replace the words "health insurance" with any other good or service and see how much sense it makes.
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy a computer under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy fire insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy food under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday"
again, can someone please tell me how this is not an overbearing government or how is this not a violation of my rights? seriously, i want to know.
I can't even fathom how you could argue that this is a good thing.
Moreover, if part of the problem with healthcare is that people can't afford it and all of that, then how in the world does it make sense to fine people almost 4k bucks for not having it? So, this insurance is supposed to be affordable, so you get punished for not buying it? This really makes me want to punch a wall.
Who's business is it whether or not I have health insurance? Why in bloody hell does it even matter? There's misdemeanor crimes that don't carry fines this high, or even anywhere close.
You are correct Matt, this is one of the worst cases of "big government" control in our lives that we have ever seen.
This whole topic makes me wish Duty was still around because this was a BIG issue he spoke out for and I would love to hear his take on this bill and how he would justify this as a good thing. Duty was damn good at making his arguement most of the time, but when it came to healthcare he couldn't keep from getting emotional and avoiding the facts... As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure this topic is at least part of the reason he doesn't post on these boards anymore. I do miss that guy around here!
I just read an article that pisses me off as much as this whole healthcare crap. It's about the "Kings of Earmarks in Congress and how much they spend. I'll just copy a few of the highlights from the article on here.
In the last two years, the self-described earmark king, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, has sponsored earmarks totaling $2 billion dollars. This year he's at it again:
$12 million to monitor sea turtles and monk seals.
$5 million for a supercomputer to help study planets and fruit flies.
$8 million for a cultural exchange between villages that once made a living killing whales.
$24 million for the East West Center, a private think tank even President Obama wants to cut.
$500,000 for music enrichment programs for Native Hawaiian children -- part of $59 million for health and education programs targeted to Native Alaskans or Hawaiians.
Inouye is one of the last of a generation of unapologetic earmarkers who feel it's their job to bring federal dollars home. And when they reach Inouye's level of seniority -- he is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee -- they can bring home a lot. He once even appropriated $20 million for a museum where he was chairman.
The top Republican spender, Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran, made waves in 2009 with the largest earmark ever -- $439 million to restore barrier islands off the Mississippi coast, a giant project that comes on top of $80 billion that taxpayers have already forked over to rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
This year (in fiscal year 2009), Cochran helped sponsor 259 earmarks worth $1.2 billion, but he's now aiming for a dubious distinction: he wants $2.6 billion for 2010 -- a record for a single politician:
$201 million to his alma mater, the University of Mississippi, including $10 million for programs at the Thad Cochran Research Center.
$750,000 Mississippi Biotechnology Association building -- an organization that has no members and doesn't exist, and that got $450,000 last year.
$4.4 million to build fire stations, $14 million to improve drinking water in local communities (responsibilities typically left to the states).
$1.6 million for a mobile music lab.
$650,000 to a private Christian school (Piney Woods) on 2,000 wooded acres where student tuition is $31,400.
$400,000 to pay overtime for the Jackson Police Department to combat drug use.
$950,000 for the local Audubon Society, despite national Audubon assets topping $18 million.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., earmarked $120 million this year, and wants another $148 million for 2010:
$500,000 to improve the profitability of dairy farms.
$1 million to toward the $250 million Sky Shuttle, an urban Mag-Lev train for a university in southwest Pennsylvania.
so, i was reading THIS article about using "reconciliation" to pass the health care plan. the long and short of using reconciliation is that they will only have to pass the health care bill by a simple majority, not the 60 usually required. through the opening paragraphs the republicans are blamed for "forcing" to this option by not supporting the bill.
I would like to remind people that up until a few weeks ago, there were enough democrats in the senate to pass this bill (60) without any help from the GOP.
what does this tell me? that there is bipartisan support to vote down the bill.
instead the news reports it as the republicans fault when, in fact, they have just about ZERO say in the matter.
two things to take away from this train of thought:
1) the media will do whatever it can to make more conservative people look bad.
2) the democrats need to look to their own party to get support for the bill.
October 29, 1929 the stock market crashed marking the official beginning of the great depression.
the News that morning before opening bells was that U.S. President Herbert Hoover would not veto the pending Hawley-Smoot Tariff bill. This Tariff raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, many to record levels.
U.S. imports decreased 66% from US$4.4 billion (1929) to US$1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion, both decreases much more than the 50% decrease of the GDP.
According to government statistics, U.S. imports from Europe decreased from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million during 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe decreased from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade decreased by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. reference
we have yet to reach this point (and i hope we dont) but the protectionist spirit seems to be alive and well. Barack Obama signed an order late on Friday to impose a new duty of 35 per cent on Chinese tyre imports on top of an existing 4 per cent tariff. he did this because a “surge” in imports of Chinese-made tyres had caused 7,000 job losses among US factory workers. (taking the side of the unions) This looks a bit like protectionism. from the article... "A full-blown trade row erupted between the US and China after Beijing accused Washington of “rampant protectionism” for imposing heavy duties on imported Chinese tyres and threatened action against imports of US poultry and vehicles." a,br> and
“This is a grave act of trade protectionism,” Mr Chen said in a statement. “Not only does it violate WTO rules, it contravenes commitments the US government made at the [April] G20 financial summit.”
of course the US is saying its all legal and fair.
im not sure that legality is the only issue here. the Chinese are not static. Governments are dynamic and reactionary. this may not turn into an all out world tariff war, but there is at least some potential. Tariffs are taxes. taxes make things more expensive. when things are expensive they dont sell as many. this is a decline in the economy.
October 29, 1929 the stock market crashed marking the official beginning of the great depression.
the News that morning before opening bells was that U.S. President Herbert Hoover would not veto the pending Hawley-Smoot Tariff bill. This Tariff raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, many to record levels.
U.S. imports decreased 66% from US$4.4 billion (1929) to US$1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion, both decreases much more than the 50% decrease of the GDP.
According to government statistics, U.S. imports from Europe decreased from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million during 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe decreased from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade decreased by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. reference
we have yet to reach this point (and i hope we dont) but the protectionist spirit seems to be alive and well. Barack Obama signed an order late on Friday to impose a new duty of 35 per cent on Chinese tyre imports on top of an existing 4 per cent tariff. he did this because a “surge” in imports of Chinese-made tyres had caused 7,000 job losses among US factory workers. (taking the side of the unions) This looks a bit like protectionism. from the article... "A full-blown trade row erupted between the US and China after Beijing accused Washington of “rampant protectionism” for imposing heavy duties on imported Chinese tyres and threatened action against imports of US poultry and vehicles." a,br> and
“This is a grave act of trade protectionism,” Mr Chen said in a statement. “Not only does it violate WTO rules, it contravenes commitments the US government made at the [April] G20 financial summit.”
of course the US is saying its all legal and fair.
im not sure that legality is the only issue here. the Chinese are not static. Governments are dynamic and reactionary. this may not turn into an all out world tariff war, but there is at least some potential. Tariffs are taxes. taxes make things more expensive. when things are expensive they dont sell as many. this is a decline in the economy.
October 29, 1929 the stock market crashed marking the official beginning of the great depression. ... Tariffs are taxes. taxes make things more expensive. when things are expensive they dont sell as many. this is a decline in the economy.
Democrats don't learn from history.
Well of course they don't... That would be the logical thing to do, and Democrats = Logical? Hmmm...
ok... so my brother runs a blog. he made a post today titled "This is What’s Wrong with Democracy" he then goes on to describe the Iowa situation on same sex marriage.
the best points from this article were these lines...
"Democracy makes it trivially easy to interfere with the lives of others."
and
"The median voter can’t be expected to care much about the rights of minorities, because by definition the median voter doesn’t ever belong to a minority. Whenever a binary question comes up for a vote, the median voter is in the majority. At best he will therefore be indifferent to the interests of the minority. This doesn’t bode well for minority rights of any kind whenever such questions come up."
a few side notes of my own
its implied but... this is why we live in a Republic, or ruled by law.
republics (especially representative republics) have a way of breaking down into democracy, or effectively mob rule.
a mob (as said above) "can’t be expected to care much about the rights of minorities"
in a way, this is what is going on now. we have shed the "rule of law" (the constitution) to create a long reaching government to "protect" the majority, while trampling the rights of minorities and individuals (smokers, Gays, Businesses, etc... )
freedom is enjoyed by individuals, not mobs. mobs distribute the violation of rights to a minority.
Couldn't agree more Kuzi. Sadly, many people don't understand, or even know that we were created as a republic. It makes the aspect of a mob rule even easier to come about.
Kuzi - you're brother hosts a very intellectual blog, and appears to be a very smart man. I read through not only his blog post, but all of the subsequent discussion. Without going into detail, it is a shame that our government is indeed in the shape that it's in.
Ok, I have heard all the administrations claims that the greatest threats to us right now come from right wing fringe groups mad over the current president and climate change, then I read this and I realize just how full of himself our current leader really is.
Lets not draw the corrolation between a short term threat such as a whacko bomber and the possible longer term and more wide ranging threat of climate change/pollution. Politics and leading needs to be a 2 pronged approach toward the future as well as today. Short sided thinking leads to things like the Iraq war (obviously without having a long range plan as well)
Lets not draw the corrolation between a short term threat such as a whacko bomber and the possible longer term and more wide ranging threat of climate change/pollution. Politics and leading needs to be a 2 pronged approach toward the future as well as today. Short sided thinking leads to things like the Iraq war (obviously without having a long range plan as well)
Well you act like this is a lone act from a nut job... You do realize there are thousands of people like this out there, including the 5 people that have been arrested this week alone plotting terror attacks on American soil from IL. NY. and TX. This is not a short term problem. This is a problem we will be faciing for our entire life. On the other hand, we know 100% for sure there are terrorists out to attack us. They have already and they will continue to. Nobody can prove 100% for sure that we are causing climate change at all. That is taking a big leap saying something that can't even be proved is our greatest threat.
I dont disagree-----I just didnt see the corrolation between the two. I dont think (at least at this point) the work being done on the one issue seems to be adversly effecting the work being done on the other, or that we should have to prioritize one over the other. Again, a 2 pronged approach to each would seem to be the best way for us to handle this.
I dont disagree-----I just didnt see the corrolation between the two. I dont think (at least at this point) the work being done on the one issue seems to be adversly effecting the work being done on the other, or that we should have to prioritize one over the other. Again, a 2 pronged approach to each would seem to be the best way for us to handle this.
I do see a direct corrolation between the two when the president and his administration make the statement that climate change is the biggest threat we face. It shows me that he is so concerned with pleasing his followers on the left that he will make light of one of the biggest threats we as a nation have ever faced. This is a dangerous way of thinking that could not only leave us open to more terrorist activity, but will encourage him and the democratic congress to push damaging legislation such as Cap and Trade.
Not much of a rant really, but more of a question... Why in the hell are the flakes in the "Hollywood Left" supporting Roman Polanski? Seriously if this was a GOP Congressman they would be calling for his head on a silver platter. ( As would I) Why does it matter how long ago this happened, the man drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl. That is sick and doesn't deserve to go unpunished. Can anyone explain this to me?
Not much of a rant really, but more of a question... Why in the hell are the flakes in the "Hollywood Left" supporting Roman Polanski? Seriously if this was a GOP Congressman they would be calling for his head on a silver platter. ( As would I) Why does it matter how long ago this happened, the man drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl. That is sick and doesn't deserve to go unpunished. Can anyone explain this to me?
he makes great movies... duh.
...and he was so good in Rush Hour 3.
remember, with moonbats, its not about the rights of the individuals they have violated, its about how good they made the rest of the population feel.
Not much of a rant really, but more of a question... Why in the hell are the flakes in the "Hollywood Left" supporting Roman Polanski? Seriously if this was a GOP Congressman they would be calling for his head on a silver platter. ( As would I) Why does it matter how long ago this happened, the man drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl. That is sick and doesn't deserve to go unpunished. Can anyone explain this to me?
Holy S! Puro and I agree on something, and Kuzi too for that matter. I dont get this one at all. Im just waiting for Woody Allen to stick his incestual nose into this as well. I understand the girl (woman now) point of view of beign best to let it die for her sake....but the precendent this sets for a justice system where money is allegedly inconsequential----I feel myself getting ill as I type.
Just a quick question. They want us to get away from foreign oil and be green and use electric cars. Do they not know that all these people plugging cars into an electrical outlet is going to use an insane amount of energy? Most power plants are coal burning power plants and the amount of increased pollution would be crazy. Are they that drunk on the Kool-Aid to not see that? Global Warming is the biggest farce and the least of our worries. Proven to be a farce by many professional scientists and climatologists that no one wants to listen to.
Just a quick question. They want us to get away from foreign oil and be green and use electric cars. Do they not know that all these people plugging cars into an electrical outlet is going to use an insane amount of energy? Most power plants are coal burning power plants and the amount of increased pollution would be crazy. Are they that drunk on the Kool-Aid to not see that? Global Warming is the biggest farce and the least of our worries. Proven to be a farce by many professional scientists and climatologists that no one wants to listen to.
Just a quick question. They want us to get away from foreign oil and be green and use electric cars. Do they not know that all these people plugging cars into an electrical outlet is going to use an insane amount of energy? Most power plants are coal burning power plants and the amount of increased pollution would be crazy. Are they that drunk on the Kool-Aid to not see that? Global Warming is the biggest farce and the least of our worries. Proven to be a farce by many professional scientists and climatologists that no one wants to listen to.
quit being racist
LMAO since I was in the military I am also the biggest threat to our nation according to some. Thanks for the kind words.
Can you guys list some refference links for this credible scientific data please? All I keep hearing is general comments with no supporting data being thrown around. Maybe climate change is a farce, but one side of the arguement has piles and piles of data and history working on its side. The other side just keeps saying unsupported things, in very general terms usually ending with a comment on the falsehood of Global Climate Change. I thought that you guys (Kuzi, Puro) were opposed to generalities and despersions being tossed around unfairly. I have not seen one shread of evidence that you keep refferring to. Racist? WTF? This prove it 100% or it is untrue is soooo much crap. It is just a convienient arguement for those with no facts. How can anybody prove it 100% right or wrong until after the fact? I suppose those who advocate this arguement think they are very intelligent because they can come up with an unshakable position from which to argue this. The truth is out there, in fact it stares you in the face each and every day. If you choose to ignore it, then fine. Burying your head in the sand has worked wonders so far, and that way you can actually claim later on, that you never saw it coming.
Can you guys list some refference links for this credible scientific data please? All I keep hearing is general comments with no supporting data being thrown around. Maybe climate change is a farce, but one side of the arguement has piles and piles of data and history working on its side. The other side just keeps saying unsupported things, in very general terms usually ending with a comment on the falsehood of Global Climate Change. I thought that you guys (Kuzi, Puro) were opposed to generalities and despersions being tossed around unfairly. I have not seen one shread of evidence that you keep refferring to. Racist? WTF? This prove it 100% or it is untrue is soooo much crap. It is just a convienient arguement for those with no facts. How can anybody prove it 100% right or wrong until after the fact? I suppose those who advocate this arguement think they are very intelligent because they can come up with an unshakable position from which to argue this. The truth is out there, in fact it stares you in the face each and every day. If you choose to ignore it, then fine. Burying your head in the sand has worked wonders so far, and that way you can actually claim later on, that you never saw it coming.
If I'm not mistaken, Kuzi has posted several links in the past providing data about global warming. I could be wrong, but I do remember seeing links to reports on the forums.
Can you guys list some refference links for this credible scientific data please? All I keep hearing is general comments with no supporting data being thrown around. Maybe climate change is a farce, but one side of the arguement has piles and piles of data and history working on its side. The other side just keeps saying unsupported things, in very general terms usually ending with a comment on the falsehood of Global Climate Change. I thought that you guys (Kuzi, Puro) were opposed to generalities and despersions being tossed around unfairly. I have not seen one shread of evidence that you keep refferring to. Racist? WTF? This prove it 100% or it is untrue is soooo much crap. It is just a convienient arguement for those with no facts. How can anybody prove it 100% right or wrong until after the fact? I suppose those who advocate this arguement think they are very intelligent because they can come up with an unshakable position from which to argue this. The truth is out there, in fact it stares you in the face each and every day. If you choose to ignore it, then fine. Burying your head in the sand has worked wonders so far, and that way you can actually claim later on, that you never saw it coming.
If I'm not mistaken, Kuzi has posted several links in the past providing data about global warming. I could be wrong, but I do remember seeing links to reports on the forums.
Well I am hoping that Kuzi will repost them. For clarification... I am refferring to data which has been scrutinized by the majority of leading world climatologist and scientist. Not just some article written by a Paid for opinion, type of scientist. These links (if credible) will no doubt be supported by hundreds of scientists and climatologist from around the world. That is how science is done.
Can you guys list some refference links for this credible scientific data please? All I keep hearing is general comments with no supporting data being thrown around. Maybe climate change is a farce, but one side of the arguement has piles and piles of data and history working on its side. The other side just keeps saying unsupported things, in very general terms usually ending with a comment on the falsehood of Global Climate Change. I thought that you guys (Kuzi, Puro) were opposed to generalities and despersions being tossed around unfairly. I have not seen one shread of evidence that you keep refferring to. Racist? WTF? This prove it 100% or it is untrue is soooo much crap. It is just a convienient arguement for those with no facts. How can anybody prove it 100% right or wrong until after the fact? I suppose those who advocate this arguement think they are very intelligent because they can come up with an unshakable position from which to argue this. The truth is out there, in fact it stares you in the face each and every day. If you choose to ignore it, then fine. Burying your head in the sand has worked wonders so far, and that way you can actually claim later on, that you never saw it coming.
Well I actually have not commented on this global warming debate because I am not able at this time to go find the links on this topic because I'm working. However the Racist comment was simply a joke Laker. It was in reference to Jimmy Carter calling anyone who disagrees with the President a racist. It was just a joke from Kuz. My small rant was about the Polanski incident and everyone calling for his release.
Comments
Moreover, if part of the problem with healthcare is that people can't afford it and all of that, then how in the world does it make sense to fine people almost 4k bucks for not having it? So, this insurance is supposed to be affordable, so you get punished for not buying it? This really makes me want to punch a wall.
Who's business is it whether or not I have health insurance? Why in bloody hell does it even matter? There's misdemeanor crimes that don't carry fines this high, or even anywhere close.
This whole topic makes me wish Duty was still around because this was a BIG issue he spoke out for and I would love to hear his take on this bill and how he would justify this as a good thing. Duty was damn good at making his arguement most of the time, but when it came to healthcare he couldn't keep from getting emotional and avoiding the facts... As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure this topic is at least part of the reason he doesn't post on these boards anymore. I do miss that guy around here!
In the last two years, the self-described earmark king, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, has sponsored earmarks totaling $2 billion dollars. This year he's at it again:
$12 million to monitor sea turtles and monk seals.
$5 million for a supercomputer to help study planets and fruit flies.
$8 million for a cultural exchange between villages that once made a living killing whales.
$24 million for the East West Center, a private think tank even President Obama wants to cut.
$500,000 for music enrichment programs for Native Hawaiian children -- part of $59 million for health and education programs targeted to Native Alaskans or Hawaiians.
Inouye is one of the last of a generation of unapologetic earmarkers who feel it's their job to bring federal dollars home. And when they reach Inouye's level of seniority -- he is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee -- they can bring home a lot. He once even appropriated $20 million for a museum where he was chairman.
The top Republican spender, Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran, made waves in 2009 with the largest earmark ever -- $439 million to restore barrier islands off the Mississippi coast, a giant project that comes on top of $80 billion that taxpayers have already forked over to rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
This year (in fiscal year 2009), Cochran helped sponsor 259 earmarks worth $1.2 billion, but he's now aiming for a dubious distinction: he wants $2.6 billion for 2010 -- a record for a single politician:
$201 million to his alma mater, the University of Mississippi, including $10 million for programs at the Thad Cochran Research Center.
$750,000 Mississippi Biotechnology Association building -- an organization that has no members and doesn't exist, and that got $450,000 last year.
$4.4 million to build fire stations, $14 million to improve drinking water in local communities (responsibilities typically left to the states).
$1.6 million for a mobile music lab.
$650,000 to a private Christian school (Piney Woods) on 2,000 wooded acres where student tuition is $31,400.
$400,000 to pay overtime for the Jackson Police Department to combat drug use.
$950,000 for the local Audubon Society, despite national Audubon assets topping $18 million.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., earmarked $120 million this year, and wants another $148 million for 2010:
$500,000 to improve the profitability of dairy farms.
$1 million to toward the $250 million Sky Shuttle, an urban Mag-Lev train for a university in southwest Pennsylvania.
$1 million for a trolley museum.
so, i was reading THIS article about using "reconciliation" to pass the health care plan. the long and short of using reconciliation is that they will only have to pass the health care bill by a simple majority, not the 60 usually required. through the opening paragraphs the republicans are blamed for "forcing" to this option by not supporting the bill.
I would like to remind people that up until a few weeks ago, there were enough democrats in the senate to pass this bill (60) without any help from the GOP.
what does this tell me?
that there is bipartisan support to vote down the bill.
instead the news reports it as the republicans fault when, in fact, they have just about ZERO say in the matter.
two things to take away from this train of thought:
1) the media will do whatever it can to make more conservative people look bad.
2) the democrats need to look to their own party to get support for the bill.
the News that morning before opening bells was that U.S. President Herbert Hoover would not veto the pending Hawley-Smoot Tariff bill. This Tariff raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, many to record levels.
U.S. imports decreased 66% from US$4.4 billion (1929) to US$1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion, both decreases much more than the 50% decrease of the GDP.
According to government statistics, U.S. imports from Europe decreased from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million during 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe decreased from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade decreased by some 66% between 1929 and 1934.
reference
we have yet to reach this point (and i hope we dont) but the protectionist spirit seems to be alive and well. Barack Obama signed an order late on Friday to impose a new duty of 35 per cent on Chinese tyre imports on top of an existing 4 per cent tariff. he did this because a “surge” in imports of Chinese-made tyres had caused 7,000 job losses among US factory workers. (taking the side of the unions) This looks a bit like protectionism.
from the article...
"A full-blown trade row erupted between the US and China after Beijing accused Washington of “rampant protectionism” for imposing heavy duties on imported Chinese tyres and threatened action against imports of US poultry and vehicles." a,br>
and
“This is a grave act of trade protectionism,” Mr Chen said in a statement. “Not only does it violate WTO rules, it contravenes commitments the US government made at the [April] G20 financial summit.”
of course the US is saying its all legal and fair.
im not sure that legality is the only issue here. the Chinese are not static. Governments are dynamic and reactionary. this may not turn into an all out world tariff war, but there is at least some potential. Tariffs are taxes. taxes make things more expensive. when things are expensive they dont sell as many. this is a decline in the economy.
IT'S TOO DAMN QUIET ON THE FORUM TODAY!!!! haha
he then goes on to describe the Iowa situation on same sex marriage.
the best points from this article were these lines...
"Democracy makes it trivially easy to interfere with the lives of others."
and
"The median voter can’t be expected to care much about the rights of minorities, because by definition the median voter doesn’t ever belong to a minority. Whenever a binary question comes up for a vote, the median voter is in the majority. At best he will therefore be indifferent to the interests of the minority. This doesn’t bode well for minority rights of any kind whenever such questions come up."
a few side notes of my own
its implied but...
this is why we live in a Republic, or ruled by law.
republics (especially representative republics) have a way of breaking down into democracy, or effectively mob rule.
a mob (as said above) "can’t be expected to care much about the rights of minorities"
in a way, this is what is going on now. we have shed the "rule of law" (the constitution) to create a long reaching government to "protect" the majority, while trampling the rights of minorities and individuals (smokers, Gays, Businesses, etc... )
freedom is enjoyed by individuals, not mobs. mobs distribute the violation of rights to a minority.
LINK
i read his blog daily. the other person that posts on that blog that i like is Jim Babka. he is the president of DownsizeDC.org. good stuff
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/092409dnmetbombarrest.1b177db8b.html
Now tell me we are safer and the world views us better under the new administration and how climate change is our biggest threat...
...and he was so good in Rush Hour 3.
remember, with moonbats, its not about the rights of the individuals they have violated, its about how good they made the rest of the population feel.
All I keep hearing is general comments with no supporting data being thrown around.
Maybe climate change is a farce, but one side of the arguement has piles and piles of data and history working on its side.
The other side just keeps saying unsupported things, in very general terms usually ending with a comment on the falsehood of Global Climate Change.
I thought that you guys (Kuzi, Puro) were opposed to generalities and despersions being tossed around unfairly.
I have not seen one shread of evidence that you keep refferring to.
Racist? WTF?
This prove it 100% or it is untrue is soooo much crap. It is just a convienient arguement for those with no facts. How can anybody prove it 100% right or wrong until after the fact?
I suppose those who advocate this arguement think they are very intelligent because they can come up with an unshakable position from which to argue this. The truth is out there, in fact it stares you in the face each and every day. If you choose to ignore it, then fine. Burying your head in the sand has worked wonders so far, and that way you can actually claim later on, that you never saw it coming.
Well I am hoping that Kuzi will repost them.
For clarification... I am refferring to data which has been scrutinized by the majority of leading world climatologist and scientist. Not just some article written by a Paid for opinion, type of scientist. These links (if credible) will no doubt be supported by hundreds of scientists and climatologist from around the world. That is how science is done.