70s the scare was man made global cooling. Now it's man made global warming.

One thing is for sure, we should treat the earth well. God gave it to us to conquer and to care for. Personally, I don't think we should pollute it.

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 6th 2008, 02:46 PM
One thing is for sure, we should treat the earth well. God gave it to us to conquer and to care for. Personally, I don't think we should pollute it.

Soemthing that I do in my free time is spray CFCs into the air while blasting Ride of the Valkyries.