2023
2022
2020
2017
2016
2015
2014
2014-03-28 16:00:17
rating 3.1
20 coaches online • Server time: 03:55
* * * Did you know? There are 415945 active teams in FUMBBL.
Recent Forum Topics  Gnomes are trash | ramchop takes on the... | Chaos Draft League R... |
2014-03-11 20:24:24
24 votes, rating 2.3
24 votes, rating 2.3
It has been way to long
My ratings on my blogs have gotten way to high as of late and so I feel it is now time to veer back into the world of Global warming. One of favorite subjects not related to Blood Bowl on FUMBBL. The Democrats last night highjacked the senate floor for all night Global Warming talkathon.
What in the world is Republican versus Democrat about global warming? Let me put another way. Why is climate change such a big deal to the Democrat Party? What is it that's political about it? I'm serious. I'm asking you to provide an answer yourself. What is political? What is political about two men having sex with each other or two women having sex, what is political about that? But it is, as far as Democrat Party's concerned, it is. Everything they do is political.
What is political about climate change and global warming? Why is that a political issue, not a science issue? Why is it that where you go to learn about that is politics and not science? And in answering the question, you might find out where the fraud exists. Why does one particular party seem hell-bent on the belief that there is manmade global warming? Why? And the answer is very simple. Higher taxes, bigger government, and less freedom.
That's what you'll surrender in order for these people to, quote/unquote "fix it." But they can't. They can't. They can't even prove that we are causing it. There's no way they can fix it. There's no way they can reduce CO2 emissions without turning everybody into poverty stricken waifs. It just can't by done. It's not about fixing it when you get down to it. See, that's the dirty little secret.
Like Obamacare is not about health care, global warming is not about keeping it from getting hot. Global warming, climate change is not about making it cooler. It's not about anything like that, just like "health care" is not about health care. They are simply disguised issues to advance a particular party -- in this case, the Democrat Party's -- agenda.
What in the world is Republican versus Democrat about global warming? Let me put another way. Why is climate change such a big deal to the Democrat Party? What is it that's political about it? I'm serious. I'm asking you to provide an answer yourself. What is political? What is political about two men having sex with each other or two women having sex, what is political about that? But it is, as far as Democrat Party's concerned, it is. Everything they do is political.
What is political about climate change and global warming? Why is that a political issue, not a science issue? Why is it that where you go to learn about that is politics and not science? And in answering the question, you might find out where the fraud exists. Why does one particular party seem hell-bent on the belief that there is manmade global warming? Why? And the answer is very simple. Higher taxes, bigger government, and less freedom.
That's what you'll surrender in order for these people to, quote/unquote "fix it." But they can't. They can't. They can't even prove that we are causing it. There's no way they can fix it. There's no way they can reduce CO2 emissions without turning everybody into poverty stricken waifs. It just can't by done. It's not about fixing it when you get down to it. See, that's the dirty little secret.
Like Obamacare is not about health care, global warming is not about keeping it from getting hot. Global warming, climate change is not about making it cooler. It's not about anything like that, just like "health care" is not about health care. They are simply disguised issues to advance a particular party -- in this case, the Democrat Party's -- agenda.
Comments
Posted by gjopie on 2014-03-11 20:27:43
I gladly grant you your wish for a low blog rating.
Posted by PainState on 2014-03-11 20:29:01
Well I was fishing to top the most responses ever to a blog that I set two years ago with my barn burner of a Global Climate change blog.
But oh, well.
But oh, well.
Posted by PainState on 2014-03-11 20:29:49
It is a tough crowd out there in Europe when it comes to this issue. They "rain" the 1 rating down on my head pronto.
Posted by Purplegoo on 2014-03-11 20:39:08
I try very hard at times like these to remind myself America is a big place with many different sorts of people. And that that is a good thing.
Posted by TenaciousPiggy on 2014-03-11 20:42:17
Eh our political parties are total pants.
Posted by fidius on 2014-03-11 20:48:48
I'll support you, PS. :)
Politics loves questions with non-disprovable answers, easily accessible when you turn your brain off. You like nice weather, right? Climate change! We should take care of the sick and poor, right? Health care! War is bad, right? Diplomacy!
If a question has an easy emotional response, they will use it to their advantage. The key to it working is that no one researches the facts, and if facts are acquired, shout them down.
Politics loves questions with non-disprovable answers, easily accessible when you turn your brain off. You like nice weather, right? Climate change! We should take care of the sick and poor, right? Health care! War is bad, right? Diplomacy!
If a question has an easy emotional response, they will use it to their advantage. The key to it working is that no one researches the facts, and if facts are acquired, shout them down.
Posted by Roland on 2014-03-11 23:16:08
it's political because all the economic growth in the world is built upon oil and burning fossil fuel contributes to the global warming...
rate 1
rate 1
Posted by Frankenstein on 2014-03-11 23:28:23
It's far worse in Germany. Green Leftism (or call it Political Correctness if you wish) has become some kind of state religion over here. Even our so-called "Conservatives" have turned into submissive Liberals/Democrats. The Western world is in dire need of worthy successors of Reagan and Thatcher to get rid of the festering statism it's suffering from.
Liberty, Prosperity, Peace, I sayz!
That and keel all menz, of course.
And while were at it: Was it you who once answered my question "McCain, Clinton or Obama?" with the reply that he'd support neither of them and was more of a Ron Paul guy?
Liberty, Prosperity, Peace, I sayz!
That and keel all menz, of course.
And while were at it: Was it you who once answered my question "McCain, Clinton or Obama?" with the reply that he'd support neither of them and was more of a Ron Paul guy?
Posted by Azure on 2014-03-12 00:28:05
I rated it a 6!
Posted by Arktoris on 2014-03-12 05:11:24
"And the answer is very simple. Higher taxes, bigger government, and less freedom."
Amen
I know why Obama and the stooges on capital hill are behind this. They are paid a lot of money to sound stupid.
big question is, why are so many Democrats stupid for free? Is it just pure blind hatred towards regular people?
Amen
I know why Obama and the stooges on capital hill are behind this. They are paid a lot of money to sound stupid.
big question is, why are so many Democrats stupid for free? Is it just pure blind hatred towards regular people?
Posted by cameronhawkins on 2014-03-12 21:56:30
Wait... you're asking why is everything the Democratic party argues for 'political'? In other words... 'Why are the political goals of a politically-oriented group inherently political in nature?' Seriously? What kind of a question is that??
Posted by cameronhawkins on 2014-03-12 22:04:09
To be blunt–– the fact that you would even ask "What is political about two men having sex with each other?" simply displays that you lack understanding of you're talking about. But since you've asked for an explanation, I will provide one, because it's really not very complicated:
When the US tax code was set up, the political theory of the day thought it would be more beneficial to society if there were more married couples, since marriage promotes property ownership, income, and residential stability. With this in mind, the combined income and property tax burden of a registered married couple is somewhat less than the taxes imposed on two individuals. Note that this has a side-effect of requiring that the institution of marriage be defined as a legal status, rather than its more traditional (merely) religious definition. And since these rules were written a long time ago, the definition that was established involved only man-woman marriages. This is because populations were low, information was limited, and people were more susceptible to tribal paranoia about social differences, so homosexuality wasn't an accepted thing yet.
So, then the problem arises: If the legal definition of marriage is between only a man and a woman, doesn't this provide an asymmetrical taxation environment, where certain people are rewarded for marriage and others aren't? Well, the obvious answer is "yes". Normally, this discussion would take about 5 seconds, and both sides would agree to change the definition. However, Christian scripture explicitly states that homosexual conduct is a moral violation, and a huge number of American Evangelicals would be outraged at (that is–– vote out of office) any politician that didn't oppose such a change. This isn't a problem for the Democrats, since Evangelicals make up a negligible part of their voting base, but it is a problem for Republicans, because their voting base is generally much more religious. Therefore, Republican congressmen need to make a show of vigorously opposing any change to the definition of marriage, in order to maintain their political credibility among their constituents.
When the US tax code was set up, the political theory of the day thought it would be more beneficial to society if there were more married couples, since marriage promotes property ownership, income, and residential stability. With this in mind, the combined income and property tax burden of a registered married couple is somewhat less than the taxes imposed on two individuals. Note that this has a side-effect of requiring that the institution of marriage be defined as a legal status, rather than its more traditional (merely) religious definition. And since these rules were written a long time ago, the definition that was established involved only man-woman marriages. This is because populations were low, information was limited, and people were more susceptible to tribal paranoia about social differences, so homosexuality wasn't an accepted thing yet.
So, then the problem arises: If the legal definition of marriage is between only a man and a woman, doesn't this provide an asymmetrical taxation environment, where certain people are rewarded for marriage and others aren't? Well, the obvious answer is "yes". Normally, this discussion would take about 5 seconds, and both sides would agree to change the definition. However, Christian scripture explicitly states that homosexual conduct is a moral violation, and a huge number of American Evangelicals would be outraged at (that is–– vote out of office) any politician that didn't oppose such a change. This isn't a problem for the Democrats, since Evangelicals make up a negligible part of their voting base, but it is a problem for Republicans, because their voting base is generally much more religious. Therefore, Republican congressmen need to make a show of vigorously opposing any change to the definition of marriage, in order to maintain their political credibility among their constituents.
Posted by cameronhawkins on 2014-03-12 22:14:03
As for the climate change issue–– If you're asking why it's political, that is again, obvious.
Fact: Human activity affects the surrounding environment. From deforestation in England, to devastating levels of airborne pollution during the Industrial Revolution, it has become exceedingly clear to all rational societies that "do whatever you want" is not an ideal course of action when dealing with the sacrifices you make for the sake of economic growth. (Note that China has not quite gotten on board with this, and Beijing has infamously bad air-quality because of this.) Therefore, there need to be clear rules about what's allowed, what's not allowed. This is something that everyone has agreed on for the past 120 years. Luckily for us, we have an institution whose job it is to formulate, vet, and implement such laws. (Hint: It's called government.)
In this specific case, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are indirectly causing a rise in global temperatures. Likewise, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that the long-term effects of this will be disastrous on virtually every level. Yes, some such negative consequences are already inevitable, but there is a large range of potential end-game circumstances for this environmental impact, and one where we can't grow bananas is preferable to one where we can't grow anything else at all. Therefore, some politicians (motivated partly by their constituents' concerns, and partly by sheer ethicality) want to impose more limiting regulations on the demonstrated causes of this environmental impact, which in this case is industry. Again, what would normally be a very short discussion becomes complicated because the Republican party is overwhelmingly funded by industries which stand to lose a great deal if new regulations are imposed, so Republican politicians are motivated to block the passage of any such new laws.
Fact: Human activity affects the surrounding environment. From deforestation in England, to devastating levels of airborne pollution during the Industrial Revolution, it has become exceedingly clear to all rational societies that "do whatever you want" is not an ideal course of action when dealing with the sacrifices you make for the sake of economic growth. (Note that China has not quite gotten on board with this, and Beijing has infamously bad air-quality because of this.) Therefore, there need to be clear rules about what's allowed, what's not allowed. This is something that everyone has agreed on for the past 120 years. Luckily for us, we have an institution whose job it is to formulate, vet, and implement such laws. (Hint: It's called government.)
In this specific case, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are indirectly causing a rise in global temperatures. Likewise, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that the long-term effects of this will be disastrous on virtually every level. Yes, some such negative consequences are already inevitable, but there is a large range of potential end-game circumstances for this environmental impact, and one where we can't grow bananas is preferable to one where we can't grow anything else at all. Therefore, some politicians (motivated partly by their constituents' concerns, and partly by sheer ethicality) want to impose more limiting regulations on the demonstrated causes of this environmental impact, which in this case is industry. Again, what would normally be a very short discussion becomes complicated because the Republican party is overwhelmingly funded by industries which stand to lose a great deal if new regulations are imposed, so Republican politicians are motivated to block the passage of any such new laws.
Posted by cameronhawkins on 2014-03-12 22:29:34
"Obamacare is not about healthcare." What can you possibly mean by this? 'Obamacare' is a nickname that the GOP concocted to discuss the Affordable Care Act, which is a series of legal statutes proposed by the president.... which concern healthcare. Now, it's probably true that Obama's driving motivation in implementing the law is not compassion for people with no healthcare; he wants it to work because he envisions that––if it works as it's intended–– it will build credibility and confidence in the Democratic party. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a politician to be motivated by this way, since that's exactly how a politician is expected to act.
Speaking of which-– using normal procedural methods to address an issue in the American Senate is not "hijacking". Hijacking is when you break rules to take control of a situation (or a plane), which is nothing like what is going on here. If you want to persuade people
But, most disturbingly–– using the word 'hijacking' to describe such a situation implies that––in your mind––you equate 'saying something I disagree with' to 'doing something illegal'. This is one of the most poisonous attitudes for a person to take, and one that is contrary to the ideals of America and every other functional democracy on the planet.
Nobody hijacked your plane, you fool. The problem is that you were born on a plane, and when you realized that plane had started to move, you assumed that something must be wrong. Because you didn't realize that the function of a plane––its inevitable function––is to go forward, to take people somewhere new. And it will always do this, no matter how much you want to stay on the runway.
Speaking of which-– using normal procedural methods to address an issue in the American Senate is not "hijacking". Hijacking is when you break rules to take control of a situation (or a plane), which is nothing like what is going on here. If you want to persuade people
But, most disturbingly–– using the word 'hijacking' to describe such a situation implies that––in your mind––you equate 'saying something I disagree with' to 'doing something illegal'. This is one of the most poisonous attitudes for a person to take, and one that is contrary to the ideals of America and every other functional democracy on the planet.
Nobody hijacked your plane, you fool. The problem is that you were born on a plane, and when you realized that plane had started to move, you assumed that something must be wrong. Because you didn't realize that the function of a plane––its inevitable function––is to go forward, to take people somewhere new. And it will always do this, no matter how much you want to stay on the runway.
Posted by Cavetroll on 2014-03-28 21:59:58
Damn those of you who rated this a 1 before I got to read it <shakes fist>! Two weeks later I stumble across this gem! Damn you to 10 matches with your TV sub-1500 team against a 2000+ Clawpomber in the box!