|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 9, 2007 8:53:08 GMT -5
You are right. My bad. Well, 5 kids isn't nearly as insane as 6. I can not imagine feeding, clothing, disciplining, cleaning up after 5 children. How do you watch a Braves game? I've actually heard from big families and they say that after 5 kids it gets easier because by that time the older ones can help take care of the younger ones. I've heard it said several times so I think there might be something to it. As for TV time.....that's why parents make their kids go to bed early!!!
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 9, 2007 8:53:24 GMT -5
Ok- Now back to the original topic. Which was?
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 9, 2007 9:26:45 GMT -5
Ok- Now back to the original topic. Which was? family warming
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 9, 2007 10:08:43 GMT -5
For some reason, that song "He's got the whole world" is now running through my head...
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 9, 2007 10:09:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 9, 2007 16:10:15 GMT -5
no one on the left has even one criticism for China and their "contribution" to the destruction of Earth... I think it's this kind of straw man argument that keep these arguments going.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 9, 2007 16:18:43 GMT -5
there you go again with that "straw man".... how in the hell is China a straw man? ? they would even be exempt from Kyoto!!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 9, 2007 16:19:58 GMT -5
I think bama's question is very appropriate and I've not heard anything from the Left but the lamest possible answers.
If global warming is the imminent crisis/catastrophe that they say it is, then why would you deliberately exclude two countries who are very soon to supplant the United States as the world's biggest polluters (though, I note, they will NOT supplant the US and the world's biggest producer of goods and services) within the next 5 to 10 years?
The only answer I've heard from the hysterics is that China and India can't afford to make the changes necessary to reduce their pollution without negatively impacting their lives to an 'unfair' degree.
El Toro Kaka.
When Kyoto is re-written to force India and China to comply with the same restrictions that it currently would place on the United States, get back to me.
Aren't you Leftists always prattling on about everyone 'paying their fair share'? Well, it's time that China- who is building a new coal plant EVERY WEEK- and India pay THEIR fair share too.
|
|
syme
Cog in Training
Posts: 52
|
Post by syme on Apr 9, 2007 16:33:27 GMT -5
I would say that China can't be forced to do anything, which includes the Kyoto treaty. They are what I would call selfish Socialists. They really only care about their country and people and have no desire to be a part of a one world government which differs from American socialists.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 9, 2007 18:35:28 GMT -5
I would say that China can't be forced to do anything, which includes the Kyoto treaty. They are what I would call selfish Socialists. They really only care about their country and people and have no desire to be a part of a one world government which differs from American socialists. Well and good....so how does that make the USA the destroyer of the earth, as the blondie straw men would have us believe....
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 9, 2007 18:56:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 9, 2007 19:19:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 9, 2007 21:10:59 GMT -5
Actually, I think that China- and India too, for that matter, recognize that Kyoto is as big a piece of crap as we on the Right side (pun intended) of the debate- and yes there is a debate- do here in the US.
I suspect that the Chinese see this as a way to rein in the industrial behemoth that is the United States by artifically capping our output and arbitrarily limiting our production capacity.
It will also inevitably negatively impact our standard of living, thus giving them a far more credible argument that things in the West aren't really (all that much) better than they are in China, and so it will slow the push for capitalism and personal freedom in China.
Bear in mind that many in the modern environmental movement are nothing more than former socialists/communists. They couldn't defeat the West ideologically, so they had to devise another method to defeat us and settled on environmentalism. After all, what cad is against clean water, clean air and safe food? It's a dishonest argument....but a good one.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 9, 2007 21:13:50 GMT -5
when kreuschev said "we will bury you" i took it at that time to NOT mean with military, but to take over this country at the ballot box and in the schools....he was RIGHT it is beginning to look...
the socialist one world government will indeed "BURY YOU".
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 9, 2007 21:41:51 GMT -5
Spot on, bill.
Exactly right.
Since the end of the Cold War, much of the former USSR's secret files have been released to the public.
As for their military, what the files show is that the West greatly exaggerated the capabilities of the Soviet military, in terms of individual soldier's training, mid- and high-level leadership (with exceptions), quality and availability of equipment and inferior technology in most areas.
What they had in copious amounts during the cold war was exactly what they had in copious amounts during WW2: warm bodies and second-rate equipment (with some exceptions).
I've very little doubt that, if we had had to fight them in Europe prior to maybe the late 1980s, we would have lost a conventional confrontation with the Soviets and we would have had to consider using tactical nukes to stop them.
However, they lacked the capability to bring those superior numbers to bear over here in the continential US. Their amphibious forces were so poor, I doubt they would have been able to successfully mount an invasion across the Bering Strait, much less across the Atlantic Ocean.
Like you said though...where they failed militarily, they may yet succeed by converting our Liberals- willingly, I'd say- to Communists/Socialsts by controlling first education, then law, then the media and finally politics.
Thus far, steps 1, 2 and 3 are complete (or nearly so).
2008 could speed the success of step 4 if someone like Hillary is elected.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Apr 10, 2007 7:20:51 GMT -5
Yeah good call BillT-
China and Russia are becoming more and more capitalistic every year. Capitalism is the gateway drug to Democracy. There are huge middle classes and growing in China, Russia and India----and they are expressing their buying power.
Globalization is the ultimate flower of democracy, NOT SOCIALISM. Markets are being opened and the interdependence that you seem to fear has produced stability and enhanced commerce.
As usual BillT you are WRONG!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 10, 2007 8:15:55 GMT -5
there you go again with that "straw man".... how in the hell is China a straw man? ? they would even be exempt from Kyoto!! "no one on the left has even one criticism for China and their "contribution" to the destruction of Earth..." Straw Man: An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated Obviously people on the left have criticized China for pollution. Your "left" is a straw man that only criticizes the US. I wonder why that straw man hates freedom? So just stop it.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 10, 2007 14:33:15 GMT -5
I'm not so sure that you can even say that is an accurate statement.
I'll have to do some digging, but I think it was Al Gore himself who said that the Chinese were acting totally reasonably by not even pretending to comply with Kyoto- not that they techinically have to because, for some reason, the treaty specifically excludes them- because we in the United States weren't signed on to Kyoto. Gore seems to believe that, if we cripple our own economy and set our standard of living back about, oh, 150 years- while Gore and his hypocritical ilk buy carbon credits to offset not their pollution but their 'guilt', China will inevitably follow suit.
Uhhh....when has China ever voluntarily followed anything we've done?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 10, 2007 14:43:18 GMT -5
If you can read this story and still believe that scientists have any real understanding of global warming, You're truly a lost cause: dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/04/10/deforestation_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20070410110030&dcitc=w19-502-ak-0000Tree-Planting Could Add to WarmingResearchers from Stanford University in California and Universite Montpellier II in France contribute to the study.OK....so let me understand this: Planting trees = good for the planet and good for global warming Planting trees = bad for the planet and bad for global warming Dammit...now I have to check my carbon credits to make sure that the people who are planting trees all over the place to offset my personal 'carbon footprint' are planting them in Brazil and not Canada.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 10, 2007 14:47:50 GMT -5
Doesn't this guy know the debate is over? Those dang conservative-fascist Danes... newsbusters.org/node/11940Another Skeptical Global Warming Documentary You'll Never See on American TVI think that last is a good question. Why aren't we in the United States seeing "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and "Doomsday Called Off"? Why isn't it being shown in schools as balance to Gore's crockumentary? Why are the global warming hysterics running scared from honest and open debate?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 11, 2007 8:11:00 GMT -5
Why aren't we in the United States seeing "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and "Doomsday Called Off"? Yes, they should show it in sociology class. Explain how the science community has thoroughly discredited it yet reich-wing propaganda outlets still champion it.
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Apr 11, 2007 12:05:53 GMT -5
What do the conservatives on this board think about Newt Gingrich's views on global warming?In a debate Tuesday with former Democratic presidential nominee and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, Gingrich agreed that global warming is a global problem caused by human-produced carbon emissions. However, he didn’t agree with Kerry on how to deal with it. Kerry favors regulation, whereas Gingrich likes market incentives.
At one point, Kerry asked Gingrich what he would say to GOP climate-change holdout Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, who famously referred to global warming as a hoax.
“I’d say the evidence is sufficient and that we have to move towards the best way to reduce carbon emissions,” Gingrich replied to applause.
But he added, “This is very hard to do for a conservative” because it could lead to a conservative’s worst nightmare: “bigger government and more bureaucracy.”
“But there has to be a green conservative if we’re serious about a global carbon reduction,” Gingrich said.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 11, 2007 12:50:53 GMT -5
My take is that he gave the "politically correct" answer...there are many subjects about which Newt can talk intelligently...earth sciences is not one of them...
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Apr 11, 2007 13:14:11 GMT -5
Politically correct by whose standards, though? Surely not the conservative base that most likely wouldn't elect him because of his new found agreeance that global warming is a legitimate problem! Why on Earth would Newt pander to the left?
Could it not be that perhaps he actually believes there's a global warming problem?
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 11, 2007 17:08:53 GMT -5
Politically correct by whose standards, though? Surely not the conservative base that most likely wouldn't elect him because of his new found agreeance that global warming is a legitimate problem! Why on Earth would Newt pander to the left? Could it not be that perhaps he actually believes there's a global warming problem? By "politically correct", I mean that "we" (this nation) has reached the point of no return...POLITICALLY, people think that not only man, but AMERICANS, are destroying the planet...Newt already realizes that taking any position other than blondie's will be political suicide... I can guarantee that both party platforms in 2008 will have planks "dealing with" man-made global warming....the science be damned...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 11, 2007 17:22:31 GMT -5
I'd point out that Al Gore's crockumentary has been even more thoroughly discredited...except that we in America aren't being permitted to see/hear the evidence.
Again, if the two anti-Gore movies are so easily refuted, then why the fear of showing them and letting the people decide?
Propaganda, which is exactly what Gore's schlockumentary is, rarely passes the public's scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 11, 2007 17:29:24 GMT -5
frag-
Why is it that Conservatives aren't allowed to disagree?
I mean, just because dissent is not tolerated on the Left doesn't mean that we on the Right operate under the same monolithic, group-think principals. On the contrary- the Right isn't afraid of dissent. We're tolerant that way.
Newt went further than I would when it comes to believing in antropogenic global warming. I have serious doubts as to just how much of an impact man can have on climate, as I think the warming is part of a natural cycle. As I belive it is part of a natural cycle, I also have serious doubts as to how much of an impact man can have- short of putting giant venetian blinds between earth and the sun- to reduce the trend.
I would have liked to have seen the debate focus more on estabishing whether global climate change is being caused by humans rather than concede that it is and debating what the most effective means to deal with it would be.
Still, if it comes between Kerry's plan to increase the size and power of the federal government to 'solve' the problem of letting the inherent inventiveness of humans and offering incentives to spur their entrepreneurship while keeping the federal government out of the equation (Newt's plan), I know which one I'd support.
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Apr 11, 2007 17:53:26 GMT -5
frag- I would have liked to have seen the debate focus more on estabishing whether global climate change is being caused by humans rather than concede that it is and debating what the most effective means to deal with it would be. I'm sorry if my post was a bit terse...I guess what I'm getting at is more of a "what does that tell you" question. Since Newt didn't dispute (or question, I suppose) that humans are causing global warming, does that mean that he's just getting on the green wagon to get possible votes? I know you can't answer for Newt's sincerity personally. I'm mainly curious to see if other conservatives (not you, 'cause I don't think you're a butthole--pardon my language) will treat him the same way they've treated other "concerned" politicians who've said that global warming is caused by humans.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 11, 2007 18:46:13 GMT -5
frag-
I didn't think your post was 'terse'.
I think my reply may have led you to think I thought it was but that certainly not the way I felt about it.
It irks me that people on both sides of the political spectrum somehow have reached the conclusion that it is not permissible to disagree with someone who is in your ideological group. it happens much more often on the Left, but it does happen on the right as well.
I'm of the opinion that only one sort of diversity matters- diversity of opinion.
As to why Newt took the position he had, who knows except Newt?
I don't think he was trolling for votes. As a Conservative, you're not going to get anywhere by agreeing with the Liberal position on a given issue. Look at McCain. He was the MSM's hero, the Democrat's favorite Republicans- just so long as he was angering the Republican base and bad-mouthing George W. Bush. Now that he's running for President, McCain is trying to mend fences with the Republican base and he's no question Bush's strongest and most prominent supporter when it comes to the War on Terror.
And the Left and the MSM now routinely blast him.
If Newt's trying to score points with the Left and the MSM by adopting this view on anthropogenic global warming, he need only look to McCain to see how well that will work out.
It leads me to believe that Newt sees it one of two ways:
1) he really does believe that humans are the main cause of global warming
2) he doesn't necessarily believe it but he sees that the hysterics are probably going to win and would prefer to see the private sector deal with the 'crisis' rather than government doing so
If the hysterics win and we do adopt some sort of program to deal with the 'crisis', that's exactly how I'd want it dealt with.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 16, 2007 10:12:15 GMT -5
Do you recall that I have raised the fact that many current ardent environmentalits were once every bit as ardent socialists/communists? Well, read this and weep: www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/16/new_thinking_to_save_the_earth/[h/t to Newsbusters] New thinking to save the earthby James Carroll Excerpts: As Mark Finkelstein puts it so well: Scratch a radical environmentalist, find a radical, full stop. Note to those who believe that George W. Bush and his "Neocons" are hell-bent on establishing a One Wold Government- Carroll is a LIBERAL. Didn't we hear something like this- that the United States should foreswear it's outmoded 'unhealthy fixation' on national sovereignty and join the greater world of nations? Oh yeah....when John Kerry said that we should have to go to the United Nations to seek "permission" to defend our national interests. Note to those who believe that George W. Bush and his "Neocons" are hell-bent on establishing a One Wold Government- Kerry is a LIBERAL.
|
|