“Obama and the laughable beast”
A great column by Christopher Ferrara at RemnantNewspaper.com…
Barack Hussein Obama, staunch defender of a form of infanticide that Caligula would have found appalling, is now President of the United States of America, thanks to the votes of 63 million Americans. Why is it that despite my months-long dread of the impending Obama presidency, at the moment I feel nothing but an urge to suppress a howl of laughter at this absurd development?
During Obama’s long campaign for the White House no one was allowed to see his original doctor-generated Hawaiian birth certificate (if there is one), his applications to Occidental College and Columbia, his Harvard Law School application and his application to the Illinois bar (all of which would provide clues as to his origins), his college transcripts, his law school transcript, anything he ever wrote in law school, a list of the clients he has represented, or even his medical records….
He admits to habitual cocaine use in high school, and his associates include an unrepentant terrorist bomber and a convicted felon who gave him a sweetheart real estate deal before going to jail. One of his half-brothers lives in a hut in Kenya. His father had three wives, six sons and a daughter, about whom we know nothing. His aunt, whom he depicts lovingly in his memoir, is an illegal alien defying a deportation order while living in a public housing project in Boston. Obama claims he had no idea of his aunt’s immigration status, and he has returned the illegal campaign contributions she gave him. It appears his campaign received thousands of illegal donations from anonymous or pseudonymous foreigners.
Although no one is allowed to see his baptismal certificate (if there is one), this Muslim-named man of mystery, who had a Muslim father and a Muslim stepfather, was registered as a Muslim at his Indonesian elementary school, was instructed in the Koran and attended a local Indonesian mosque as a boy, now claims to be a follower of Jesus. That is, the customizable American Jesus who approves of abortion on demand throughout the nine months of pregnancy, which Obama has vowed to impose by federal law….
In the nation of Kenya, Muslims are dancing in the streets to celebrate America’s election of this “Christian” as President, and the Kenyan government has declared a national holiday.
Small wonder. Only two years ago Obama traveled to Kenya to campaign for Raila Odinga, the Marxist radical who was seeking the presidency of Kenya with the support of its Muslim community after having spent eight years in prison for his role in a bloody coup d’état attempt in 1982. Odinga’s and Obama’s fathers came from the Luo tribe, the second-largest tribe in Kenya, and Odinga identifies Obama as his cousin.
In 2007 Odinga signed a memorandum of understanding with Sheik Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, in which Odinga promised, if elected, to impose Islam as the state religion, to give Islamic leaders the right “to monitor activities of ALL other religions [emphasis in original]” to prohibit public preaching by Christians, and to establish Sharia courts throughout the country. (Washington Times, October 12, 2008).
During one of his many appearances with Odinga, Obama sounded a familiar theme: “Kenyans are now yearning for change.” They were also yearning for blood. After Obama’s cousin lost by 230,000 votes, his Muslim supporters went on a genocidal rampage, murdering some 1500 people, including 50 congregants of an Assembly of God church that was burned to the ground after they were locked inside.
The election of Barack Hussein Obama as President is, of course, a monstrous joke, as is the nation that accorded him its highest office. This bizarre election bears out, perhaps more than any other in history, the famous simile of Plato’s Socrates, who compares the mass of voters in a democracy–the worst form of government–to a wild beast the Sophist politician tames by learning “how it is to be approached and touched, and when and by what things it is made most savage or gentle, yes, and the several sounds it is wont to utter on the occasion of each, and again what sounds uttered by another make it tame or fierce…” Having studied the reactions of the beast, the Sophist pronounces good “that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which it dislikes…” (Republic, 496 b-c).
Like the Sophists of Athens, Barrack Hussein Obama has mastered the art of manipulating the beast with words and gestures having no connection to the reality of the Good. The boobish mass mind that elected him operated much like the mind of Lockean epistemology, assembling what Locke called “simple modes” into “mixed modes” comprising his version of human reason: “economy” + “bad” + “fix” + “need” + “change” + {“Obama” + “the change we need”} = “I-must-vote-for-Obama.” A man who said absolutely nothing of substance, but said it with consummate skill, has been elected on the basis of voter deliberations that were little more than animalic stimulus and response.
A few days before the election The New York Times quoted a retired Italian-American steelworker, age 71, who declared that “the economy now, it’s terrible” and “I’ve got to vote for him [Obama]. I can’t be stupid.” On the contrary, if he voted for Obama then he most certainly was stupid, and spectacularly so. For what could be stupider than a 71-year-old man who stands at the cusp of eternity, and is very probably a Catholic, voting for a slick-talking barbarian in a custom tailored suit because he has some vague instinct that the barbarian will do something or other to improve the conditions of his transitory retirement?
As for the Republicans, they were unable to overcome the powerful negative stimuli, brilliantly managed by Obama, that drove the beast in his direction. There was, first of all, Bush’s insane war in Iraq, which this newspaper was condemning six months before it began, but which the beast, then under the prodding of neocon Sophists, viewed favorably at the time. Only when the war was revealed even to the most obtuse Americans as a fraud and a debacle did the beast begin to kick against the goad–an aversion deftly exploited by Obama, who was able to make the beast forget that the war was, and is, a bipartisan effort.
But the most powerful stimulus that delivered the beast into Obama’s hands was the hocus-pocus of a suspiciously timed economic “collapse.” This collapse is largely the reverberating digitized impact of a loss of confidence in those illusory digital assets known as default credit swaps, invented and digitally traded by the “free market” in the interstices between government securities regulations. Never mind that it was the Democrats, led by Barney Frank, who unleashed Fannie Mae’s reckless lending in the 1990s–producing much of the low-grade debt that fueled the credit swaps–and that it was Frank who later insisted that Fannie Mae was a rock-solid institution and opposed any attempt to regulate its lending practices. Details, details. The beast has no memory beyond the last sophistical stimulus, supplied by Obama, who persuaded the beast that the “failed policies of the Bush administration” were somehow responsible.
And the pro-life issue? The beast did not care about the real world fates of real world infants slaughtered by the millions in their own mothers’ wombs. Abortion ranks very low on the stimulus meter since it happens inside abortion mills and is not shown on television. The 63 million members of the beast responded instead to the images on the screens of their plasma TVs, like the denizens of Plato’s cave, who gape at the shadows of puppets cast by a fire on the rock wall in front of them, oblivious to the sun outside. The beast fretted, not about the gravest of evils ever committed by a so-called civilized society, or the total negation of goodness, truth and basic Christian decency represented by the defender of infanticide they have made their leader, but rather the declining balances of their retirement accounts, the future of social security, and the amount of their weekly take-home pay. Removing the next tray of Nachos from their microwaves, they proceeded to their Barco-Loungers to watch The Game; and during the commercial breaks their reflexes were conditioned by Obama the Animal Trainer, who induced them to move toward his cage with various Pavlovian stimuli, including “The Change We Need” and “Yes, We Can!”
Obama is a consummate Sophist whose feigned sincerity is so accomplished that he actually is sincere. He really believes in his product, which is himself–an inspiring, transnational, metrosexual charismatic of a New World Order in which almost every male is a contracepted capon and a watcher of the screens that tell him what to think.
McCain, on the other hand, is a tired old Republican Party hack, a residual Christian of some sort who still recalls the days when people could follow a syllogism and even Democrats considered abortion unthinkable, but who, in the twilight of his own life, lacked confidence in what he was trying to sell, which is the fading memory of a nation whose electoral majority once exhibited a semblance of Christian morality. Today, if there were a national referendum on a one-day moratorium on abortion in exchange for canceling the season finale of “Dancing with the Stars,” it would be defeated by a sizeable margin. The unborn never really had a chance. And this is so not only because the system that rules the beast is rotten, but also because the beast itself is amoral. Indeed, every measure at the state level to limit abortion in this election was voted down.
The time for outrage and fear will come soon enough, as the Obama administration takes shape and we are able to assess the full extent of his ability to do evil. Perhaps unforeseen circumstances will limit the harm, for which outcome we can only pray. For now, however, I can only laugh at the spectacle of 63 million fools electing this man based on the rhetorical equivalent of tinted steam, and this laughingstock of a nation that clownish patriots will continue to insist is the greatest in human history.
“But thou, O Lord, shalt laugh at them: thou shalt bring all the nations to nothing.” (Ps. 59:8). If we may say that God laughs at human folly, then we may say that He is laughing at the results of Election 2008. But God’s derision is inevitably followed by His chastisement. Like all the nations that have mocked Him and defied His will, this one will be brought to nothing. The current economic crisis is only a foretaste of what is coming. Unless it undergoes a miraculous metanoia for which every Catholic must pray, America, mass slayer of the unborn and exporter of “freedom” at the point of a gun, will pay the ultimate penalty for the divine contempt it has earned so many times over. And the longer God withholds that punishment, the greater it will be when it finally arrives.



Perfect.
The newest hoax is about change. He drags old empty suits out of the Clinton cedar chest. What is with change? shifing into reverse to change gears?
Why, oh why did the 63 million Americans allow themselves to be deceived by Obama? Despite all the dangerous facts about his life and background, why was he “voted” for? I am seriously giving credits to the powers of voodoo and hypnosis behind the Obama “charisma…”
Maybe 63 million of us really thought he was the best candidate. Maybe we’re right, maybe we’re wrong. But I don’t see his election as the end of civilization. He’s pretty smart and has some good ideas. I think we’ll be okay.
Whoa. Great article.
I’m glad to see I agree with Christopher Ferrara about something. He’s a rad-trad. He thinks the secrets of Fatima are still being kept secret and that there is this giant conspiracy and cover-up. He also has a book bashing EWTN… booo….
I watched this news and thought of hal
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/18/video-how-obama-got-elected/
Let’s start with Zogby’s numbers. The poll surveyed over 500 self-professed Obama voters and has an MOE of 4.4%, with 55% having a college degree and over 90% having a high-school diploma. It asked 12 multiple-choice questions; only 2.4% got at least 11 correct. Only .5% got all them correct.
57.4 could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8 could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6 could NOT correctly say that Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1 % could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).And yet…..
Only 13.7% failed to identify Palin as the person their party spent $150,000 in clothes on
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
On the last point, though, Palin was the only candidate from Alaska. Palin did state that one could see Russia from the state as an answer to an interview question about her foreign-policy credentials. I don’t believe that the survey gave Fey as a choice, so Palin would have been the obvious answer from those provided.
No hal, Tina Fey was not on the ticket.
Bobby, I don’t have time to check everything this guy writes, but he got the “habitual use of cocaine” thing wrong.
Hal 12:00PM
You mean like destroying the coal industry and establishing a “civilian defense force” as well armed and funded as the military?
Mary, you crack me up.
Hal,
I don’t see how that comment addresses my post. This is what your guy said.
Mary, Mary, Mary. The election’s over, everyone can, in the words of my daughters, “chill-ax”
he got the “habitual use of cocaine” thing wrong
Right — I believe The One’s line was just “a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.”
Heartening, indeed, Hal, that the only thing you’re challenging in all of that is the frequency of the president-elect’s cocaine use.
People who talk about “blow” and “smack” and go to drug dealers are sometimes more than occasional users. But maybe he was just trying to be cool and reach out to the kids. We want guys like that reaching out to kids.
RA, I didn’t have the energy to refute it line by line. As for “a little blow,” big deal. The man grew up to be a solid citizen and President of the United States. That’s impressive. He wasn’t “born on third base and thought he hit a triple.”
Hal 12:32PM
I understand. You’re at a loss to respond to my post. No problem.
I hope energy prices don’t skyrocket. Some people can barely afford to pay their heating and cooling bills (and those who can’t receive assistance).
Not everyone is as optimistic as you are, Hal.
But I would say most of us value the lives of those who are vulnerable.
Liz 1:01PM
Part of Obama’s plan to destroy the coal industry will be skyrocketing energy costs.
I didn’t have the energy to refute it line by line.
I’d love to see you refute a single line of it. None of it’s even debatable (other than the nitpick you brought up).
He wasn’t “born on third base and thought he hit a triple.”
No, he was born in Kenya. Getting to the presidency from that base is certainly a home run. In fact, it’s like running across to a different baseball diamond.
Wow, major sour grapes on this site.
Kat,
What exactly is “sour grapes” on this site? I’m only referring to what Obama has actually said.
First criticizing Obama was “racism” even though nothing racist was ever said.
Now its “sour grapes”.
“I’d love to see you refute a single line of it. None of it’s even debatable (other than the nitpick you brought up).”
Instead I’ll quote the one part I agree with:
“There was, first of all, Bush’s insane war in Iraq, which this newspaper was condemning six months before it began,…”
All I can say to the article is a hardy, “Amen”.
The day of the election I happened to have a Christian radio station on and the host was inviting callers to state who they voted for and why.
I dont remembe who the host was, but I can tell you that McCain voters were probably 3 out of 4, the rest being NObama and Ron Paul. This was to be expected on a Christian program I suppose.
But what was telling was that every McCain supporter could state very clearly why they supported him. Pro life and military experience and background were the biggest ones.
Same with Ron Paul supporters, they had clear reasons for doing so.
NObama on the other hand…. all they could do was say the usual cliches… he represents “change” but they could not articulate what the “change” meant.
It was very telling and not too surprising. I had suspected NObama supporters were just drinking the kool aid and really had no idea what they were supporting.
I asked the question here of pro NObama people why they were supporting him and didnt get any straight answers.
Even if you agree with socialist economic policies…. at least that is a reason.
But to just say “change” is absolutely ludicrious.
“I asked the question here of pro NObama people why they were supporting him and didnt get any straight answers.”
Here’s what’s on my mind today:
1, closing Gitmo
2. Better foreign policy than McCain or Bush — specifically, no preemptive wars. (“change”)
3. Better and more efficient use of military power (see, e.g. Iraq)
4. Support for community service for college students in exchange for financial assistance
5. Pro-choice views
6. Experience teaching Constitution Law
7. Universal Health care or something close
8. Great judicial appointments
9. End Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the Military
10. socialist economic policies. (just joking)
I’ll add one brief thing to Hal, the end of government approved torture. Sort of goes along with closing Gitmo, but a bit broader.
yes indeed Erin. McCain might have done the same, or close to the same. He was a good opponent of Bush on torture until the campaign heated up.
Great article. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time”. Eventually, the public will wake up with an Obama hangover and realize they’ve been had. But will there be any country left?
“I’ll add one brief thing to Hal, the end of government approved torture.”
Does that include ending torture against the innocent unborn? Or just for terrorists who want to kill us?
As I’ve said 100 times, disagreement with our reasons is valid political debate. Alleging we had no reasons is just insulting.
Hal, 2:17p: On closing Gitmo, that must mean you’re ok with those terrorist detainees coming to your state?
Hal, 2:17p: On closing Gitmo, that must mean you’re ok with those terrorist detainees coming to your state?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 18, 2008 2:49 PM
Yes, for trial. Of course.
Hal, you were cracked up before you ever started posting here; don’t blame Mary. And you certainly do your share of insulting, too.
Jill, thanks for posting this article. I do think it should be pointed out that Obama is not presently the U.S. president; I also think that it is more accurate to refer to his present status as president-select, not president-elect.
Elections are made from the bottom up, and selections are made from the top down. I personally voted Constitution party; the state I live in went for McCain. I have talked, before and since the election, with a number of Obama supporters who just sort of drank the “hope-change-yes we can” koolaid without reading the ingredients label first, so were not aware of his marxist/terrorist ties/loyalties, or of his draconian pro-abortion views/record/agenda, essential, active ingredients they themselves find too toxic to knowingly ingest. And, ACORN/voter fraud aside, there is abundant evidence of the existence of a globalist elite of power-brokers who heavily influence those who are allowed to get into the upper echelons of political power, especially in the U.S., and that Obama has no disagreement with any of their pernicious aims.
For more on this, see newswithviews.com; a good place to start is with the columns of Devvy Kidd, Dennis Cuddy, and Alan Stang.
Mega-Dittoes, Doyle, Mary and Jasper.
Hal,
If they close Gitmo what will they do with terrorists there? Bring them to the U.S.?
Our courts and lawyers will set them free, the same rules of evidence don’t presently apply to them. So where do they go? Can they stay in the U.S.?
Some of their own countries don’t want them.
Will they just rejoin the terrorist cause? Maybe they’ll show their appreciation by blowing up a plane you’re flying on.
Torture? You mean slicing off someone’s head with a dull knife as he screams in agony, all on video of course. I’ll tell you something Hal, these terrorists laugh at you and others like you. Those who “understand” them. Those who want to be “fair”. The only thing they respect is that you are as dirty as they are.
Tell me Hal, did black people only need to sit down and reason with the Klan to put an end to lynchings and terrorism? Do you think the problem was that black people just never took the time to understand the klan and their “grievances”?
It doesn’t matter where Obama was born; the mere fact that he held dual citizenship (Kenyan & US) until the age of 21 means that he is not a natural born citizen and is ineligible to be prez of the US. If he is not stopped from usurping office, I’m hoping TX enacts some change of its own–secession. Long live the Republic of Texas!
Mary, I only wish to separate the real terrorists from those who are totally and completely innocent. If you don’t give a man a hearing, a lawyer, and some idea why he’s being imprisoned, mistakes can happen. Imagine if I were elected POTUS, and I decided to hold Jill as an enemy combatant. No trial, no lawyer, no nothing. How could she ever tell anyone she wasn’t? Some of the Gitmo guys were not “captured on the battlefield,” but simply minding their own business.
I find it shocking that the religious people on this site have no problem with torturing other human beings.
“I’m hoping TX enacts some change of its own–secession”
Godspeed, Texans. and adios.
Hal 3:25PM
The problem is you’re turning the guilty loose with the “innocent”. Some of the “innocent” turned loose have rejoined their terrorist comrades.
If Jill is caught on the battlefield involved in suspicious terrorist activity, you’re darned right I want her held. What do you think we did with German and Japanese POWs, bring them to the US for trial? They were enemy combatants and were treated as such. Believe me, Guantanamo prisoners are treated far more humanely than you would ever be by terrorists.
Where do I support torture? If you want torture look at what the terrorists do.
Waterboarding only gives the sensation of drowning. Its been effective.
If the US didnt want us Texans, I would be fine not wanting the US. We have one of the few successful economies out there. Im sure wed be fine on our own. Maybe one day…
Okay Mary, I think you’ve explained why you didn’t vote for Obama and I did.
“The problem is you’re turning the guilty loose with the “innocent”.”
So you’d rather detain and torture innocent people in order to prevent letting go of guilty ones? This is exactly the sort of thing our forefathers founded this nation to escape from.
“What do you think we did with German and Japanese POWs, bring them to the US for trial?”
Actually, about 425,000 Axis POWs were held in camps throughout the United States.
“Where do I support torture? If you want torture look at what the terrorists do.”
Aren’t we supposed to be better than the terrorists? If we commit torture, how are we any different, other than being better financed?
“Waterboarding only gives the sensation of drowning. Its been effective.”
Perhaps you’d like to try it yourself sometime, just for fun, if it is so benign.
This is the most hilarious discussion I’ve ever read.
“Despite all the dangerous facts about his life and background”
LOL- WHAT dangerous mistakes?? What about his background?? Plllease, I so want to know. :)
“No, he was born in Kenya.”
Seriously dude, really? We’re still on that? He was born in Hawaii. His mother is American. Therefore, HE is a natural American citizen.
“You mean like destroying the coal industry and establishing a “civilian defense force” as well armed and funded as the military?”
Show me text supporting saying something like Obama wants to destroy the coal industry? But please, nothing from Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.
I’m pretty sure he brought up the “civilian defense force” once. Quite a while ago. And never went back to it.
I marvel at the hate. Just say “I’d prefer a president who shared my values on life,” or “I thought McCain had better experience for the job.”
Jo,
“Show me text supporting saying something like Obama wants to destroy the coal industry?”
here you go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXj_fGQikoo&feature=related
From a believer’s perspective, Obama is a threat.
He’s basically stands against everything we stand for and then claims to be one of us when the vast majority of us know he is definitely not one of us.
Can anyone see how that would be problematic?
Do you who support Obama expect us to just cave in and surrender our values, one of which is not to tolerate liars?
Why, wouldn’t we then be just like him?
No, Jesus expects us to be salt and light not grease.
And it’s not Barack Obama that we have a problem with, it’s who he is, what he says, what he believes, and what he stands for exemplified by whay he says and does.
I’m glad to see I agree with Christopher Ferrara about something. He’s a rad-trad. He thinks the secrets of Fatima are still being kept secret and that there is this giant conspiracy and cover-up. He also has a book bashing EWTN… booo….
I was thinking the same thing. I saw Christopher Ferrara and thought “oh do I want to read this?”
Josephine, he made the “bankrupt the coal industry” comment in an interview w/ a san francisco newspaper. The audio is available online.
That said if someone wants to “build a coal powered plant” than they would go bankrupt. I didn’t hear anything about the coal industry going bankrupt. I didn’t hear anything about the coal powered plants that there already were going bankrupt. Did you?
By the way, I love the environment. I’m not sure how you can find anything bad about what he said. If they’re producing SO MUCH greenhouse gas that the companies would go bankrupt, the company should not be allowed. I mean, you’re concerned about abortion. Shouldn’t you also be concerned about the world your kids grow up in?
HisMan, from a believer’s point of view, Obama isn’t a threat. :)
Thank you Hal for being so dedicated to continue on this site.. Your voice is echoed in many of of us who actually get our hands dirty and work with the poor- the limited- the disabled and think up and beyond and have made decisions politically that by no way, make us non-spirtual or “non christian”.
You have courage to keep it up..and the folks on this site I have a feeling many have only watched Fox News for their information.
So anyway– thanks for your voice, it is appreciated.
Wow, that cartoon sums up the Pied Piper Obama amazingly.
Great article, Jill! How is it that we just elected a guy we know so little about? It shows that the old media is not yet D.O.A. It is remindful of Jimmy Carter who was virtually unknown outside of his home state of Georgia. The MSM made him sound like he had the fresh vision and energy that would take us to new heights of prosperity and peace. Foreign leaders tested his resolve and the economy steadily worsened under his administration. Just like Obama he defeated a good man with years of experience in government and foreign policy. At least his failings gave us Ronald Reagan.
One of the reasons the financial markets are roiling is because they don’t know what to make of this guy and his marxist leanings. The soon to be leader of the world’s greatest economic engine is a collectivist!
One thing we do know is that the cost of energy will skyrocket under his rule because Obama does not understand or care about the crucial role reasonably priced energy plays in a thriving economy. Another thing we know is he does not have a clue about how important reasonable capital gains taxes are to investment and ultimately to job creation.
Look for even more manufacturing jobs to be lost overseas due to the added burden of high energy costs at home. He will not even consider the construction of new nuclear power plants, and it is questionable whether new coal fired plants will be built either. Our aging energy infrastruture will be another four years older before we get another chance to elect someone who understands macroeconomics and free markets.
Ray 5:53PM
I told you Ray I don’t condone torture. Do you want the guilty ones turned loose to slice off people’s heads with dull knives, blow up marketplaces or an airplane you may be on? Tell me, do you want the guilty ones running loose in this country?
If they’re in Guantanamo there’s a reason. Just like if Germans and Japanese were in POW camps, there was a reason.
Yes I’m aware that WW2 POWs were brought to the US but it certainly wasn’t to grant them trials under the American judicial system. They were non-citizen enemy combantants and were detained as such.
BTW Ray, Democrat icon Franklin Roosevelt had innocent Americans of Japanese ancestry put into “war relocation centers” i.e. concentration camps, with absolutely no regard for their legal rights.
We’re supposed to be better than the terrorists. Ray, terrorists laugh at you and people like you with that mentality. WE must be better. Sorry, the only thing these terrorists will respect is one thing, you are as dirty as they are.
My favorite analogy concerning this is suggesting that perhaps black Americans should have tried to reason with and understand KKK grievances. I’m sure that would have put an end to the lynchings, terror, and murders if black people would have just shown how much better they were than the KKK.
Concerning waterboarding, that’s the point. Its not supposed to be fun. Compared to the tactic of slicing someone’s head off with a dull knife as they scream in agony its an act of humanitarianism. If it stops an act of terror, I’m all for it.
That said if someone wants to “build a coal powered plant” than they would go bankrupt. I didn’t hear anything about the coal industry going bankrupt. I didn’t hear anything about the coal powered plants that there already were going bankrupt. Did you?
Josephine, if the powerplants are no longer able to purchase coal, the coal industry will collapse. If you take away demand, an industry can no longer function. So to bankrupt the consumer will also bankrupt the provider.
I care about the environment, but there is clean coal technology that is much better for the environment than traditional coal. Having grown up in a coal mining town, I care about the people who work in the coal industry.
Josephine 5:06PM
If he keeps coal plants from being built, that means coal miners, electricians, builders, etc. are out of work. It means an industry bankrupted. It means skyrocketing electrical costs.
“Concern” about greenhouse gas is a crock and a means to tax and government control. 30 years ago we were entering an ice age, or so we were told.
Google “manmade global warming hoax”.
There’s no greater polluter than Mother Nature who expels tons of toxins from volcanoes into the atmosphere, seeps oil up through the bottom of the ocean, and releases who knows how much carbon in wildfires, which are mostly started by lightening and are nature’s way of “cleaning up”.
Ohio and Pennsylvania are both big coal states. They voted for Obama. That tells me they’re not too worried about it.
Lauren, it didn’t say anything about power plants not being able to purchase coal. It said if someone wants to BUILD a coal powered plant. It said NOTHING about plants that already existed. So, nothing would change. Maybe the coal industry wouldn’t GROW, but it wouldn’t go bankrupt. The NEW BUSINESS that wanted NEW COAL POWERED PLANTS would go bankrupt. Not the coal industry.
Now, unless you’re going off of some other thing he said about it, but according to what Jasper showed… nope. He doesn’t want to bankrupt the coal industry.
Josephine 3:54PM
How do you know he only said it once? Why would he say it at all? Has any other president or presidential candidate suggested such a thing?
What would even be the purpose of such a force?
Don’t we have police depts?
Josephine:
From a born-again, Spirit-filled, Bible believing Christian’s point of view Obama is a threat, a grave, threat, a serious threat, a threat that must be opposed and exposed without wavering.
Therefore, I can understand why he might not be a threat to you. That’s fine, that’s your right.
But again he is a threat to born-again, Spirit-filled, Bible believing Christians in the following ways:
A threat to the unborn, the sanctity of life.
A threat to the sanctity of marriage.
A threat to traditional Christianity.
A threat to the Church.
A threat to the Bible.
A threat to the foundations of our country.
A threat to the Consitution.
A threat to our 2nd Amendment rights.
A threat to the security of our country.
A threat to the economy.
A threat to traditional values.
If is very foolish to ignore this.
This too and you made it so clear when you said, “I love the environment”. Do you love people and God as much as you love the environment? Why would you then sacrifice an unborn baby to save the environment? A more accurate statement would have been, “I worship the environment, it is my god since it controls so much of my thinking and actions”.
Thank you Hal for being so dedicated to continue on this site.. Your voice is echoed in many of of us who actually get our hands dirty and work with the poor- the limited- the disabled and think up and beyond and have made decisions politically that by no way, make us non-spirtual or “non christian”. You have courage to keep it up..and the folks on this site I have a feeling many have only watched Fox News for their information. So anyway– thanks for your voice, it is appreciated.
Posted by: Donna M. at November 18, 2008 5:08 PM
FTFY, Donna:
Your voice is echoed in many of us who actually get our hands dirty [for the killing of] the poor- the limited- the disabled….
Also, Fox News did not bring out half of the evidence of Barack Obama’s Marxist/neo-Marxist upbringing and career development. If you want to see documented journalism and Obama’s own words on numerous of the items in this essay and more, feel free to check out Jill’s upper right hand corner, also:
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/10/baracks-career-path-toward-american.html
Not sure if Caligula would really be offended, though.
Reader: Never believe a Marxist. They are indoctrinated and trained liars and posers.
a Barbara McGuigan (EWTN) Discusses the Election on her Weekly Radio Show.
Mike
Josephine, the scandel broke the day before the elections, Ohio and Penn. didn’t have time to process the information before the election. The heads of the coal industries in those states came out widely denouncing Obama, but it was too late.
Josephine, 5:32PM
It tells me they need their heads examined. Apparently they don’t mind being referred to as “rednecks”, “racists”, and people who cling to guns and religion either.
Josephine those plants can’t last forever. New ones have to be built, the demand for electricity increases the need for more. As you build communities the demand increases. That’s like arguing that making the cost of building a home prohibitive won’t hurt the housing industry since the country has plenty of houses.
Thank you Hal for being so dedicated to continue on this site.. Your voice is echoed in many of of us who actually get our hands dirty and work with the poor- the limited- the disabled and think up and beyond and have made decisions politically that by no way, make us non-spirtual or “non christian”.
You have courage to keep it up..and the folks on this site I have a feeling many have only watched Fox News for their information.
So anyway– thanks for your voice, it is appreciated.
Posted by: Donna M. at November 18, 2008 5:08 PM
__________________________
Donna:
There’s a parable in the Bible about people who think like you. I suggest you read it and meditate on it. It may free you from your bondage and inability to love the Savior. Here it is:
Luke 10:
38 As Jesus and the disciples continued on their way to Jerusalem, they came to a certain village where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. 39 Her sister, Mary, sat at the Lord’s feet, listening to what he taught. 40 But Martha was distracted by the big dinner she was preparing. She came to Jesus and said, “Lord, doesn’t it seem unfair to you that my sister just sits here while I do all the work? Tell her to come and help me.”
41 But the Lord said to her, “My dear Martha, you are worried and upset over all these details! 42 There is only one thing worth being concerned about. Mary has discovered it, and it will not be taken away from her.”
Donna M 5:08PM
We in the PL movement get our hands “dirty” as well.
The scandal broke? What are you talking about. He said that in January.
Mary: I only heard him say it once, as an idea. Not as something he was GOING to do. If you can find me proof he really plans on doing that, please prove me wrong.
HisMan:
A threat to the sanctity of marriage.
— He doesn’t believe in gay “marriage”. So, elaborate?? How is he a threat to marriage??
A threat to traditional Christianity.
— How? He himself is a Christian.
A threat to the Church.
— Whose church is a he a threat to.
A threat to the Bible.
— If you consider a regular man a threat to the bible, you’re not a very confident believer.
A threat to the foundations of our country.
— HOW??? Because he doesn’t have the same beliefs as you?
A threat to the Consitution.
— Yeah, because Obama wants to send us to war without the consent of Congress. Oh wait, that’s the current Republican president. :)
A threat to our 2nd Amendment rights.
— Again, I have to ask… HOW!???
A threat to the security of our country.
— Why? Because his dead dad is Kenyan and his middle name is Hussein? You’re right. He wants to bomb us.
A threat to the economy.
— By finding the best economists and trying to get our country back on track?
A threat to traditional values.
— Again, HOW? And, isn’t America all about being progressive?
Josephine,
Why would he even talk about it. Neither you or I can be certain he never brought it up. The man said it. What was the purpose in even saying it? Why do YOU think he didn’t mean it?
I must correct my 5:51PM post. I should say we can not be certain he never brought it up again.
Josephine, he said it in January, but it got hidden in the depths of the press and it was only “discovered” the day before the election.
Josephine 5:47PM
The best economists? On his transitional economic advisory team he has Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan who is presently driving that state into the ground.
Because he mentioned it once Mary, as an idea. You never said something a time or two as an idea. You think every idea you have is great, and you execute them all? Geeze.
Donna M, thank you. Sometimes it seems that I’m just annoying people here.
Josephine,
Please, try to understand my point. Why would he say it at all? Again, do we know for certain he only mentioned it once.
What was frightening is people actually applauded. I’m afraid too many of our fellow citizens are preferring not to hear what this man is telling us.
Mary, why is that frightening that people applauded. You don’t think it’s a good idea, so obviously… you’re right? We already know you disagree with Obama. Just let it go.
He said it because it was an idea he had. Maybe he said it to see how it went over? We don’t know why he said it. We don’t know how serious he was about it. Unless you’ve heard something that he plans on doing this thing, there is no point in talking about how awful it would be. You just don’t know.
HisMan:
A threat to the sanctity of marriage.
— He doesn’t believe in gay “marriage”. So, elaborate?? How is he a threat to marriage??
He wants all unions to be civil unions regulated by the Federal Government and not the States essentially doing away with marriage.
A threat to traditional Christianity.
— How? He himself is a Christian.
He is not a Christian. None of the views he has expressed come from the Bible.
A threat to the Church.
— Whose church is a he a threat to. Any one who is so rabidly pro-abortion is a threat to the church.
A threat to the Bible.
— If you consider a regular man a threat to the bible, you’re not a very confident believer. He has dissed the Bible on numerous occasions. I have no doubts who wins Josephine but how many young lives will Obama take with him to destruction?
A threat to the foundations of our country.
— HOW??? Because he doesn’t have the same beliefs as you? Because he thinks the Constitution is a living document and not based on absolute truth. In other words he a moral relatavist. If he followed the Constitution he would not be a pro-abort.
A threat to the Consitution.
— Yeah, because Obama wants to send us to war without the consent of Congress. Oh wait, that’s the current Republican president. :) See above. And that’s BS, Bush had the approval of Congress. Let’s see, you were what, 12 or 13 when the Iraq war started?
A threat to our 2nd Amendment rights.
— Again, I have to ask… HOW!??? His past voting record indicates that he wants to institute strict gun control. If he does he will have about 20,000,000 gun owners to deal with.
A threat to the security of our country.
— Why? Because his dead dad is Kenyan and his middle name is Hussein? You’re right. He wants to bomb us. No becasue he wants to negotiate with terrorists and he is viewed as being weak. He wants to cut our military by 25%.
A threat to the economy.
— By finding the best economists and trying to get our country back on track? No, because he is a socialist who thinks being rich, unless it’s himself, is punishable by higher taxes. He has the assumption that wealth is not earned it is stolen, a house of cards that cannot stand. He thinks like this because he doesn’t have a clue about what it takes to run a business, make a payroll, produce goods or services in a compettitve marketplace, and make a profit and this while the governemtn has a gun to your head.
A threat to traditional values.
— Again, HOW? And, isn’t America all about being progressive? If progressive to you is anal sex as normal and sex with dildos as normal and killing more unborn children, God help us. This is animalistic not progressive. Also, see all the above.
Do you know what progressive is? Progressive is sumitting our lives to a loving God, trusting Him to bless us. This once was a country like that. No longer. The youth of this country, like you, have been sold a complete lie by my generation, proabably the most cowardly, most narcisstic, most self-serving generation ever (and I am truly sorry). Sooner or later you will discover this, but by then, it will be too late. We have left you godless, without morals, without a defined path, clueless, and in debt up to your ears. The only solution is a return to God.
Posted by: Josephine at November 18, 2008 5:47 PM and answered by Hisman
Josephine,
It frightens me that people are so oblivious to what this man is saying.
Lauren, that’s funny… because just looking through YouTube, and it didn’t get released the day before the election. From what I saw, Palin brought it up at the end of October.
Besides, people shouldn’t just be looking towards the TV for information on the presidential candidates. It’s their own fault if they didn’t do any research themselves. :)
And Mary: LOL. Here are some things about the Governor of Michigan.
Governor Granholm has set in motion a comprehensive economic agenda, which includes creating thousands of jobs for Michigan workers by accelerating infrastructure projects, training unemployed workers for high-demand jobs, and diversifying Michigan’s economy through an unprecedented $2 billion 21st Century Jobs Fund.
…she has successfully resolved more than $6 billion in budget deficits….
Her investment missions to Japan, Germany, and Sweden have brought back millions of dollars in new investment and more than 1,000 new jobs
I wouldn’t mind having her advise the President on the economy. There’s more stuff about her here: http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168–57920–,00.html
:)
Yes Mary, and many of us don’t ever mention it unless we have to defend our integrity.
Well, I’ve gotta go be a dad and husband now, ya know, go get my hands dirty, teach my kids about God, etc., etc.
Josephine:
Please spend more time getting to know our Lord and less on defending Obama. In actuality, Obama, is just a man who so many have put so much hope in, has the potential to do way more harm to you than one iota of good. The Savior however, will save your eternal soul which in God’s eyes, is worth more than the whole world.
Obama squats just like you and I do, he will die just like you and I will (barring the rapture), he will answer to the Savior just like you and I will have to. Obama is just a man and not a very good one at that.
Josephine, you sound pretty normal to me. Don’t let the sour grape crowd get you down.
HisMan, that was the most ridiculous pile of bs I’ve ever read.
“And that’s BS, Bush had the approval of Congress. Let’s see, you were what, 12 or 13 when the Iraq war started?”
He had approval to go to war in Afghanistan, not Iraq. I’m not sure what me being young when it started has… anything to do with anything. I can read. I’m in the military now.
Josephine,
Do you understand how Obama and the Democrats took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then protected those agencies so that they could cause Americas’ financial collapse by extending credit to undeserving borrowers? Mr. Ferrara explains it all in this essay, and I provided you with videotaped proof and other links when you asked yesterday why Obama’s economic policies were disastrous. Is it clear to you now?
Donna M, thank you. Sometimes it seems that I’m just annoying people here.
Posted by: hal at November 18, 2008 5:58 PM
Hal, how many sites/forums/blogs do you do?
Josephine,
Please. You can’t be serious. This is her own PR! Of course she’s going to toot her own horn.
Google “Granholm and Michigan recession”.
TRA, the reason I didn’t comment back on that was because for some reason, you left out the roll of Republicans. If you would like to be honest, I’ll discuss that. If you want to continue to blame EVERYTHING that is wrong with the economy on the democrats, then I have absolutely nothing to say to you.
Arlen, this site is my only vice.
Ok, maybe 3 days before the election. I specifically remembering that there was only one weekday before the election. Maybe it came out on the Friday before the election. Regardless, it did not have the time to fully develop.
Josephine,
Very well . . . the Republicans didn’t try hard enough to impeach Obama and the other Democrats who were effectively taking bribes to bring this country down the road of financial ruin. I admit it! But still, why would you prefer the Democrats over the Republicans? It’s like preferring the company of criminals to cops, just because the cops didn’t chase after them fast enough.
Jasper –
Love the QOTD! The only way to make it better would have been to then interview McCain supporters to see how many of them got the questions correct. I know I would have scored 100%.
Whoever wrote this piece of glorified gossip is a monstrous joke themselves.
My God, where do you people come from? Grow up, cheer up, smarten up, and join the progressive world of the 21st century. Try it, you’ll like it!
I’ve never seen such a pathetic collection of bogus opinions in one place, like this. This is actually worse than an hour of Rush Limbaugh. It’s depressing really.
Someone mentioned Texas being one of the states with a real economy. It’s true, and even more true it may be one of the few Red state that could survive as a first world economy on its own without being subsidized by the intellectual, and financial horsepower of the Blue states. Does anyone wonder why the Red states (excluding Texas) could fall off the map and the U.S. economy wouldn’t even notice. Sure, there are some pockets of economic activity in some of the Red states, around the larger cities. But those pockets happen to also vote Blue. Draw your own conclusions.
Incidentally, I was in Texas last year buying beer in a grocery store and the clerk told me she had to get the manager’s approval because of my foreign ID. Trouble is, it was a Massachusetts driver’s license that I gave her. Draw your own conclusions.
Point is, if you live in a Red state, I wouldn’t trust what you hear around you, because most likely you live in a cultural wasteland completely surrounded by despair and ignorance. You’d think the internet would change that, but not if you hang out on blogs with people of the same opinion continually reinforcing each other’s bogus ideas.
That’s why I’m reading this particular blog actually, since you might have noticed I have a different sort of opinion.
And another thing. Quoting passages that were translated into English from a 2000 year old text written in some ancient MIDDLE EAST language, as a substitute for reason, is completely MAD. You do know the people who wrote this lived in the MIDDLE EAST, right?
Oh, yeah Job hardyharhar Texas is stooopid!
Forget the fact that we are constantly rated as one of the top states to live in and that we have 3 major metropolitan areas rated as the best economies during this recession, we’re just a bunch of dumb hicks!
Job, I’ve lived all over the place and I am proud to call Texas home. We have a stable economy, good colleges, affordable housing, and enjoy a very good quality of life. Of course, there are lots of conservatives so obviously we are really living in some ignorant subset of Hell. I forgot. Thank you for reminding me Job.
Also, I think you’re confusing red states w/ blue states when it comes to despair and hopelessness. Red states are doing pretty good. It’s the coastlines that are imploding thanks to inflated real estate and bad loans. I’ve lived on the east cost and I’d much rather be in Texas.
osephine:
Here’s another reason for Obama being a threat:
From teh Family Research Council:
“Reinstating UNFPA — Over China’s Dead Bodies
Newspapers from cities as far away as Melbourne, Australia are anxiously awaiting word on a Uyghur woman in China, six months pregnant with her third child. According to local reports, government officials tracked Arzigul Tursun down in her village and escorted her to a hospital where authorities ordered her to abort the baby against her will. Although guards had been stationed at the hospital, Arzigul managed to escape. After the police interrogated her family, the mother-to-be was recaptured yesterday in the home of some relatives. Her plight has sparked outrage in the international community, which is demanding her release.
In the past, the U.S. government — at President Bush’s insistence — has withheld funding from groups like the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) for its supporting role in these coercive abortion policies. President-elect Obama has said he will restore U.S. funding to UNFPA. America will no longer be an innocent bystander of tragedies like this one. Instead, the U.S. will be knowingly funding forced abortions like Arzigul’s with millions of taxpayer dollars. In an interview with the Obama campaign before the election, RH Reality check asked, “If elected President, would Sen. Obama, overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA?” A spokesman for the campaign responded, “Yes, Senator Obama would overturn the global gag rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA.”
The new administration plans to funnel millions of dollars to UNFPA despite its support of China’s savage one-child policy. Contact your leaders and tell them that terrorizing pregnant women is not the “change” America voted for. Urge them to oppose Obama’s anti-woman agenda.”
Oh and Jon, in case you were wondering I’m a former liberal from Colorado.
I’ve lived in Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas, North Carolina, and Massachusetts. But, by all means continue to sterotype, it’s so much more fun that way! While you’re at it why don’t you view the video in the side bar. Ignorance doesn’t discriminate on the basis of political affiliation.
Josephine, oh puleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!!!!
In the run-up to the Iraq War approval by the U.S. Congress had to be secured first. It happened, in a lopsided voting on October 11, 2002, a Friday, and with a vote of 77-23, the U.S. Senate gave their official Iraq War approval.
The Congressional resolution at the time authorized President Bush to use the U.S. armed forces to defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and to enforce all UN resolutions. Of the 50 Republican senators then, 48 voted in favor of the resolution; of the 50 Democratic senators, 29 voted in favor while 21 against.
This resounding vote giving Iraq War approval would put pressure on the UN Security Council, since the US already had the legal authority to go to war. The Security Council was to debate the Iraq issue the following Wednesday, October 16. The Saturday after the Senate vote, President Bush said that Congress had spoken clearly to the UN Security Council: “Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must.”
It would not be that easy to get the Security Council’s Iraq War approval. Ireland would voice opposition, as did France and Russia, both permanent members of the council. Eventually, the Security Council debates on the issue would paralyze the council and no final vote on whether to give Iraq War approval would be taken.
The US invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003 together with the UK and other coalition partners. With the favorable sentiment from the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Afghanistan, there was no problem getting Iraq War approval from the public.
Combat operations officially ceased at the beginning of May 2003. Although there was a period of frustration when the weapons of mass destruction that had been the justification for the war could not be located and Saddam Hussein could not be found. But when Hussein was finally captured in December 2003, public opinion rose and a poll taken at the time showed that 62 percent of Americans gave their Iraq War approval and thought it worthwhile.
Things began to sour in 2004 when it became clear that the war had become protracted by an increasing insurgency and that the troops would not come home just yet. Public frustration was increasing and Iraq War approval by the public began to wane. By the middle of 2005, public opinion had reversed.
In a poll taken in mid-June 2005, practically six out of ten (59 percent) Americans said they opposed the Iraq war. Iraq War approval was given by only 39 percent of respondents, which was a significant drop from the 47 percent Iraq War approval rate in March 2005.
This particular poll was validated by another poll in early June 2005. This poll found that 56 percent of respondents felt that going to war in Iraq was not worth it, and only 42 percent believed it was. By this time, even the US senators that had voted so overwhelmingly in giving their Iraq War approval two years before also showed disappointment.
One Democratic senator said that a gigantic gap existed between Washington rhetoric and the reality on the ground; a senior Republican senator believed that Americans should be told that the Iraq war would last at least two more years.
Two years later, in July 2007, Iraq War approval had gone even lower: 62 percent of respondents in a survey said the U.S. had made a mistake by going to war in Iraq. Greater than 7 out of 10 Americans wanted the troops pulled out by April 2008.
Even senior Republican senators had made public calls for President Bush to change course in Iraq. And because of dissatisfaction with the Iraq War approval for President Bush was at its lowest: 29 percent.
Arlen, this site is my only vice.
Posted by: hal at November 18, 2008 6:28 PM
Interesting. What other Web sites do you frequent about as much, or more?
This article is spot on.
This godless, stupidized and lazy generation just elected their godless president.
We will all have to suffer because of it.
May God, the Creator of the Universe, help us.
Lauren,
I purposely excluded Texas from my rant. I agree Texas is quite a productive state.
The story about the driver’s license is absolutely true though. It happened to me just outside Conroe. But it wasn’t meant to disparage the whole of Texas. Just a funny story that came to mind as I was exempting Texas.
“the U.S. Senate gave their official Iraq War approval.”
After we were THERE.
Where did you get that information. Fox News? :)
The first surge of troops was sent to Iraq in August 2002. You know why I know this? The unit I’m currently in was one of the first to be shipped. I know that’s surprising for me to know, since I’m young and therefore shouldn’t no anything and should have no say.
Jo,
for your information:
http://www.argonunya.com/HypocrisyExposed.html
Jon, I have some amusing anecdotes about living in Boston as well. I did see that you partially exempted Texas, but still had to throw in a jab about how stupid we really are.
Alaska, a red state is the wealthiest state in the union. Our agricultural, homeland states, are doing much better right now than the peripheral blue states. If the red states fell off the map, the country would be left without exportable resources and in debt up to its eyeballs. Republican Governors are one of the bright spots in the bleakness that is pervasive across America.
I will agree with you that ignorance exists in red states as well as blue, but our response should be to inform the electorate not point and laugh. The people who contribute to this site are all very well educated and intelligent people who happen to disagree with you on a number of issues. We do not believe that everyone who voted for Obama was not informed, some genuinely believed in his principles. The problem is that many, many people who disagree with his principles voted for a charismatic leader, and that is a scary thing indeed.
I think it’s hilarious that the video showed Hilary Clinton saying she supported the President, and she’d give him authority.. then later basically said if she knew what he’d use his authority for, she wouldn’t have done it.
Doesn’t sound like hypocrisy to me. Sounds like congress got lied to.. which, it did. :)
Job:
Are you the Job of the Bible or Odd Job of 007 notoriety? Let me guess……..Live and Let Die as in pro-abortion?
This too Job, which passages actually are you referring to? Let me be more speciific, which chapter and verse were you referring to and which translation? NIV, KJV, RSV, ESV, ASV, NLT, AMP, BBE, Clementine, Darby, DouayRheims, God’s Word, AS, Jerusalem, NASB, Latin Vulgate, Wesley, just to name a smattering? Oh, and are you referring to the Hebrew writers of the Bible….of all 66 books. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran? Did any Arabs write the Bilble? Any Egyptians? Any Jordanians? Any Persians? How about Medes? Hittites anyone? I know, let try Philistines?
Are you actually going to contradict the over 300 prophecies about Christ that have been fulfilled?
You’ve got a problem with linguitic scholarship? Or is this just a canned excuse to diss God’s Word? I know…signed, sealed and delivered. You know all things and are willing to throw the Word of God into the trash bin? Well speak away oh wise one…I’m all ears. Do you have hte words of eteranal life?
And you actually admit that you voted for Obama?
And this too Job. Most of the Blue states are the states at most risk of hurricane, earthquake and tsunami, etc. Perhaps you haven’t read the latest translation of the LA Times which if you did you’d see that a blue state is on fire right now.
Here ya go Job, have a ball:
Job 40
1 Then the Lord said to Job,
2 “Do you still want to argue with the Almighty?
You are God’s critic, but do you have the answers?”
Job Responds to the Lord
3 Then Job replied to the Lord,
4 “I am nothing—how could I ever find the answers?
I will cover my mouth with my hand.
5 I have said too much already.
I have nothing more to say.”
The Lord Challenges Job Again
6 Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind:
7 “Brace yourself like a man,
because I have some questions for you,
and you must answer them.
8 “Will you discredit my justice
and condemn me just to prove you are right?
9 Are you as strong as God?
Can you thunder with a voice like his?
10 All right, put on your glory and splendor,
your honor and majesty.
11 Give vent to your anger.
Let it overflow against the proud.
12 Humiliate the proud with a glance;
walk on the wicked where they stand.
13 Bury them in the dust.
Imprison them in the world of the dead.
14 Then even I would praise you,
for your own strength would save you.
15 “Take a look at Behemoth,
which I made, just as I made you.
It eats grass like an ox.
16 See its powerful loins
and the muscles of its belly.
17 Its tail is as strong as a cedar.
The sinews of its thighs are knit tightly together.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze.
Its limbs are bars of iron.
19 It is a prime example of God’s handiwork,
and only its Creator can threaten it.
20 The mountains offer it their best food,
where all the wild animals play.
21 It lies under the lotus plants,
hidden by the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotus plants give it shade
among the willows beside the stream.
23 It is not disturbed by the raging river,
not concerned when the swelling Jordan rushes around it.
24 No one can catch it off guard
or put a ring in its nose and lead it away.
Lauren,
Also, I was not stereotyping anything. I’m talking about the financial and intellectual output of counties across the U.S. and the corelation with how they voted in 2008. Did you not see this graphic:
Electoral Map
Colorado voted Democrat, and so did N.C. As areas become more relevant economically, why is it that they start going from red to blue? Colorado and NC are actually very good examples of states that have become more economically relevant in the past 10-20 years.
Colorado hosted the Dem. Convention. It’s a purple state. I lived in a very purple area of a very purple state. My mom was very liberal. CO pretty much was a ‘gimme’ to the dems this year thanks to the strategically placed convention.
As for NC, I went to college in Winston-Salem. Can you say racial tension? I left before the primaries, but I imagine that there was quite a little battle between Wake Forest Republicans, Salem Clintonites and Winston Salem State Obamamaniacs. Obama won NC based on economic fear and race bating. Actually, he won all of his blue collar states with this combination.
What is irritating to conservatives is that the Republican Party, and McCain in particular, did not do a good job explaining the link between Frank and Raines and Obama and Freddie and Frannie and CRA, and subprime loans.
They blamed in on the ubiquitous “failed Bush policies” and no one investigated things any further. This had me pulling my hair out, and as is evidenced by the Zolgby polls, people really didn’t know what they were voting for.
Interesting. What other Web sites do you frequent about as much, or more?
Posted by: Arlen Williams at November 18, 2008 7:32 PM
Sorry I wasn’t clear Arlen. This is the only site I post on. Other than this I just read. Andrew Sullivan, Druge, and assorted news and opinions sites.
“Doesn’t sound like hypocrisy to me. Sounds like congress got lied to.. which, it did. :)”
they were briefed on the same inteligence as President Bush.
Sullivan’s the blog of the discerning, intelligent man. Where else can you go for large block quotes glommed from other blogs or reader emails, introduced by snappy witticisms such as “look at this” or “a reader writes”? Oh, and don’t forget the in-depth, investigative speculation regarding Trig Palin’s parentage.
I’m not sure what that has to do with anything? That doesn’t changed that congress got lied to. It’s not called hypocrisy when a person changes his/her mind.. or finds out information they were told was.. lies.
Arlen, this site is my only vice.
Posted by: hal at November 18, 2008 6:28 PM
—
I’ve long suspected, but this just adds another piece of evidence that we’re not dealing with a human, but HAL (an acronym for “Human Abortion Lawyer”) actually a piece of sophisticated artificial intelligence software designed to provide automated responses arguing for abortion on pro-life sites. Planned Parenthood started work on HAL back before Microsoft became big in the 80s, at the peak of the abortion craze.
Evidence indicates hal spends more time on the site than Jill, often being the top user of the site. (true)
I think hal’s programmers got carried away when they dropped in the Obama favor module, but then again, as it works off the references being made to Obama by providing more frequent positive affirmations when negative comments against Obama are made, it was simply following what it was programmed to do.
At times, I do think they over did it with the brownnose parameter. ;-)
RA, I get more info there then I do here.
But, he doesn’t allow comments, so I take it out on you guys.
Plus, don’t forget he wrote a book on the Conservative Soul.
Look,
I’m a Roman Catholic from the ‘Alabama of Pennsylvania’ as James Carville called it. That would be the wastelands between Pittsburgh and Philly.
It’s not that I think rural people are inherently dumb – I’m one of them. It’s just that I’ve learned as I’ve crisscrossed America, that when you get 10 miles outside a metropolitan area in the U.S. you are likely bombarded daily with a homogeneous worldview – the main spokesman for that worldview being typified by Rush Limbaugh.
This makes your world small, and so any slight perturbations from the norm seem like huge and ominous deviations from the path of right.
For example, the idea that Obama could make us all socialists, even if he wanted to, is so laughable that my stomach hurts.
I only learned this after I moved to a big city for a few years and my world view was expanded by exposure to people from around the globe.
@ Chris Arsenault at November 18, 2008 8:25 PM
Paranoid much?
It’s not called hypocrisy when a person changes his/her mind.. or finds out information they were told was.. lies.
Posted by: Josephine at November 18, 2008 8:24 PM
@ Chris Arsenault at November 18, 2008 8:27 PM
No. Not like that at all. … I’m not sure why you’re putting words in my mouth, but none of that stuff came from me.
Josephine at November 18, 2008 8:27 PM
Josephine usually when we reply we reference the comment that we’re replying to.
I suppose I should stop commenting and simply write code to handle commenting so it would show responses in a logical sense, maybe split to left and right, and with a built-in validity rating like a thermometer along the side, so people that are making solid valid arguments can be instantly discerned from those who aren’t.
Chris @ 8:25
Funny. Really.
Nice to see the mood lighten around here.
Sullivan’s writing is an incoherent mish-mash whether it’s slopped into a book or a blog. No “conservative” could be Obama’s biggest booster and Palin’s biggest detractor.
As one reviewer said, “Sullivan’s definition of conservatism is the defense of all the things that make Andrew Sullivan happy.” Which includes, in Sullivan’s case, advertising for anonymous, unprotected sex while HIV-positive.
“Which includes, in Sullivan’s case, advertising for anonymous, unprotected sex while HIV-positive.”
I’d like even one example of that in his years and years of blogging. The guy’s married, I doubt he’s having anonymous sex of any kind
Job, first of all you are making the assumption that your worldview is “better” than the “dumb hicks”. I find this attitude is especially pervasive amongst those who have left their small towns and now feel superior to their roots.
Just because you have had exposure to the various things the world has to offer doesn’t mean you are better for the experience. It also doesn’t mean that you will become a more rational, caring person. I’ve experienced a lot of things in my life, from working for MassPirg to sidewalk counseling outside of abortion clinics. I’ve been to community colleges and elite women’s colleges. I’ve been a member of the gay straight alliance and embraced a spirit filled church.
I would not say all of those experiences were good things that led to me being a better or more well rounded person. A lot of what the world has to offer makes a person cold and hard.
We aren’t naive. We understand deviation, we just don’t think that the brand of deviation that Obama brings to the table is a good thing. I don’t think the majority of Americans are socialist, but Obama is most definitely a socialist. The majority of Americans believed his spin and voted for his view of the world weather they intended to or not.
I think the saddest thing I saw this entire election cycle was the picture of an old man standing in the rain, crying, holding a sign that said “change.” Obama gave false hope to millions of people. To me that is shameful.
Job 8:27PM
Are you one of those bitter people who Obama said cling to their guns and religion and dislike anyone different from yourselves?
” Obama gave false hope to millions of people.”
Lauren, Obama isn’t in office yet! He hasn’t done anything. How can you say he gave false hope? I still have LOTS of hope, and I don’t think I’ll be let down. There’s no reason to be so negative about the presidency that hasn’t even started yet.
Lauren: “I don’t think the majority of Americans are socialist, but Obama is most definitely a socialist”
Don’t worry, he isn’t.
“He hasn’t done anything”
You’re right about that Jo.
That was truely the best article i ever read. I dont know who is more guilty the American people for not paying attention or the media for not informing the people..
Harod, we’re informed and paying attention. We just disagree.
Hal,
So talk of redistributing the wealth,destroying the coal industry, and civilian security forces, is just hot air, right?
Hal, so what is it that attracts you so much to jillstanek.com?
Jasper: I didn’t mean he WON’T do anything. I completely believe he will try his best to make America better. He just hasn’t yet. Most of you are complaining about all of these awful things Obama is doing as President (even though he’s not in office) and then in the same breath saying he won’t change anything like he said he would.
Seriously. I see most of you doing this OVER AND OVER. It’s getting old.
Mary, none of those comments, in context, disturb me at all. And I’m more libertarian than socialist
Arlen: I’m attached to the passion of everyone here. I admire some, and am repulsed by others. I learn a lot, and it passes some time. I find myself these days with more down time then I would prefer, and there are some easy targets here to take pot shots at.
Hal, how about the fact that his mother, father, and step-father were all socialist? How about the fact that everyone who he surrounds himself with are socialist?
The man’s a socialist. I mean, it’s not like he tries to hide it. Have you read his memoirs? He practically brags about it.
Lauren, I haven’t read his books yet. I see him as a pretty typical, but imaginative, Democrat.
Maybe we’re just thinking different things about the word “socialist.” Under some definitions, perhaps he is. I don’t see it, though.
Ugh. Don’t you guys get tired from all this negativity? It’s so gross.
PIP, a breath of fresh air.
Pip, the man elected president has promised to undue every bit of work done by our movement in the past 35 years. It’s a bit disconcerting.
Hal, my definition of socialism is a huge government, high taxes, and distribution of collective income for “the greater good.”
Note: “the greater good” must be said in unison while wearing robes and while killing off bad actors and rouge florists.
Lauren, that’s not socialism. But even with your definition, don’t worry. We already have huge government. It’s not getting any bigger. We already have high taxes. For most of us, they’ll be going down. Distribution for the “greater good” sounds better than just giving it to the rich fat cats.
All in all, I think we’re headed for a net improvement.
“Pip, the man elected president has promised to undue every bit of work done by our movement in the past 35 years. It’s a bit disconcerting.”
Maybe you should rethink your goals or tactics. Has any of of the work of your movement in the last 35 years prevented any abortions? Maybe some of the education and maybe the crisis centers. Obama isn’t interfering with those things. The rest of it, I don’t see much to crow about.
Lauren,
They’re mesmerized or maybe they’ve been hypnotized!
…After what the last eight years have been, Eileen, I’d have to believe that of anyone who voted for McCain/Palin… not Obama.
I’d like even one example of that in his years and years of blogging. The guy’s married, I doubt he’s having anonymous sex of any kind
Hal, it was the most famous scandal of Sullivan’s career. He started his blog in 2000. In 2001, he was outed for placing anonymous ads on AOL and
a gay site seeking unprotected sex — despite having attacked President Clinton for his “reckless” behavior.
There’s not a shred of evidence that Sullivan is faithful to his current husband, and given his established reputation for lying, hypocrisy and promiscuity, not the slightest reason to believe he is.
Hal, the CPC’s will surely lose funding under Obama.
WE will lose parental notification/consent laws which protect women and reduce abortions.
We will lose any sort waiting periods and informed consent.
We will lose gestational age restrictions.
We will lose a lot.
…After what the last eight years have been, Eileen, I’d have to believe that of anyone who voted for McCain/Palin… not Obama.
Posted by: Josephine at November 18, 2008 9:45 PM
Joseohine, just look at what you said. You are blaming McCain/Palin. You may not be mesmerized but you are at least drinking the kool-aid.
Maybe you should rethink your goals or tactics. Has any of of the work of your movement in the last 35 years prevented any abortions? Maybe some of the education and maybe the crisis centers. Obama isn’t interfering with those things. The rest of it, I don’t see much to crow about.
Posted by: hal at November 18, 2008 9:38 PM
hal, what about his interference and opposition to the Illinois . Or his interference in passing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. And what about his plans to use federal funds to pay for abortions or his plans to increase abortion worldwide through US government aid to promote the genocide. You are definitely high on the Obama kool-aid if you cannot see these things without being told.
If you want to deny the fact that McCain agreed with Bush on almost EVERYTHING, go ahead.. but you’d be lying. :)
RA, I had no idea. Thank you. I’ll look into it.
I’m not sure it’s a scandal or not, but I’ll see.
Distribution for the “greater good” sounds better than just giving it to the rich fat cats.
All in all, I think we’re headed for a net improvement.
Posted by: hal at November 18, 2008 9:36 PM
And do you believe that the government burocracy knows how to or is able to use money for the greater good better than you or I could? ughh
The government sure was efficient on funneling money to the rich people.
…Truthseeker, did I just read what you said right? You think you’re more able to use money for the greater good than the government?
What do you mean? re you talking about the money that rich people earned or are you saying that it was stolen somehow?
..Truthseeker, did I just read what you said right? You think you’re more able to use money for the greater good than the government?
Posted by:Josephine at November 18, 2008 10:36 PM
Yes Josephine. The governmental bureacracy is laden with inefficiency and most often full of pay-to-play theivery.
The government sure was efficient on funneling money to the rich people.
Posted by: hal at November 18, 2008 10:35 PM
Hal,
What do you mean? Are you talking about the money that rich people earned or are you saying that it was stolen somehow by corru[tion and special intersets.
Posted by: Job at November 18, 2008 8:27 PM
Job, are you sure your cosmopolitan world view isn’t the one that is “wrong”. The city has a way to corrupt people into compromising their principles because of the “bandwagon” effect. You find acceptance for all kinds of deviant behaviours in the metropolis and you get numb to it. IMO the “rural” areas have a much greater number of people of principle, pro-life etc.
pro-life does NOT equal people with principles, truthseeker.
Are you one of those people that bought into the whole small town thing Sarah Palin was trying to get people to buy into? Gag.
ts, our tax dollars going directly to rich people.. And tax breaks to huge corporations so that the rest of us have to pay more.
pro-life does NOT equal people with principles, truthseeker.
Posted by:Josephine at November 18, 2008 10:58 PM
Most anti-lifers at least pretend to be pro-life Josephine. Are you serious?
ts, our tax dollars going directly to rich people.. And tax breaks to huge corporations so that the rest of us have to pay more.
Posted by: hal at November 18, 2008 11:02 PM
Hal, it is the not the corporations that are taxing you, it is the government. It sounds like you are unjustly blaming others cause the government is overtaxing you. Put the blame where it truly belongs. It is the government, not rich people who are taxing you.
“Most anti-lifers at least pretend to be pro-life Josephine. Are you serious?”
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Just because a person is pro-life doesn’t mean they have principles. You can be pro-life, and also be a burglar. Would that person have morals? Geeze, TS, think about what you’re saying.
Josephine, I said what I meant and it had nothing to do with burglary. Would you not agree that it is “unprincipled” to be anti-life?
Would you not agree that it is immoral to be anti-life?
I didn’t say anything about anything anti-life.
But you can’t assume that JUST because someone is pro-life, they have principles. That is most definitely not always the case.
And, who I am to say it’s immoral to be pro-choice (the whole anti-life thing is really getting old, by the way) I happen to be pro-life. I would like everyone to be. Some people aren’t, and ranting on a blog won’t make those people pro-life.
Well, the people in the urban areas, or as Job put it, the “worldly” areas of our nation, are more wiling to compromise their principles and accept anti-life behaviours.mIt is an interesting phenomenon and IMO lends itself to the less interpersonal relationships where people whose principles get compromised and lost in the sheer numbers where the bandwagon effect gives them cover to make anti-life choices.
Pro-life does not mean 100% principled, but pro-death does mean unprincipled.
And, who I am to say it’s immoral to be pro-choice (the whole anti-life thing is really getting old, by the way) I happen to be pro-life. I would like everyone to be. Some people aren’t, and ranting on a blog won’t make those people pro-life.
Posted by:Josephine at November 18, 2008 11:43 PM
It’s easy to say Josephine. Just complete the phrase. I say it is immorale to be pro-choice to kill babies by tearing them from their mother’s womb in bloody pieces. You just need to finsih the phrase pro-choice and it is easy to judge the immorality
TS, I don’t completely disagree with you. I’m only saying that just because someone is pro-life, they don’t necessarily have principles.
I don’t judge others based on their beliefs, Truthseeker. If you want to change someone’s mind, the best way to go about that isn’t to judge them.
Josephine, a wise old man once told me not to judge people by “what they do”. That man was John McCainand he was asking us to judge what Obama would do as president NOT by the promises he made r by the speeches he made but by what he has done. I agree and if I want to make a judgement about a person I look more towards their actions than I do toward their stated beliefs.
My goal is not so much to change pro-abort minds as it is to keep anti-lifers from corrupting the minds of our youth. My hope lies in the future generations. I’m hitting the sackearly tonight…got to catch up on my sleep….the peace of Jesus be with your spirit Josephine.
The Raving Atheist: Do you understand how Obama and the Democrats took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then protected those agencies so that they could cause Americas’ financial collapse by extending credit to undeserving borrowers?
Fannie and Freddie are a drop in the bucket. Hundreds of billions, maybe even a trillion Dollars? Compare that to the $60 – $80 trillion problem from the credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, which were made possible by the Republicans, most specifically Phil Gramm.
If there is a “financial collapse” it’s not due to the Democrats any more than it is to the Republicans, to say the least.
I’ve seen the problem from Gramm’s legislation put at a cost of fromm $62 trillion to $78 trillion, dwarfing the bailout, Fannie and Freddie, AIG, etc.
The main deal was Gramm tucking a 262 page addition into an omnibus spending bill late in 2000. It was called “The Commodity Futures Modernization Act” but it went well beyond the futures arena. Gramm declared that the act would keep the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from being in the business of regulating new financial products called “swaps” (we now know them as credit default swaps – a huge part of the problem we’re now having). He said it would “protect financial institutions from overregulation.” Well there ya go, Phil, you got what you wanted….. Gramm had gotten millions from friends in the financial services industry during his years in Congress, so perhaps no surprise.
Gramm’s insertion contained things that had been wanted by Enron, for example, things that exempted energy trading from gov’t regulation. Enron was rather “in the family” for Gramm since his wife was formerly CFTC chairwoman, and she’d gotten Enron’s energy futures contracts exempted from gov’t regulation. Later, she was on Enron’s board.
Now that “swaps” would be unregulated, and now that a bank could also be an insurer, hedge fund, etc., (or vice-versa), a $62 trillion market in swaps blossomed, almost four times the size of the whole US stock market. And, due to Gramm’s swap-related provisions in the bill, this enormous market would be unregulated – there was no surety that the insurers had the required assets to cover the risks they were guaranteeing.
Freddie and Fannie go down – fine, let ’em fail. Banks make loans and don’t get repaid, let ’em go under.
What Gramm did was make it so that the commercial banks – which maintain the credit markets – could act as insurers, investment banks, etc., and take on trillions even tens of trillions in risk, potentially crippling them and hence bringing the credit market – which (sadly) so much of American business is dependent upon – to a virtual halt.
Fannie and Freddie were bailed out, and what happened? The market tanked like a big dog. The market knows that Fannie and Freddie don’t matter in the grand scheme of things.
We will lose any sort waiting periods and informed consent.
We will lose gestational age restrictions.
Lauren, I don’t think so. FOCA basically codifies the Roe decision into law, and some restrictions have already been found to be in line with Roe.
IMO FOCA certainly doesn’t make anything “worse” from your point of view as far as gestational age restrictions – it says that the right of the woman to decide is protected to viability (same as Roe) and that after viability the states can ban abortion, if they want to, except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health. Again, same as Roe, no?
But, Doug, we have restricted abortion to prior to viability in most states, so we will lose ground if Roe is solidified.
Also, waiting periods and informed consent will definitely be taken away as these are two of the wild banchie cries that radical abortion supporters often holler about.
Ugh. Don’t you guys get tired from all this negativity? It’s so gross.
That was a pretty negative comment there, PIP.
Don’t you ever get tired of expressing negativity towards pro-lifers and conservatives, PIP?
I just finished reading the article and all of the comments. What an incredibly accurate article.
Mary, Truthseeker, Oliver, Lauren, Chris, Raving Atheist, I just wanted to say you all have made such terrific points. As usual.
Josephine, a wise old man once told me to judge people by “what they do”. That man was John McCain and he was asking us to judge what Obama would do as president NOT by the promises he made or by the speeches he made but by what he has done. I agree and if I want to make a judgement about a person I look more towards their actions than I do toward their stated beliefs.
“Don’t you ever get tired of expressing negativity towards pro-lifers and conservatives, PIP?”
That comment wasn’t made towards pro-lifers/conservatives specifically, but towards most people engaged in the conversation. I saw some pro-choicers also get pretty negative.
Yeah my statement was negative because it’s getting annoying as hell.
How annoying do you think it is for us to have to deal with people who think Obama can do no wrong, even when we present them with evidence- and they just pretend it doesn’t exist?
I’m sorry if you’re annoyed, but instead of just posting out of the blue about how annoyed you are, maybe you could try to contribute to the discussion?
Maybe you could try refuting any of the statements made about Obama?
And if you’re looking for a place to go where the majority of people are praising Obama, you could try a Jon Stewart or Colbert discussion forum. They’ll be positive and happy about Obama there.
I honestly don’t know exactly you’re expecting to see at this pro-life discussion forum.
“I’m sorry if you’re annoyed, but instead of just posting out of the blue about how annoyed you are, maybe you could try to contribute to the discussion?”
Remember how we’ve been trying to do that for a while, but it turned out to be fruitless? Yeah…trying to contribute to the discussion is like trying to get out of the trench when the battle is raging. There’s no point to it and the fighting won’t stop once it gets going.
“I honestly don’t know exactly you’re expecting to see at this pro-life discussion forum.”
Well, I’d expect something about how we maybe could change the strategy (happy to see we did have a thread about that) or maybe more about pro-life things that are happening rather than just Obama Obama Obama.
I get it. You don’t like him. But this just incites negative conversation rather than discourse. I have been refraining from most discussion because of that. But anyway, I will disappear in the rafters for a while again. I just get exited when I see a big number of comments and disappointed when I see libs and conservs at each others throats about the same thing for the 50th time.
Have a good one!
“Mary, Truthseeker, Oliver, Lauren, Chris, Raving Atheist, I just wanted to say you all have made such terrific points. As usual.”
I just laughed out loud. For real. It most hilarious that every point every one of them made was refuted. But let’s just ignore that, huh? ;)
Where were they refuted, Josephine? I saw most of their points being ignored, not refuted.
Josephine, do you mean this?
Mary: Obama said he wants to destroy the coal industry.
Josephine: I don’t believe you. Show me where he said that.
Mary: Those were his very own words. You can listen to an audio clip or read his words.
Josephine: Oh yeah? Well, I don’t care. He probably didn’t mean it anyway.
Just to let you know…responding to someone is not the same as refuting someones’ point. You can get the last word without having refuted anything.
Refute:
# prove to be false or incorrect
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Then you obviously can’t read, because looking back through it now… every point got refuted, and then.. well, they posted the exact same things in different words. I guess if that’s what you mean by the made good points is, “they made points and kept reiterating them” then yes.. I guess they did make “good” points. Ugh.
Then you obviously can’t read, because looking back through it now… every point got refuted, and then.. well, they posted the exact same things in different words. I guess if that’s what you mean by the made good points is, “they made points and kept reiterating them” then yes.. I guess they did make “good” points. Ugh.
Okay, Josephine.
Can you show me one example of a statement about Obama on here being actually refuted?
Uhm, actually… I said:
“That said if someone wants to “build a coal powered plant” than they would go bankrupt. I didn’t hear anything about the coal industry going bankrupt. I didn’t hear anything about the coal powered plants that there already were going bankrupt. Did you?
By the way, I love the environment. I’m not sure how you can find anything bad about what he said. If they’re producing SO MUCH greenhouse gas that the companies would go bankrupt, the company should not be allowed.”
So, stop making stuff up? K? K. :)
If you’ll actually go read this time, you’d see that no one was able to respond to MY question. :)
*Standing ovation* I couldn’t have said it better myself. Although I too find it laughingly ridiculous that this nation elected the likes of an immoral empty suit like Obama, I brace and wince at the damage to come from such a foolish choice.
Josephine, here’s a man you really need to get to know…
Sorry Jasper, as soon as I saw Rush Limbaugh I had to close it.
Jasper, good morning! :)
Hi Bethany! good morning.
By the way, I love the environment. I’m not sure how you can find anything bad about what he said. If they’re producing SO MUCH greenhouse gas that the companies would go bankrupt, the company should not be allowed.”
Wasn’t this statement responded to as well by Lauren?
And Josephine,
If you’ll actually go read this time, you’d see that no one was able to respond to MY question. :)
Yes, they were, and they did.
Maybe PIP was just asking us to behave like Steven Baldwin:
STEPHEN Baldwin was just kidding about the promise he made on Fox News to leave the country if Barack Obama was elected president. “The liberal Democrats who didn’t get that I was joking need to lighten up,” the born-again Christian told Page Six. “Obama is obviously talented and intelligent, and I have great respect for the man. He’s got my full support, and I’m gonna be praying for him and his administration.
No. They didn’t. They just reiterated their original points saying Obama would bankrupt the coal industry. I told them why he wouldn’t, and I got in response.. that yes, he would bankrupt the coal industry. :) Even thought there hasn’t been any legislation passed that would “bankrupt” the coal industry and coal powered plants could still be built today.. everyone wants to ignore that. :)
Soooo please, think of your own I hate Obama shtick instead of just copying and pasting what other people have said. I’m not going to keep writing things I’ve already said.
No. They didn’t. They just reiterated their original points saying Obama would bankrupt the coal industry. I told them why he wouldn’t, and I got in response.. that yes, he would bankrupt the coal industry. :) Even thought there hasn’t been any legislation passed that would “bankrupt” the coal industry and coal powered plants could still be built today.. everyone wants to ignore that. :)
Josephine, and of course you were reiterating your point that you disagree that Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry.
None of the points against Obama have been actually refuted. They have been “argued”, or “responded” to, but not
refuted”.
There is a difference, you know. Obama’s words speak for themselves.
You proved nothing.
Bethany, uhm,… well,
re·fute (r?-fy??t’)
tr.v. re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing, re·futes
1. To deny the accuracy or truth of
ar?gue
? ?/??rgyu/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ahr-gyoo] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -gued, -gu?ing.
–verb
2. To deny to be true
LOL. Didn’t you just say, “None of the points against Obama have been actually refuted. They have been “argued”,”
So, I guess I’m done responding to you.. until you know what words mean, anyway? Because.. as I said, every point that was made against Obama had been refuted.. you chose to ignore that. :)
lol thank you for showing me the secondary definition, as I have already given you the definition I am going by.
I admit, it’s been fun this morning talking in circles with you, but I think I’m getting a bit bored now.
Have a great day, Josephine.
Actually, Bethany, they still need to provide proof for their side of the argument. Mary, Lauren, etc. can point to concrete proof and they still want to ignore it. As for Rush, he doesn’t lie — he provides proof of these people that he reports on,, in their own words, reads from transcripts, etc. :)
Josephine and Bethany,
Weren’t these questions concerning the bankrupting of the coal industry addressed by my posts of 11/18 5:29PM and 5:38PM? Please go to Youtube and look under “Obama coal industry”. You’ll find a “shock” video that is more extensive than the one Jasper posted. In fact Bethany I think you posted it once. No Obama didn’t say he would bankrupt the coal industry, he said he would bankrupt the builder of a new coal plant. No new plants means more expensive electricity and miners, engineers, and builders out of work. I mean, what happens as the need for electricity increases but we’re bankrupting anyone who wants to build a plant? Its kind of a no-brainer, don’t you think?
That’s like arguing that I only want to bankrupt people who build new homes, its not my intention to bankrupt the housing industry itself.
Eileen, you’re right. They still haven’t done that. No one has.
The reason people on our side have to keep reiterating the same points is because people keep ignoring those points and still have yet to provide proof that these things are not true.
I think they must think that if they keep denying it and pretending it isn’t true, then it actually won’t be true. That’s probably why Josephine thinks that all of the points of have been “refuted”.
Mary, great post. Definitely a no brainer!
TYIMC, Snopes.com is in the Obama Tank. A much better site is:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/
I’ve always liked it better for most purposes.
Bethany,
Thank you. Its like the “civilian security force” statement. They deny he meant it, he only said it once(do we know that for a fact?), it didn’t mean anything, it doesn’t matter, etc. Folks, he SAID it, ok? Why do you suppose he did, just to hear himself say it? You think he hasn’t given this some serious thought? They just close their eyes, ears, and minds to this guy, even when they hear it from HIS mouth!
Oh Mary, don’t be so silly.
Say what you mean, mean what you say, unless you are Obama.
The rules have changed.
But, Doug, we have restricted abortion to prior to viability in most states, so we will lose ground if Roe is solidified.
Lauren, not on the basis of gestational age….? It’d be unconstitutional to do so.
…..
Also, waiting periods and informed consent will definitely be taken away as these are two of the wild banchie cries that radical abortion supporters often holler about.
No biggie, but that’s “banshee,” right? (Or are you of Scottish extraction? ; )
You may be right on the last two – I’d have to look at the text of FOCA again.
No Obama didn’t say he would bankrupt the coal industry
Mary, thank you for that, at least.
Hey, who do you see wanting to build new coal plants, anyway? I’ve worked on a bunch of new power plants in the last 8 years, but not a one will burn coal.
Aside from that, I think it was a talking point for Obama. Both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan etc., had many things they talked about, promised, mentioned, postulated, hypothesized about, etc., and which did not occur.
We are going to be burning a lot of coal for a long, long time – there is no way around it short of massively cutting our energy consumption as a nation, and that’s all but impossible – there are more Americans every year and to date the per-capita energy use has been increasing as well.
Anyway, to act like Obama means “doom” for coal is just plain silly.
“No new plants means more expensive electricity and miners, engineers, and builders out of work.”
…Yeah, because their jobs are more important than the environment. Let’s use coal inefficiently for 100 more years. Abortion won’t be an issue, because the kids will be getting sick and dying from breathing the air. ;)
Doug,
We may not always agree but I’ve alway respected you as an intelligent man.
A talking point? Bankrupting an American industry and putting a several thousand people out of work is a talking point? Doug for heaven’s sake open your ears and your eyes will you? This man is telling you exactly what he wants to do. You’ve gotten it straight from the horse’s mouth. Why do you and the rest of his followers think he’s just blowing smoke when he says something that makes you cringe a little?
You’re contradicting yourself my friend. You ask who wants to build new coal plants anyway, then say we will be burning coal for a long long time.
That means we will need new plants to meet ever increasing energy demand and to replace outdated plants. That means we can’t be out to deliberately bankrupt people who build coal plants. Please take it up with Obama if you have an issue with this, not me.
Josephine, contrary to popular thought, coal isn’t some sort of instant killer. I grew up in a home with a coal furnace and I survived. Coal is getting cleaner all the time. Writing off our most abundant natural resource is irresponsible, especially with the world in the state that it is in.
Josephine 8:50PM
I may be a dinosaur but I’ve enjoyed the benefits of electricity my entire life. I haven’t keeled over yet because of coal burning plants. Also my 90y/o mother who has also enjoyed the benefits of electricity most of her life is as healthy as an ox. I can’t say I’ve ever seen anyone die as the result of the generation of electricity, unless they were electrocuted or struck by lightening.
Yes the jobs of these people are very important. Just ask them. You’re talking about people here who carry lunch pails, pay mortgages, and support families.
Keep in mind Josephine that skyrocketing electricity rates will most adversely effect the poor and those on fixed incomes. It will also hurt businesses and force layoffs.
The environment. Please. The earth has survived millions of years of volcanoes, climate change, forest fires, methane expulsion, and oil seepage under the oceans. The human race will be long gone and the earth will still be here, giving us the finger.
Oliver,
Great point. I remember coal burning furnaces as well and the “coal man” making deliveries to our neighborhood. We thought it was great fun to watch him unload his coal down a chute into someone’s basement. Homes, including ours, had “coal rooms”. We used oil however and I can still remember that smell.
People survived very well.
Mary, the earth will be here– but have you seen a chart of the climate change? Yes, the climate goes in patterns. It’s been this hot before, it will go down again. However, there has NEVER been a time with so much CO2. You have no IDEA how the Earth will survive, because scientists don’t. All they know is, if we keep with this pattern.. we could totally ruin the earth. Think about how long there’s been modern technology and how bad we’ve made the earth. SURE, there have been people for a long time- not cars though. Not power plants. :) So… since scientists don’t know how it’s going to work out, I don’t think you do either. No offense.
And, “Coal is getting cleaner all the time.” If coal gets cleaner THOSE plants will survive. What will bankrupt companies is the fines from their emissions. If they have low emissions, they won’t have crazy fines and they’ll survive. What about that is a bad idea?
Josephine,
Please google “manmade global warming hoax”. Scientists are also arguing that we are entering an ice age, as they did 30 years ago. There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the issue of global warming or cooling.
Do we really think our ancestors lived so pristinely? For how many thousands of years were our ancestors burning wood and coal, living in filth and polluting? Utilizing animals meant waste, pollution, flies, and disease. These western towns must have reeked. Technology has brought improvement. The climate changed time and again from the beginning of time because it darned well wanted to, not because mankind had any say in it.
Climate is influenced by solar energy, sunspots, earth axis, ocean currents, precipitation, and earth/sun rotation. Factors mankind will never control.
I believe Doug pointed out in a previous post the precautions now taken by coal plants to protect the environment so emissions may not even be an issue. Maybe our leader needs to better educate himself before making statements about bankrupting an industry.
You’re contradicting yourself my friend. You ask who wants to build new coal plants anyway, then say we will be burning coal for a long long time. That means we will need new plants to meet ever increasing energy demand and to replace outdated plants.
Mary, yeah, we’re going to be burning a lot of coal for a long time, but we already are. New plants really aren’t coal-burners. Now, there may be some out there under construction or in planning stages – I don’t know – but the pollution controls on them as already mandated is a BOOGER to pay for, already.
This isn’t dependent on Obama – it’s now this way under Bush Jr.
New coal-fired plants face huge hurdles, now, and that’s why it’s not a big deal. By far, most of the plants I’ve been to – and this is probably 80 or so in 8 years, use natural gas. Natural gas plants do produce carbon dioxide, but other than that it burns darn clean.
Anyway, Obama saying it’s going to be in effect “prohibitively expensive” to build a new coal-burning plant isn’t the same thing as “bankrupting the industry.” Far from it. I don’t think it’s competitive to build one now, anyway.
Coal makes a nice, hot fire.
When I was in Elementary School we had a big old house and it had a formerly coal-burning furnace in it that had been converted to oil or natural gas – don’t remember which.
This thing was huge, round, probably 8 feet in diameter, occupying a lot of a basement room, with “tentacles” – the air ducts – radiating out from it in all directions.
The basement wall still had the door for coal to be dumped down, and the “coal chute” was laying over in a corner.
Doug 9:47PM
Thank you for making my point. However Obama did say building a new coal plant will bankrupt the builder. This will stop the building of new plants and lead to bankruptcy of the coal industry. As you said coal will be needed for a long long time. If there are only so many plants there will only be so much electricity that can be generated, only so much coal that can be mined, only so many miners that can work, few builders that can be employed, and lots of people out of work.
Its like my saying that I will bankrupt anyone who builds a home, but this will not bankrupt the housing industry itself. Obviously if I make it financially impossible to build a home, carpenters, roofers, electricians, etc are going to be affected. The homebuilding industry would be bankrupted.
Its like my saying that I will bankrupt anyone who builds a home, but this will not bankrupt the housing industry itself.
No, Mary. The housing industry needs to keep building houses. The coal industry isn’t so dependent on building new coal plants.
Oliver at 9:16 was me, sorry.
Geeze Mary. If you put “hoax” in obviously. Why don’t you do some real research. :)
He DIDN’T make a comment about bankrupting an industry. Only the ones with high emissions. Mary, I think I’m done responding anything to you, because you are going in circles. You’re not saying anything new.
You apparently ignored what I said about CO2. You want to be right, you don’t want to hear reason. So, sucks to be you because Obama is president. Get over it already.
I never thought I’d actually talk to a real person who didn’t realize humans were ruining the environment. Maybe you haven’t seen the video on CNN of the polar bears EATING eachother because they’re out of food? Or all the animals that have to keep traveling closer to the poles because it’s getting so hot? How about all the polar bears that are drowning to death because the ice cant’ support their weight anymore??
I guess Tina Fey had it right, global warming is just God hugging us a little closer.
So, until you stop arguing in a circle, peace out.
Doug 9:51PM
We neighborhood kids thought the “coal man” was hilarious since he was covered head to toe with coal dust. Watching the coal go down the chute was fascinating and it was fun to watch him visit old Mrs.W’s house. We more modern folks in the neighborhood had oil heat.
My elementary school had a “power house” that heated both it and the junior high school near it. I assume it used coal. Air conditioning was accomplished by opening the windows, which usually just let in the bees and flies. Anyway, the smoke stacks would let out huge blasts of steam, and make a lot of racket doing so, which we kids would stop dead in the playground to watch.
Josephine,
Why are you here?
I thought I read you were prolife?? No?
Doug, 10:12PM
The bulk of our electricity comes from coal and even you have pointed out it will for a long, long time. Not building coal plants will slow the coal industry down, laying off workers, and resulting in skyrocketing electrical costs. Put simply, it will bankrupt the coal industry.
Doug, my point about the houses is that bankrupting anyone building a new home would eventually destroy the housing industry, just as bankrupting anyone building a new coal plant will eventually destroy the coal industry.
Carla, yes. I am.
That has nothing to do with anything I said though.
Josephine, how do you define pro-life?
Well, everyone on this site seems to think you’re pro-life if you’re against abortion. I happen to believe it includes a lot of other things. Again, I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.
“Lots of other things”. So what are those other things?
It was a simple question.
Trying to figure out where you are coming from most of the time, Josephine. :)
Carrying about the life of everyone and everything. All people (not just babies) and animals.
So are you saying you care about unborn babies?
Yes. I just consider them babies.
That is good to hear. Are you against abortion?
Just trying to see where you’re coming from. :)
Are you conflicted on the issue of abortion?
All, sorry our server had hardware problems. Chris and I have to reenter a few posts by hand. So Carla and Josephine’s following will be out of order.
I reserve the right to change the subject. :) I guess if you are prolife why are you so argumentative with prolifers? Just don’t get it.
Carla, I’m not really argumentative on pro-life issues, but too many people on here are about other things. Saying democrats are anti-life, that gay marriage is wrong… these things have nothing to do with pro-life. Just because I’m pro-life doesn’t mean I share any of the other values that many of the people here have. In fact, if I didn’t expressly say I was pro-life I would be seen as pro-choice. (I’m wording this as nicely as I can, because you’ve never been mean to me.. so if it sounds rude, please know it’s not meant that way!) I guess my point is, I get attacked for being pro-life and having the beliefs I have… when really, isn’t that what everyone should want? For the pro-life movement to reach more than just uber-religious Republicans?
I tend to stay out of certain “discussions” just because I don’t have the time nor the energy to throw my ten cents in on gay marriage, religion, what Obama said about the coal industry….you know what I mean? I just wondered where you were coming from. It wasn’t clear to me. :)
I will try to be more understanding of you in the future.
Thanks Carla, same to you. :)
Are you conflicted on the issue of abortion?
Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2008 8:59 AM
Nope. Why do you ask?
I wasn’t aware that there was a glitch in the blog at the time and I thought you were avoiding the other question (“are you against abortion”).
So are you? I mean, I know you said that you think the unborn are babies, but I have heard people say the same thing and then still say they think abortion should be legal. So I’m just trying to see where you personally stand on this issue.
Not building coal plants will slow the coal industry down, laying off workers, and resulting in skyrocketing electrical costs. Put simply, it will bankrupt the coal industry.
Mary, perhaps slow it from what it would be with increased usage, but not necessarily “slow it,” per se. And this “bankrupt the industry stuff” is frankly silly.
….
Doug, my point about the houses is that bankrupting anyone building a new home would eventually destroy the housing industry, just as bankrupting anyone building a new coal plant will eventually destroy the coal industry.
Holy Crow, Mary. The housing industry is very much dependent on new construction.
The coal industry can maintain just fine with the consumption that is occurring now, and that will occur without new coal-fired power plants being built. In no way is it the same thing, not even close.
Doug,
What’s silly and appalling is a presidential candidate speaking of a desire to bankrupt people who want to build coal plants. The fact remains the more plants built, the cheaper the electrical costs and the more income generated and people employed. Why would anyone object to this? Building no more plants can result in layoffs, no new income generated, operating expenses not being met. It means an industry stagnates and yes, possibly bankrupts.
Any business, be it housing or coal, depends on expansion, not stagnation.
I can see where there may be a gradual phasing of coal plants over the years, but I do not see the rationale of stopping coal plant production in its tracks.
Bethany: I don’t think you’re trying to be a smart alec, so I’ll say this the best I can.
I absolutely, 100% am against abortion. I think it’s wrong. I think it’s murder.
Hi Josephine,
I tried to respond to your 10:18PM post last nite but the website was being ornery.
I have done my research and I strongly suggest you do some of your own. If you google “manmade global warming hoax” you will indeed find credible scientitists and climatologists who call this “global warming” hysteria exactly what it is, a hoax. Some argue we’re entering another ice age. I remember 30 years ago they thought we were entering another ice age.
What really makes me laugh is these conferences and concerts to end global warming that are cancelled because of snow and cold. Who says Mother Nature doesn’t have a sense of humor?
CO2 has been expelled into the atmosphere since living things have been breathing.
Forest fires caused by lightening burn thousands of acres and expel who knows how much carbon from the burning foliage. Volcanoes spew tons upon tons of pollutants and poisons into the atmosphere, they have for millions of years and do so now.
Oil seeps up through the ocean floor and is absorbed and distributed by the ocean.
Humans ruining the environment? We don’t hold a candle to Mother Nature when it comes to pollution and destruction.
Polar bears have always eaten each other. Mama polar bears have to be especially careful to protect their young from males, who consider them quite a delicacy.
Jo, animals eat each other alive, steal each other’s food, eat their young, abandon their young, kill the young so as to mate with their mothers, fight to the death, etc. Nature is brutal and a non-stop struggle to survive, especially in the artic. Always has been, always will be.
Jo, Obama said anyone building a new coal plant would be bankrupted. The consequences of this to the coal industry are …what?
I absolutely, 100% am against abortion. I think it’s wrong. I think it’s murder.
Josephine, I’m sorry I misjudged you earlier when you first started posting. I am glad to know that you are on our side on the issue of abortion. Thanks for letting me know your position!
Bethany: Thank you for giving me a chance. :)
I am probably different than everyone on here in my beliefs, but I kinda think that’s what you guys need. To get people that aren’t just Republicans, that aren’t super-religious.. So I want to help. :)
What’s silly and appalling is a presidential candidate speaking of a desire to bankrupt people who want to build coal plants./i>
Mary, again – who do you think wants to build them now? Same as oil refineries.
It’s already very, very expensive, and not that good a deal, what with the permitting procedures, site surveys, environmental impact studies, and the required pollution control stuff, while existing plants largely get a break (though they too have been doing a whole lot of pollution-control stuff).
In the long run, nuke plants are by far the best.
In the short run, natural gas – or maybe even oil, given the recent market action – but not coal.
Nobody’s clamoring to build coal plants under Bush Jr. Obama’s propositions are designed to encourage alternative energy sources, but this talk of “doom” for the coal industry is just silly.
Doug,
I am all for alternative energy. I find it embarassing that countries in Europe use nuclear energy while we use windmills!
Right now coal plants provide the bulk of our energy. These will likely be phased out. Fine.
Until the time gas, nuclear, or whatever is providing the majority of our energy needs coal will still be used. You have stated so yourself a few times that coal will be around a long long time. Plants will have to be built to meet the demand. Penalizing people who will build these plants stagnates the industry and causes skyrocketing energy costs.
BTW, how long has it been since we built an oil refinery? We seem to want to shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to providing for our energy needs.
Mary, no – coal plants are not being “phased out.”
Tough to build an oli refinery, yes, and it’s already tough to build a coal plant, under Bush Jr – that’s why nobody’s doing it (that I know of) versus natgas and even a few new nuke plants in the US.
Doug,
Well, here’s a golden opportunity for your guy who has stated his plan will “bankrupt” anyone building a coal plant, as well as cause electricity rates to “skyrocket” to do everything possible to to encourage the building of coal plants and refineries to provide for our energy needs. After all coal generates 49% of our electricity and our needs have to be addressed now.
Coal plants aren’t being phased out? Well then it seems we depend on them and will continue to do so. So why does your guy, not George Jr. who will no longer be president, want to bankrupt anyone building one?
Well, here’s a golden opportunity for your guy who has stated his plan will “bankrupt” anyone building a coal plant, as well as cause electricity rates to “skyrocket” to do everything possible to to encourage the building of coal plants and refineries to provide for our energy needs.
Mary, nuclear power generates electricity about 30% cheaper than does burning coal, and you don’t have the CO2 emissions nor all the other emissions.
…..
After all coal generates 49% of our electricity and our needs have to be addressed now.
And Obama isn’t saying shut down current coal plants.
…
Coal plants aren’t being phased out? Well then it seems we depend on them and will continue to do so.
That’s right.
…..
So why does your guy, not George Jr. who will no longer be president, want to bankrupt anyone building one?
He doesn’t want to bankrupt anyone. He wants people to go to alternative, renewable sources of energy. There, you don’t even have the problem of spent nuclear fuel.
What’s bad is how expensive it is to go through the permitting procedures for nuclear plants. We’re talking from $500 million to into the billions of Dollars, with no guarantee of the permit being awarded.
We could have cheaper electricity than with coal, but there too, in the past it’s been “too expensive” for most utilities. True under Republicans as well as under Democrats. Obama is proposing an impetus for people to try other stuff than coal, that’s all.
Doug,
You’ll get no argument from me on nuclear power.
I know Obama won’t go after the coal plants we have now, just efforts to build new ones. I’m glad we’re getting the one in Wisconsin before Obama can bankrupt the builder of it and we start getting hit with higher electrical costs.
As you point out nuclear power is expensive. For many areas coal powered plants may be the best and only alternative. What happens if efforts to build them result in bankruptcy? Like it or not Doug, that’s exactly what your guy said he will do to anyone building a coal powered plant.
Alternative sources are fine, when they are finally up and running and providing most of our needs. Until that time let’s keep our energy plentiful and costs in check with coal.
What happens if efforts to build them result in bankruptcy?
Ain’t gonna happen, Mary. If it’s too expensive, people will go other ways.
Doug,
Like how? More expensive natural gas? Almost impossible nuclear? More likely the skyrocketing electrical costs Our Leader warned us of.
Like solar, geothermal, wind, etc.
Or whatever is cheaper than coal, given all the costs, same as now.
Doug,
Again, when will these be up and running and what do we do in the meantime? what about states for whom coal is the mainstay of their economy? What if they prefer to continue with coal use?
They’ve already been built, Mary, or are being built. There’s no shortage of electricity right now.
Coal states can continue to mine coal – nobody is going to do away with the present coal-burning plants we have.
Doug,
I know, but they account for only a small percentage of our electrical power. Coal is still 49%. You acknowledge its cheap and plentiful. Great. So why not use it? Why bankrupt people building new plants? The demand will increase. Your guy says bankrupting coal plant builders will result in skyrocketing electrical costs. You have said coal will be around for a long long time. I still want to know how the planet survived the use of coal to heat homes minus any pollution controls.
Coal is still 49%. You acknowledge its cheap and plentiful. Great. So why not use it?
Because of the emissions.
…..
Why bankrupt people building new plants?
That’s not it. The point is to encourage the usage of other forms of energy.
…..
Your guy says bankrupting coal plant builders will result in skyrocketing electrical costs.
I doubt it is as simple as that, Mary. What’s the actual quote?
…..
You have said coal will be around for a long long time. I still want to know how the planet survived the use of coal to heat homes minus any pollution controls.
How did the guy with pancreatic cancer survive two whole years? You can say “survived” past the point of no return, not to mention right to the end.
Doug,
How have we survived all these years using coal, including the years before pollution control, if emissions are such a problem?
Whatever the intention, Obama wants to bankrupt those who build new coal plants.
Doug go to Youtube and search “Obama skyrocket electricity”. You should find several videos covering this subject.
A direct quote: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”.
Pancreatic cancer? Doug, that doesn’t answer my question.
Pancreatic cancer? Doug, that doesn’t answer my question.
Yeah it does. You can say “survived” past the point of no return, even to the day of death.
A direct quote: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”.
Okay, thanks. I don’t think that’s politically possible at this time, so even if he’d try to get such a plan in effect, I don’t think it would go.
Doug,
Doug, I’m saying coal has been around a long time, it heated our homes, ran our electrical plants, and the human race and the planet have survived, even though there weren’t always emission controls. Its providing 49% of our electricity now. We’re still surviving.
What’s the big danger of coal emissions and why haven’t we seen some serious effects from it?
How could our mothers let us out to play in neighborhoods with coal powered furnaces?!
Mary, the danger is in the excess carbon dioxide which is beyond the earth’s capacity to absorb, for one thing.
The argument is that we are seeing some serious effects.
Doug,
Like what??
The rapid (unprecedentedly rapid, in fact) rise in temperatures, and that which is coming from it and that which may come from it.
Doug,
Again there are scientists and climatologists that dispute this.