Here is the deal. Very rarely, do I meet a liberal that can hold an intelligent conversation and argue a particular point rationally. Now, I do have some friends (believe it or not) that can participate in a rational debate without getting too emotional. This post is not about them/you. This is for the liberal that believes everything they hear; never questions the source and never thinks logically about the big picture; which is indeed a huge part the problem. These are real examples from real people liberals that I have encountered throughout my life experience.
- These are the liberals that believe in global warming just because Al Gore says its a problem. The fact is that there are just as many scientists that disagree with global warming as there are who agree with it. It’s an ongoing debate. If there was any SOLID scientific evidence to support either side, there wouldn’t be a disagreement. It’s the media that hypes it up.
- These are the liberals that still believe that President Bush went AWOL in the National Guard just because Dan Rather reported it on 60 minutes. No need to comment on this one.
- These are the liberals who hate Rumsfeld but don’t even know his title (former title).
- These are the liberals that think all Christians are right-wing-zealot extremists. Christians don’t fight their battles with AK47s or suicide bombs.
- These are the liberals that protest (and they do a damn good job at it) for the sake of protesting without knowing the issues. I am thinking Berkeley and San Francisco right about now.
- These are the liberals who actually think that universal healthcare will actually work here in the US. Look at Canada and take a wild guess where Canadians go when they need major surgery performed because the Canadian healthcare system has waiting lists that are a mile long; and the doctors are way under paid.
- These are the liberals that think that all conservatives are racist towards blacks and Mexican Americans. Take a look at the current administration’s cabinet Condi, Alberto Gonzales.
- These are the liberals that think all conservatives are white, upper class males.
Listen up people. The real problem is that these uninformed liberals who actually believe what they hear are distributing their rhetoric through blogs, emails and conversations with others; and essentially spreading their ideologies like the Ebola virus.
I plead for these liberals to stop believing everything you hear. Understand that life is based on incentives and there is always a hidden agenda (on both sides of the political spectrum) when you are reading/watching the news; and even talking to a friend or family member. Before you form an opinion, do your research and reason your way into a reasonable point of view.
By the way, the above examples are real and are all based on my personal experience interacting with the left.
Technorati Tags: liberal, liberalism, conservative, universal healthcare, global warming
You're lucky it's 2am and I'm bored or I wouldn't be too keen on responding to this drivel, but here we go.
1) I have never met anyone who had no idea about global warming prior to a 2006 movie. More than that, you obviously didn't go see it but are one of many conservatives who like to discount things without actually considering them. I shouldn't need to point this out, but the factoid that there are zero peer-reviewed studies saying humans aren't causing global warming has been kicking around since before An Inconvenient Truth was filmed, and it's still as accurate.
2) Really? Have you actually met someone who said that? Or are you for the second time in as many "points" discounting something by suggesting that those who believe it do so based on one source? I could refute that by saying "there are people who think Bush didn't go AWOL just because he said he didn't." The papers are clear.
3) Which do you mean? The first time he was Sec of Defense, or Chief of Staff? Or when he was Reagan's envoy to the Middle East and the famous Saddam handshake video was made? Yeesh.
4) Really? There are? Even the vast numbers of Christian liberals think all Christians are violent extremists? John Kerry's a Catholic who opposes gay marriage, I was unaware he thought Christians were violent extremists. You must think no liberals are Christians. Good work.
5) Did you ask them about "the issues"? What issues are you referring to? How do you know about their knowledge of "the issues"? Or are you just saying they don't know what they're talking about simply because you disagree with them?
6) Yeah, the American system is so much better, what with the 40 million or so people without any insurance at all. All you've told us here is that the Canadian system is imperfect. Check out Japan, they seem to have it fairly down pat. And why do you think America's too stupid to make it work? I have more faith in our country than you do, apparently.
7) Oh wow, there's a black woman and a hispanic guy. That makes all the difference. You just made the political equivalent of "I can't be a racist, my best friend is black." A party that suppressed the vote of blacks in Florida because they were "felons" is not a party friendly to blacks.
This is a piss poor list based on a hodgepodge of pseudo-observations that you probably got while listening to Limbaugh or Hannity when you could have been reading actual news, instead of having some empty-headed squawkbox telling you what you want to hear.
I might as well make up a list that says "there are conservatives who hate Bill Clinton but can't name a thing he did during his presidency aside from get a blowjob". I'm sure such people exist, but they're such non-focused entities in the political sphere I hardly consider them conservatives so much as dabblers in politics.
This is my biggest problem with conservatism. So much energy is spent talking about liberals. Coulter, Hannity, Savage, and O'Reilly write entire books about how awful liberals are. Various FOX pundits spend a fair amount of time on the same. Limbaugh sits on the radio and spews hatred towards liberals during the time he can't think of some snarky comment about something or other.
I listen to Al Franken a fair bit (terrible radio personality, but a brilliant fella), I watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann nightly. Do you know what's funny about them, and this can be extended to nearly any of the "angry liberals" that draw so much conservative ire? They don't make sweeping generalizations about conservatives. They don't talk about the problems with the right and how awful they are.
Liberal as some of these guys may be, outside of a few on Air America, they don't waste energy babbling on and on about how awful the other side is. They make their points and just move along. I jibe at the right fairly frequently, but except for when I was incredibly green in the world of blogging I don't do lists like this.
As I said, you're benefiting from my being bored late at night, but hopefully this will help you actually become constructive instead of parroting hollow stereotypes in order to insult people.
[...] I make lots of comments about the redcoats on the site, and I don’t hide that. Whenever a story crops up or I see a video that shows a particularly ugly side of the right I comment on it. Periodically I do it as a snarky comment about an election or what I anticipate will be a reaction to something. I’m very harsh on the right, but it’s only in the context of another story. However, one thing I have not done since I was green in the political blogging world is waste entire articles on rambling about conservatives (though I did make that “conservative handbook” a while ago, but that was just for the sake of comedy). Take this guy, and yes I know I responded with an article bigger than his and am now writing yet another. He’s written a list about “uninformed liberals,” with points like these: - These are the liberals that still believe that President Bush went AWOL in the National Guard just because Tom Brokaw reported it on 60 minutes. No need to comment on this one. [...]
Last time I checked FELONS weren't allowed to vote anywhere. You lose that right when you commit a crime and are convicted. Know what you're talking about before you speak you silly little liberal. Why is this even a big deal? I don't think WHITE felons can vote either.
I for one am sick of the toxic environment created by liberals. You think you're SO much smarter than the rest of us and spout *your* drivel constantly. I see a conservative doing it for once and of course you have to come in with your huge ego and parrot just as much as he is. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Go back and listen to your squawkbox like those fools on Air America and continue blindly believing whatever they tell you. I like how you refer to Limbaugh and Hannity as this, but you turn around and listen to crap like Air America. WOW! You're JUST as bad as the person who wrote the intial posting. Personally I don't like ANY of these pathetic radio hosts and would never refer to myself as either liberal or conservative because I don't believe in labels and would rather pick and choose from both sides.
Please Mr/Mrs Liberal..stop acting so high and mighty. I think you would benefit from listening if you'd somehow quell the diarrhea shooting forth from your mouth like a turd waterfall. Have a mint. Really....you people are just as crappy as conservatives...and with even bigger egos! It's amazing...I hope *this* benefits you. I hate to break your heart, but you don't know everything.
Also, I don't know what "Air America" you are listening to but they make plenty of these "sweeping generalizations" you speak of. You must be dreaming...liberals are just as guilty as conservatives...when you guys wake up and realize that hopefully your egos will burst and I won't have to hear you guffaw everytime the name "Bush" is mentioned. I can't wait until his term is over for this very reason. No more liberals running around yelling like madmen when Bush is on t.v.! Whew!!!
You speak of stereotypes. Let me point out TWO in your post. This shows that you're just as guilty of stereotyping as the Conservative fellow. We are all guilty of it at one time or another:
"you obviously didn't go see it but are one of many conservatives who like to discount things without actually considering them."
This is clearly a stereotype. Most Conservatives like to discount things without actually considering them or doing the backwork? Very open minded there. All Conservatives must be too stupid to do this. What a shame!
"So much energy is spent talking about liberals. Coulter, Hannity, Savage, and O'Reilly write entire books about how awful liberals are."
Yes, all conservatives sit around all day getting all their news from Anne Coulter, psycho-racist Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity. Suuuuuree....keep dreaming! Let's talk about all the books written by liberals about how conservatives are destroying our country (and world.) Oh...did you forget about them? Thought so...
Hanlon...read the title of the post. It's UNINFORMED liberals he is talking about; not democrats like John Kerry. And, yes, I have even met several libs that think very similar to the points listed above.
there are sweeping generalizations coming from both sides here.
i don't know what gets into a person to make them wish to govern using fear tactics other than the desire to control by what ever means necessary - whether by involving the u.s. in a war that had no business being- or a politician that runs a campaign with only negative thoughts regarding the opposition and the evil embodied in this individual. all the american really wants from a politician is to listen to both sides of an issue and make an informed decision based upon this... we want to place our trust in an individual capable to do this...with such inflammatory rhetoric coming from both sides, this is nearly impossible. additionally, the perks of office are such that things get pretty cushy in that seat...all too often a politician spends more time trying to maintain their elected office holding than they do actually pondering the issues and seeking answers.
it is all very discouraging when you have one party, for example... that placed itself upon a pedestal- calling themselves the party of morality... only to see representatives of this same party slide behind the curtains and line their own pockets, hand out jobs to unqualified persons- based upon friendships or donations, participate in sexual behavior privately that they condemn in public... the list is seemingly endless. sure, some got caught...those that we know about.
don't mistake me. this happens within both parties...i mention the above examples because they are the most recent.
what are we to do? finger pointing is easy... but not very productive. let's work on being productive. let's use some common sense. how difficult is that? are we not all in the same boat on this planet? what is so difficult about making an attempt to understand the plight of another?
if someone needs a hand...extend yours...not because it's a good photo op...but because it's the right thing to do.
I won't comment on everything, just what I have researched. Everybody knows Al Gore invented the internet right? Of course that was a guffaw on his part and after losing (nearly single handed) his all but guaranteed presidential election, he has retreated and come up with a new "invention". Global warming is occurring (reported) and so is global cooling (unreported). There is a difference between the process of forming a scientific hypothesis and working towards a theorem, and what Al Gore has done. One is formulated and examined by many scientists in the appropriate fields of study and the other seeks out anyone who will agree with what you say. One is like Evolution, the other is "Intelligent" design.
Is the earth warming? Sure it is. Will cutting man made CO2 emissions have a measurable effect on the atmosphere? NO! About 95% of all global warming is caused by water vapor, not CO2, and 99.9% of that water vapor is produced naturally. How can politicians gain power and monies off of that? The answer is they cannot.. Politicians need to make you feel that they are only ones who can fix things. As for the culprit of CO2, there is a volcano in Africa named MT. Nyamuragira which equals the entire US's CO2 emissions every day! The point is the entire global warming scare mongering is exactly that. The answer to global warming is to prepare for the effects which are inevitable. Let's see if Al Gore comes out and urges the entire coastal populations of each coastline move in 50 miles. There's a vote getter right? I won't hold my breath.
Cheers and have a good day!
Dear Folks,
As a 71 year old man whose resume includes San Quentin, Korea and Law School I am always amused by the people who call themselves "Conservative" .
While they hate the idea that a "liberal" may have something to say, one only needs to see the effects that conservatives have had on this country.
Take Antonin Scalia- there is the conservative mind at work. He thinks it is O.K. to give a man 50 years in prison for stealing some video tapes. Take G Bush-he thinks it is O.K. to invade a country and kill thousands of innocent people so we can prove that Sadaam was a bad guy who might hurt us one day.
How about another of the great conservative minds at work-I refer to Samuel Alito who wrote that the of killing by a policeman of a unarmed 15 year old eighth grader who had stolen a purse and who was fleeing was O.K.
If you like Conservatives than you will love the decision in Gore v. Bush. The reality is that the Liberals believe that things could get better and they mess up, as humans are wont to do. However, the conservative mind thinks that humans are not to be trusted and should be kept under the tightest control and that includes their minds. (Does the evolution dispute sound familiar?). Or the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court who said that giving Marijuana to people who are dying is a no-no. I think that the greatest conservative was Spiro Agnew who said that the liberals were "Nattering nabobs of negativism"
He later resigned because he was taking bribes while he was the V.P. and also when he was Governor of Maryland.
I could show you many mistakes Liberals have made but they pale in significance to a President (Nixon) suborning perjury. Even Clinton who tried to hide from the Right Wing's attempt to turn a sexual incident into an impeachable act was a better President than any conservative President.
My point is -forget the labels and look at what the different political philosophies have to offer.
You might be surprised.
The Bible says " there are none so blind as those who can see but will not"
There are a few minor problems with this article, but for the most part the author is right. Global warming might be something that is very real, the problem is that liberals blame mankind for this and that is the part that the liberal media screws up. Massive climate changes have been going on as long as the earth has existed, do the words Ice Age ring a bell. They should. The fact is that about every 20,000 years the earths poles switch causing massive climate changes. We are about 18,000 years removed from the last ice age which means that we are quickly approaching a peak in global temp. After we reach this peak we will then start to feel cooler until we finally end up in another ice age where the cycle will start again. As for the movie Hanlon was talking about do you think that it is our fault that we are going into an ice age because of hairspray and SUVs if so what did the dinosaurs use to bring on the ice age that took them out. Back to the original article the only other flaw that I saw was that is was Dan Rathers that broke the Bush AWOL story not Tom Brokaw. HANLON those papers that you refer to were found to be FAKE and Dan Rathers was forced to resign because of it.
Just thought i'd leave one quick note about the global warming issue. The Economist recently wrote a special feature about it (I think we can all agree that the Economist is not a liberal - in the american sense anyway - journal) in which they discussed the idea that, while it may not be attributable to human activity, it also is possible that it is. Their opinion of the science went both ways. (I dispute that assertion, but nevermind). However, they noted that we should act as if humans have an effect. After all, you only have to do some simple risk evaluation. If humans have no effect on the environment, then we continue as always, no changes. But, if humans are affecting the environment, then a lack of action will result in catastrophe. The science may go both ways at the moment, but considering the risks isn't it worthwhile to act in self-preservation?
Again, I would point out that CO2 does contribute to global warming, and that it is about the only component which is constantly talked about by the media and politicians. However, all CO2 emissions only account for less than 5% of the problem. Not counting the naturally producing terra and underwater emissions being produced, and mankind cuts "his" emissions by half (hardly even possible) you are looking at less than a 2% difference. Since most scientists actually in the field of climatic change agree that nothing man does will stop the completely natural processes which are taking place, then exactly why has global warming become such a front page issue? It's because there is a great deal of money to be made here. I don't see it as a "liberal" issue either. Frankly IMHO, I think Al Gore was looking for a "vehicle" to launch himself back into national and international politics. I mean the man was VP for 8 years. Why not talk about it then? The standard response might be that all the facts were not in. Well there are hardly ANY facts to claim that man has the ability to hinder global warming. Frankly, maybe we are not supposed to either. Before we start messing up the climatic clock of the only planet that we can survive on, perhaps we should take a step back from the "political" solutions and let the answers come from the scientific community instead. Right now there are scientists saying everything from, nothing is wrong, to it's going to happen over a long period of time, to it's going to happen possibly in a single season! The point man on this issue should not be a politician or a political committee. They are just like actors and actresses, they'll say just about anything, just hand them a script. Anyway that's my 2 cents. Good day mates!
are you disputing the existance of global warming? certainly you are not this ignorant...i would hope not.
as for gore's association with this subject prior to his recent documentary ...gore might be, perhaps, the single most informed politician - in or out of office- regarding this topic.
... it is on the environment that Gore can claim to have what every leader needs but few possess: vision. Before the rest of the world had ever heard the term "global warming," Gore was holding the first congressional hearings on the subject--in 1980! While Republicans like George H.W. Bush were denying the existence of global warming, Gore was helping gather evidence. While researching his book, Gore took a trip to the North Pole on a nuclear submarine and realized that the U.S. Navy had 40 years' worth of data on the thickness of the Arctic ice cap. Recognizing the untapped potential in the vast and largely unused information, he brokered a deal to release it to civilian scientists, who discovered that the ice cap had thinned by 40 percent just since 1970, a story that made world headlines.
~toe
Please concentrate all of your focus and reread my post "toe". I do not deny the existence of global warming......the facts simply do not exist that man can do ANYTHING to hinder its coming. Again, global warming is a completely natural process. The issue does not belong in the political arena, but in the scientific. Please do not act like Al Gore has discovered global warming...many QUALIFIED scientists were studying it for decades now. Mr. Gore is just politicizing the issue for his own benefit, nothing more. We need facts about global warming....not observations. Yes yes, Mr. Gore has gathered all sorts of scientists to talk about "observing" the effects of global warming, but the FACTS of the WHY and actual CAUSE are being buried. There is very little man can do to thwart global warming. This is a problem for people who need to make themselves out to be saviors. There is so much inaccurate hyperbole about the entire issue and when it gets repeated over and over in the media, people will start to believe the misinformation. Kind of like the statement that peace came to Vietnam in 1974......
Cheers!
Recently, I have visited chatrooms which the hosts purport to be rooms for debate. They are "run" by Republicans, hard-line Republicans who are proud of this. There is no debate there. There is only one view - that of the Republican. If this view is not shared by everyone there, they are called names, names I would not repeat here or anywhere else and they are told they are stupid, their birthright is questioned, etc.
What I notice, almost to a person is that they pound away at one question or issue, when there are myriad issues facing us as Americans, regardless of polical affiliation. When I ask a question, I am answered by these Republicans with other questions, and the questions are repeated over and over, with my question still unanswered. Is this what Republicans consider intelligent debate? If I ask a question, wanting to know the Conservative view, it is simply that: Curiosity. I am called anti-American if I ask a question about someone's opinion. If I am wrong about Republicans, prove me wrong. The proof comes with intelligent answers, well thought-out responses, not just name-calling and derision.
I am a proud American who is concerned about all Americans, not just Democrats. This country was founded on debate, questions, considerations and compromise. These have apparently fallen to the trash heap. If you Republicans are such proud Americans, why is there so little eveidence of consideration and compromise?
Now, I am fair-minded enough to know that not all Republicans are this closed-minded, although I have not seen widespread evidence to the contrary.
Can it be that the only defense Republicans have is a good offense? Why don't you want Democrats and Liberals to know how you feel? Is it because you only know what you're fed on talk radio or Fox News (an oxymoron, to be sure)?
I am curious about all sides of any issue, not just Liberal or Democrat opinions. Defending your party should not be to the exlusion of all other opinions, for each of us is entitled to ours. You might not agree, and more often than not, Republicans are more than ready to vehemently chastise those of us who do not agree with them, but we ARE entitled.
There are uneducated and under-educated people of all politcal persuasions. There are poor and undernourished people of all political persuasions, there are both Democrats and Republicans of all races, religions and sexual persuasions. Would the Republicans defend and protect just those who are Republicans? I hope not.
At the end of the day, we are all in this together, but what I have seen is that Republicans would like to round up all us Dems and herd us off to Iraq or wherever else there is a chance Americans will be needlessly slaughtered. If this is the case, who would you all have to pound on? Who would you have to blame? After ahwile, it's all just preaching to the choir. What kind of debate is that?
of course the issue of global warming belongs in the political arena... for only in this forum can there be laws written and implemented to slow down this "natural process" which is rapidly being accelerated by our own hand. i am pleased that you do not deny the existence of global warming... it is up to us all on both sides of the fence politically to take measures that will address this issue.
~toe
Well we'll have to disagree on the "political" arena. Since there is no scientific consensus on global warming (at least by the scientists which are actually qualified), I choose to let the scientists sort it out before seeking a political solution. The changes being proposed remind me of shooting at birds with a carbine. Sure it's possible to come up with the right trajectory, but the odds are nonsensical.
That is what we have here.... alot of non-sense and a rush to judgment. Again I would reiterate that there is not any conclusive proof that we can hinder global warming. So why rush into it? That's all...
I find the previous poster to be the "norm" when it comes to conservatism. Basically, conservatives can be born into any sort of "political or economic" family. It is the recognition of certain values and ideals which turn ppl into conservatives. When these same ppl see what is happening in areas such as the judicial system visa vie "activism" without representation, they tend to get a little outspoken about it...as they should. I find that "liberals" are just as capable of showing intolerance to anyone who does not share their "values" as well. It is not surprising to find that most liberals turn into conservatives as they grow older (and wiser). There is a basic ignorance about how economics really works in the USA and abroad. Economics is not taught in our school systems. Frankly, i believe this is done on purpose. If economics were taught to our children from grade 4 on...you would see conservatism grow in this country by leaps and bounds. Liberals have the best of intentions....they are not bad people....they just lack the basic information that would show them that most of their ideas will not produce the desired results...although they will "feel" better about themselves. In a way conservatism is based on "tough"love, but the love is there in spades. The toughness comes from knowing that to help someone up...the person in need must first find it within themselves to improve. No quick fix or free program will instill self worth. It is this self worth and desire which has obviously propelled the previous poster to the heights of higher achievement. No social program can do that...it comes from within. What is needed is to shine this beacon of hope and understanding to our children and to build this path in all of our schools to conservatism and true freedom.
Buy cheap vaniqa...
Buy vaniqa Buy cheap vaniqa online. Buy cheap vaniqa online. Generic vaniqa...
Last I checked right wingers weren't looking for white felons to remove from the ballots.
I'm not going any farther than saying the first statement is a flat lie.
As far as your article, I'd like to say it grieves me to see these puppet liberals you're talking about. The scary part of it all is - how should I put this - have any of you ever played the Metal Gear Solid series? As you play through them you come to find out that the real enemy is a group called "the patriots." They are a secret organization that runs America without us even knowing it. In MGS2 you find out that they basically make all the laws and regulations from their seats of power within the organization and only use the "democratic process" to put on a show to keep the populace in ignorant bliss. They even go so far as to create a masive submarine supercomputer to digitally censor information over the internet. It seems a little farfetched but at the same time a little too close to home. If someone wanted to take over the country, that's pretty much how they'd have to do it. you couldn't just stage a coup; the US military is just too powerful. The only way to get in control would be to manipulate the election process. So if one political party could hype enough people up onto their side, they could choose their candidates from their (unelected) seats of power within the party, make sure that person will rule as THEY see fit, and successfully turn America into a silent dictatorship. (BTW if you were going to say something about electing candidates at the primary, they would obviously be doing the same thing there, too)
So, think about that next time a commedian gets a few EXTRA cheers for making a "Bush is stupid" joke.
As far as the election process is concerned, I think tracy had the right idea. I also don't buy into the whole Republican/Democrat thing. When I vote, I go to either candidate's websites and also neutral sites to see what they (say they) believe about the issues. I don't vote for anyone just because they belong to a certain party.
THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT TRUE DEMOCRACY!!!!!
if you don't let anyone tell you what to think, they cannot control your vote!
Another easy test is if you've seen Fahrenheit 911 and believe anything in it but haven't seen Fahrenhype 911(history channel documentary about moore's fake-umentary), you may be under liberal control, to an extent
And HOBOBOH, it wasn't totally clear whether you were saying evolution was or wasn't the scientific process. So to clarify for everyone, Intelligent Design is the scientific one. You can't call an argument scientific if one of your initial conditions is to set the opposing theory to untrue and then use that condition to say that you've proven the opposing theory wrong. (ie: saying that my blue toyota camry isn't a car because it's blue, given that you set the condition that no cars are blue) The main scientific problem is that people who claim to be quoting science fail to note that there are TWO theories of evolution: MACROevolution and MICROevolution. The third law of thermodynamics has to do with Entropy. Entropy basically says that the world is always naturally moving into chaos. For thermodynamics, this explains why when you put icecubes into a cup of hot coffee you get lukewarm coffee, but when lukewarm coffee is sitting around it never spontanneously turns into hot coffee with ice in it. What entropy has to do with evolution is basically this (mathematically speaking)
Current species + entropy = Microevolution
Current species - entropy = Macroevolution
Macroevolution by definition REQUIRES that some force (maybe God) not only negates the natural law of entropy but also pushes species forward. "natural selection" doesn't fit the bill because all it would do is negate some of the force of entropy; it can't force a random mutation to be beneficial. The only thing macroevolutionists do is guess at statistical numbers to assign to the probability (which is still stacked against them{if there's a one in a gazillion chance of macroevolution just happenning on it's own, then there's a
(gaz-1)/gaz chance of intelligent design}meaning that the scientifically minded would believe in intelligent design anyway.) and ignore anything that doesn't say what they want to hear (ie:missing linkS)and try to force their illogical belief system on others by pushing legislation to keep creationism out of schools despite the fact that it is still a theory that hasn't been disproven(and is statistically more likely) all because their afraid to believe there's a God who might think He knows better than them how they ought to live. And the Really sad part is that they don't realize God doesn't just want to force you to follow a bunch of rules; he gave you free will in the first place he'd be the last to try and take it away. He wants a RELATIONSHIP! He loves you even when you fall down and get boo-boos. He only gives us rules because He loves us and doesn't want to see us hurt ourselves by doing crap that the world tells us to. (like vote liberal{lol just kidding})
I hope that helps clear some things up. Sorry for the rant. feel free to reply if you have any questions. (no loud obnoxious bs please)
I am probably as conservative as it comes, however, not everything in this post is factually correct.
I am a Canadian. And our health care system here in Alberta is second to none. I can give you two personal examples. Three years ago I had a serious illness. I was in the hospital, properly diagnosed, and transferred to a specialty hospital all inside of HOURS... not days... not weeks... NO waiting lines. That same illness would have bankrupted me in the US if I had no health care insurance, and if I did, it would have been canceled after I was released.
My grandson needed to be cared for this week for a breathing difficulty. He was transferred to the Children's Hospital in Calgary inside of 4 hours. Again, no waiting, no lineups, and no additional cost to my daughter and son-in-law.
The Canadian health care system has challenges, but far less then the US model. Our percentage of GDP spent on health care is a magnitude of 5-7% less than in the US. Specialists that left Canada for the States 10 years ago are coming back AND specialists that are American citizens are now coming here because of the cost of malpractice insurance in the US.
So, in short, when a person needs health care in Canada, it is there. A serious illness does not result in catastrophic financial loss, and my health care insurance can not be canceled.
I have always said that if we could have the American system of government, the American gun laws, and combine them with the Canadian Health care system, we would pretty much have a perfect country.
Arguing online will do nothing for you. Stop it.
Sure Bill. Just cuz you said so.
One can not compare medical Care in Canada to another Country as of yet. You have a similar to the one in Germany, having lived in Europe for the better part of 12 years and having friends in the medical system that was once touted as one of the best "Second to None" you will find that as long as uncontrolled immigration and freeloaders that thrive on a social system will eventually cost the country. Those problems are alive and well here where you do have to wait long hours for care or even weeks there is no hurry to get medical care since a nurse makes about 1400 Euro and Doctors average no more than 2900 Euro a month. On weekends you will be lucky to have a single nurse watching a ward with up to 25 patients. Maybe many years back the social system of medicine and school worked but that is no longer the truth here, and the German government is trying hard to change it. Recently voting to raise taxes from 16% to 19% on purchases as well as the average family tax from 48% to 52%. It may seem go now but once additional immigrants are recruited to come to Canada as well as those that follow and leach of a society you can bet you will be in the same boat as the EU is right now. I invite anyone to research and live here for a little bit luckily I have tax relief on my purchases and electric and oil bills that I can survive if not there is no way to make it here living a good life. I have seven German employees and I hear their monetary pains daily. Like all social programs they are great in theory but once you place the realities of citizens that do not contribute that is when you will start to suffer and once you force everyone to start contributing or face some kind of consequences then you have the beginning of another problem I bring your attention to the riots in France.
I wasn't aware of making any comments about evolution as a scientific process, but I suspect "Michael" just wished to use that sentence as a launch pad for his own. So be it. I won't go into a long diatribe on how "intelligent design" ( a complete oxymoron) is not able to stand up to scrutiny, but suffice it to say that evolution is the "theory" which is widely accepted by almost all people who truly THINK. Besides, what is so difficult to accept? You can have your cake and eat it too if you wish. G*D produced a self running program (Nature) which is able to modify itself and adapt to the constantly changing environments.....it's as simple as that, if that's what you want. Unfortunately, I think that the core believers of intelligent design need to maintain the illusion that man is the epitome of G*D's work and special above all that has come before us. This is where a "science" goes off the rails. While man is a wonderment to behold for sure...we are not the pinnacle ...we are the latest Model T to come along...that's all. In the long history of our own planet, we are a new "experiment" and the votes are still out whether this type of species will be able to run the marathon of evolution. It's a long race and we have just started out. Are we a flash in the pan? Time will tell. There is absolutely no evidence of our creator, so getting an answer to our questions through "IT" is impossible. We must muddle our way in G*D's absence as best we can on our own. Frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way. Not knowing my creator frees me to think for myself. Perhaps that is exactly what G*D intended and he gave us a process (evolution) to help us get to the truth we seek. Perhaps not of course, perhaps it is a blind universe we live in and there is no one watching or waiting for us. That's OK too. Besides it's not up to me...or you. That's why I think intelligent design is a farce. G'Day and cheers!
As for the health care comments , I believe Ted in Germany is dead on...it's apples to oranges you see. Besides Canada has 25 million people. The USA has 300 million. That's a pretty big variable. The Canadian dollar is also 20% undervalued to the American dollar, wanna guess one of the reasons why? Socializing a private system doe NOT make it better. Governments do NOT run efficient programs. What is needed is to call off the "DOGS OF WAR" in the medical industry who suck the life blood from the field and divert the profits to themselves. I don't know what you call them in your country, but here we refer to them as lawyers....... They are mainly responsible for the runaway costs in the pharmacutical industry and hospitals. Reform the medical field by reforming the tort laws, but guess what...the government which unfortunately private citizens seem to be destined to giving control of the health care system have already been bought off. Yes it's quite a pickle... G'day and cheers!
I don't consider myself a particularly political person, since it's not the main focus of my life. Personally, I consider myself a libertarian...
But what I want to say is, why do we argue about "liberals" and "conservatives" and "greens" and so on. Why can't we care about the issues, and the PEOPLE in the government, rather than their parties? The parties were made for the people, not the other way around.
Please, email me if you want to discuss... discuss@lookoutsnoopy.com
"This post is not about them them. This is for the liberal that believes everything they hear; never questions the source and never thinks logically about the big picture; which is indeed part the problem."
You mean like most Christians?
Certainly one can be conservative and "anti-christian". I believe conservatives to be thinkers...and christianity if it is examined...as well as most any other religion will be found to be ludicrous. Certainly you don't have to be a christian to be conservative......Ii mean really plz...............
The amount of percentage...low or otherwise is not the issue. Having a majority is not a guarantee of being correct. AS for recognizing a "higher" power, I do. All I have to do is look around me. The universe is vast beyond the comprehension of this great ape. However, just because I believe that something created this universe(and others I "suppose"), does not automatically validate ANY of the religions flying around the globe today or in the past. Man is a great storyteller and that is exactly what religions represent. They are stories told by a people without the benefit of a foundation of scientific knowledge. Ancient man found "himself" in a world controlled by Nature, a world capable of great violence and unfairness. This is still true today. Nature is a violent process. They lacked the explain their place in this planet and what role they truly played. They didn't have the capability to examine the earth and universe with the discipline of science and reason. They had no idea what even the other planets were. I could go on and on, but suffice it to say without this ability, man simply made up stories to fit his wishes, even his most altruistic. These stories are a reflection of how man of the past saw their world and their place in it. As for the christian bible, you cannot verify a source with itself. It is both unoriginal and wholly suspect as anything but a book of fiction. It was written in spurts long after the "supposed" events took place and by mostly anonymous authors speaking in hindsight and without first person knowledge. Most people today do not accept the bible in its entirety which is quite interesting. So, which parts are right and correct? Which parts really happened? No one knows and there is no way to find out. Is Jesus an historical figure? Certainly not!! Jesus cannot be verified by any other sources. This is quite an amazing conundrum. I mean Jesus supposedly did all of these amazing feats of wizadry and had thousands of followers following him everywhere he went.....and yet none of the historians of the period ever mentioned any of it. When Jesus supposedly died on the cross the sky grew dark for three hours. Certainly a society based upon astral observations would have recorded this fantastic event, but alas no.
Again, I could go on and on pointing out the almost infinite amount of "errors" of the bible. This is why the church is adamant about getting the children to be indoctrinated at an early age. Kids will believe anything. Think about it, if you were raised by your parents in a loving home (probable but not guaranteed) and taught right from wrong without the "benefit" of the church and then on your 18th birthday (an arbitrary date) were told these stories, do you honestly believe you would embrace them as "gospel"? More than likely you would put them in the same category as the Brothers Grimm. This would be the correct thing to do too. Why does man have religion? Man still embraces religion because he still needs it. The percentages of people needing it is shrinking however, and one day man will gently put christianity right next to the other past religions. The only reason other discarded religions of the past failed is because people stopped believing in them. They were valid until they were replaced. What will replace christianity? I do not know. I can only hope it is with reason and the truth. Enough damage has been done already in the name of the present fairy tale. Grow up and out of it, if you can.
It seems to me that climate change is too important an issue to remain a political football. May I respectfully draw the attention of those of you whose politics don't dictate their scientific opinion to this recent conversation:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1793597.htm
Ron Oxburgh, whose credentials I think you'll agree should give his opinion considerable weight, addresses all the points raised above by Hoboboh and Josh C. He quotes actual numbers in regard to CO2 concentrations and warming rates, as opposed to pointless handwaving about how many scientists believe what. The advantage of this kind of numbers is that you can check them yourself against multiple sources, and draw your own conclusions from them.
Hopefully a few of you will take the time to read what he says and think about it, and the problem of uninformed and misinformed citizens (of whatever political persuasion) will get that much smaller as a result.
I read the above link and it was fairly accurate...and yet...incomplete. Here is the "skinny" on what " Global Warming" is actually comprised of:...
Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
Percent of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor ----- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%
Total 100.000% 100.000%
As you can see it is water vapor which is the dominant warming agent...not CO2! The U.S. department of Energy statistics leave out water vapor as does every other environmental group...Wanna know why? Because it shows the folly of the current media melee. Man has practically no ability to affect or hinder global warming. 99% of the water vapor effect is naturally produced!! Of course using these numbers nullifies the ability of politicians and environmentalists to gain power and monies. So guess what, everybody is silent about water vapor...go ahead and look..the best you'll be able to do is find perhaps a passing mention of it with no correlative numbers. Funny huh? Follow the money folks...and you'll find the truth..or lack thereof.
Cheers!!
Well the table did not align itself after I moved it so I will retype it manually for you
Percent of Total Percent of Total-adjusted for water vapor
Water Vapor -------------------- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 100.000% 0.360%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc.gases) 1.432% 0.072%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
well manually didn't work either
you'll have to be patient and focus...sorry
Lol...what's to reply about? I'll just watch "Miracle on 34th street"...it'll amount to the same thing
Hey Michael,
I disagree about global warming. It is an issue and it's your pathetic brandwashed mind that think it's not. There are facts from several national and government bodies throughout Europe published that support it's a growing problem.
But Bush would have you think it's not to continue to support the polluting oil industry (which by the way controls the entire planet).
Do you have idea how many "missing children" are in fact sex slaves to the "controllers" of this world? I was one of them that broke away.
Tilly Star
LOL...well that certainly was all over the place....Ahhh the old 'evil empire" syndrome...all those in favor of taking down the oil companies...quit using oil...just do it....save the planet...I know you can do it .. if you just try.
By the way, most thinking ppl do not deny "global warming'...it's just how much is man responsible for and how much man can actually "affect" a solution. The short answer is "negligible" to both. Here's the kicker...since 99.99 % of "global warming" is of a completely natural orgigin....perhaps we are not meant to do anyhting at all. I mean, who are we to change the planets climate? if the darn Polar bears time is up...then it's up!! If our time is up...then it's up!! Get over it. Hey, worse case scenario, I'll end up a sex slave for a oil company...:P
Cheers!
I am wondering if you have actually seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"? if not...you really should before you make yourself sound any more foolish than you already have...if you have seen it...how do you explain your previous responses here to global warming... and man's inability to alter this progressive threat to our planet? Mr. Gore is running for nothing. What possible motive do you see in his making of this film? How can you, with any responsibility at all call it a political motive? Oh...and by the way, your hero, King GW Bush finally admitted to the existance of global warming... 'bout time I would say... now if only he could see the damage that he and his ilk have done in their efforts to lesson the EPA standards since he took office... what a dunce. Without a doubt, King Bush will go down as the absolute worst president ever to have held office in the United States to date.
first...clinton was not the only president to have been impeached...Andrew Johnson, president of the United States was impeached and acquitted May 26, 1868. William J. Clinton, president of the United States was impeached ...and acquitted Feb. 12, 1999.
when it comes to clinton...
It seems that you are quite obviously male...and unable to think beyond items concerning that area located between your belt and your knees...(a multitude of presidents were found to have committed extramarital affairs while in office) perhaps..if you could set aside this for a moment...you could actually recognize a few facts:
Under the clinton presidency the unted states enjoyed an era of progress and prosperity.
Longest economic expansion in American history
The President’s strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993.
More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.
Highest homeownership in American history
A strong economy and fiscal discipline kept interest rates low, making it possible for more families to buy homes. The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years.
Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment
Since 1992, reading and math scores have increased for 4th, 8th, and 12th graders, math SAT scores are at a 30-year high, the number of charter schools has grown from 1 to more than 2,000, forty-nine states have put in place standards in core subjects and federal investment in education and training has doubled.
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship. At the same time, taxpayers have saved $18 billion due to the decline in student loan defaults, increased collections and savings from the direct student loan program.
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
President Clinton and Vice President Gore’s new commitment to education technology, including the E-Rate and a 3,000 percent increase in educational technology funding, increased the percentage of schools connected to the Internet from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999.
Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Because of President Clinton’s comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties, more police, and smart prevention, as well as common sense gun safety laws, the overall crime rate declined for 8 consecutive years, the longest continuous drop on record, and is at the lowest level since 1973.
100,000 more police for our streets
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, President Clinton enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.
Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Since the President signed the Brady bill in 1993, more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons have been stopped from buying guns. Gun crime has declined 40 percent since 1992.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
To help parents succeed at work and at home, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Over 20 million Americans have taken unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member.
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
The President pledged to end welfare as we know it and signed landmark bipartisan welfare reform legislation in 1996. Since then, caseloads have been cut in half, to the lowest level since 1968, and millions of parents have joined the workforce. People on welfare today are five times more likely to be working than in 1992.
Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family’s income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth since 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton’s Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year — the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
In his 1995 State of the Union Address, President Clinton challenged Americans to join together in a national campaign against teen pregnancy. The birth rate for teens aged 15-19 declined every year of the Clinton Presidency, from 60.7 per 1,000 teens in 1992 to a record low of 49.6 in 1999.
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
The Clinton Administration expanded efforts to provide mothers and newborn children with health care. Today, a record high 82 percent of all mothers receive prenatal care. The infant mortality rate has dropped from 8.5 deaths per 1,000 in 1992 to 7.2 deaths per 1,000 in 1998, the lowest rate ever recorded.
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union
Efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union.
Protected millions of acres of American land
President Clinton has protected more land in the lower 48 states than any other president. He has protected 5 new national parks, designated 11 new national monuments and expanded two others and proposed protections for 60 million acres of roadless areas in America’s national forests.
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion — the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clinton’s call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America has put its fiscal house in order. The deficit was $290 billion in 1993 and expected to grow to $455 billion by this year. Instead, we have a projected surplus of $237 billion.
Lowest government spending in three decades
Under President Clinton federal government spending as a share of the economy has decreased from 22.2 percent in 1992 to a projected 18.5 percent in 2000, the lowest since 1966.
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
President Clinton enacted targeted tax cuts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, $500 child tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in 35 years.
More families own stock than ever before
The number of families owning stock in the United States increased by 40 percent since 1992.
Most diverse cabinet in American history
The President has appointed more African Americans, women and Hispanics to the Cabinet than any other President in history. He appointed the first female Attorney General, the first female Secretary of State and the first Asian American cabinet secretary ever.
President Nixon's foul deeds related to Watergate would have warranted impeachment if he had not resigned. But other notable things were also going on: While claiming to seek peace, Nixon fueled the war in Southeast Asia. Openly and covertly, American bombers dropped huge quantities of explosives on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Shortly after becoming president, Nixon ordered secret air attacks on Cambodia. Between March 1969 and May 1970, the U.S. military flew 3,630 bombing raids over Cambodia. The Nixon administration falsified Pentagon records to hide the bombing from Congress.
During Nixon's presidency, the death toll included more than 25,000 U.S. soldiers and half a million Vietnamese people — most of them civilians. The Watergate break-in at Democratic Party headquarters, of course, became a gigantic media scandal. Yet Nixon's murderous orders never ranked as scandalous. When he died in April 1994, many obituaries praised him as a genius in "foreign policy."
Midway through President Reagan's second term, when the Iran-Contra scandal erupted, the news media emphasized the arms- for-hostages deal that sent missiles to the Iranians and funneled profits to the Nicaraguan Contras. But we heard little about the end use of the money — supplying a Contra army that routinely massacred civilians.
...no shortage of scandals...sexual or otherwise... clinton lied initially to avoid personal embarrassment regarding his zipper problem...bush lied and nearly 3,000 americans died- not to mention countless iraqi ...with estimates that are as much as in the hundreds of thousands.
and another thing..."bush is not conservative enough"????? OMG... how many personal liberties would you like to give away? how pesky to you must be that little document called the Constitution of the United States... how irritating it must be for you to view documents like the Bill of Rights... you are one scary individual.
in my haste to click and send i did not include the links to the above information as was my intent...i plead guilty on this and appreciate your mention of these. it was hardly an attempt to make myself "look informed about current issues"...but rather to show you that i did, in fact, do my homework as you suggested concerning the deeds of president clinton...you are among the extreme minority who does not recognize the many accomplishments of his administration because you are so overwhelmingly obsessed with his sexual proclivities.
there are real issues at hand... and yes...the willingness on your part and others of your ilk to give up personal liberties and freedoms. to allow things such as illegal domestic surveillance like phone calls and banking records..to say nothing when legislation passed is so broadly worded that nearly anyone can be declared an "enemy combatant" ... (remember the nixon years and his paranoia?..how easily this can be abused!)...the current administration wants to call this activity in iraq a "war" but does not feel at all compelled to abide by the rules set forth in the geneva convention...the elimination of habeas corpus...holding people in secret torture cells... is this your idea of good government? or is this too liberal for you?
the mere mention of the ACLU set people like you all in a tizzy... the ACLU... who spend countless well-spent hours defending those little pieces of paper that you so detest...the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Toe,
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Ex-president Clinton was impeached for committing adultery?
He was actually impeached for the crime of perjury. It wasn't only an ethical issue, although he violated that too. As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he not only should adhere to every code of conduct that is required of his soldiers, but he should set a standard that is above reproach, and frankly his conduct was "unbecoming" to his position.
Another thing is that Clinton had many women making accusations of his improprieties, which illustrated a long history of sexual deviances. Had Clinton been a Republican, liberals would have never considered making so light of his abuse of his positions. Wrong is wrong, no matter who's doing it. In fact, I switched parties when I saw the Democrats staged the "walk out" during the impeachment hearing. They illustrated to me that they were a group that had no core-values, and as a woman I didn't appreciate them condoning that abuse of power. Women still struggle in this country to have high-ranking positions and as they strive for the top, they often have to work for men; these men abusing their positions should never be tolerated or excused.
i merely pointed out flaws in statements made in above paragraphs...i absolutely know why the vote was taken to impeach clinton ...this was not what i was disputing...but the mention (above) that he was the only president to have been impeached. this is incorrect.
the aclu takes on any number of cases...you love to bring up nambla because of what they stand for. the aclu seeks to protect those rights which we all have ... the aclu also went to court for the right of the american nazi party to march through a heavily jewish population in skokie ... i am not a fan of the nazi thinking either. but the aclu was doing what they set out to do...protect the stated rights of american citizens. "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. "~John F. Kennedy
as for your willingness to so quickly hand over my personal liberties...you need to carefully consider what it is you are saying. this notion of giving up liberties that we all cherish ...these are what set us apart from other nations. why don't you look at WHY american foreign policy is so hated ...WHY are we in the crosshairs of their rage? What do you suppose the reason for this is?
Toe,
You speak of the ACLU, but you really don't understand what they fight for. The truth is that they would stand up for the Nazi party, but not for the Jewish population. They are Anti-Semetic, Anti-Christian and Anti-American.
My daughter once wanted to sing a song in a school "Diversity" talent show... after practicing for months, exactly one week before the show, they decided not to let her sing it because it stated the name "Jesus." There were several other religious songs being performed because it was all suppose to be in the name of diversity, but unless my daughter changed the lyrics to "god" instead of "Jesus," they wouldn't let her represent her faith. We contacted th