you merely using the word straightforward is hypocritical.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Campaign to Pull Glenn Beck Off the Air Gains Momentum, Here and Abroad
- Thread starter tmarket
- Start date
you merely using the word straightforward is hypocritical.
Quote from RangeBar:
I voted for Obama because I was HOPING he could move our country to the 'left'.
I want nationalized health care,
I want us to withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Chile, Columbia, Saudi Arabia, S. Korea, Panama, Germany, G. Britan, on & on, etc., etc.
I want the federal gov't to support stem cell research.
I want a Constitutional Admendment protecting abortion rights. I want young girls to be taught about and provided with birth contol.
I want us to cut our offense spending by 200 billion (still making the US the largest spender). I want us to stop exporting arms.
I want the federal gov't to trump States Rights.
I want same-sex marriage to be the rule of the land.
I want evolution to be taught in schools.
I do not want prayer (of any superstition) practiced in our courts, Congress, Supreme Court, schoolyard, or athletic fields.
I want the death penalty abolished.
I want people to have the right to smoke and grow marijuana whether it be for medicinal or recreational use.
I want the tax rates of the wealthy raised including the elimination of the capital gains tax rate.
I want the gov't to stop all forms of air, water, and soil pollution even if it means shutting down the producer.
In short, there are many things that I WANT and that Obama would support. However, he does what he can do. I'm not happy with everything that Obama is doing; he isn't either. Whatever shortcomings he has you can be damn sure that the Republicans aren't going to offer me anything better.
I was gonna go through each line, but I am to lazy. So instead I will simply disagree with everything that u want except for the pot thing (and I don't smoke) because it is a victimless "crime'. Adults should be allowed to do anything they please with their own body.
Some of your desires are hard left and authoritarian IMO, for instance the Constitutional amendment for abortion is entirely uncalled for and ridiculous. There is already a rational common law in place protecting a women's option to have an abortion. Until we know for certain when a fetus is a human being, then that law should not change, and it certainly shouldn't be amended to the Constitution.
That u want the death penalty abolished is confusing: U have no problem with a women aborting her fetus (even late term?) but u think we should spend money keeping a pos alive in a cell because of what? Look in cases where DNA confirms beyond ANY doubt that an indivdual is guilty of a crime that warrants death, we should just kill them right away in the cheapest way possible, they forfeited their "rights" when they violated someone else's.
The Federal govt does trump the state, except in certain specific areas which are outlined in the Constitution. No offense but it doesn't matter what u want if it is unconstitutional.
And finally, stopping all pollution even by shutting down the producer, is outright stupid. Our economy will suffer and our standard of living will decline, if u shut down the "producers" we are back in the dark ages. U have jumped to the conclusion that the climatolgists can accurately predict the future (which they can't), my question to u is what if they are wrong? besides the IPCC reminds me more and more of a religious sect, like the Pope, "infallible in all matters of faith". Be skeptical of their reports.
Pggybank,
If you think that reproductive rights including abortion are already protected by a 'rational law' then why would you object to a constitutional admendment that protects these rights? We need a constitutional admendment to prevent states from passing laws that threaten this right. These laws include parental/spouse notification requirements, waiting periods, sonar grams, intrusive questioning, special record keeping requirements, requiring 'burial rites' off aboted fetus's and all other laws that are being passed to discourage and make women feel guilty about choosing when they had a child. A constitutional admendment would also put the power of the federal gov't fully behind the protection of the law from the idiot fringe group who want to control others. It would a statement of SUPPORT for this very important right.
As far as the death penalty goes: there is NO guarantee that our justice system has found the guilty party. DNA has helped a lot but there will always be errors. Errors in evidence gathering, errors in eye witness recollections, and frameups by the police. All of this aside, since I don't believe in the hereafter and certainly not punishment after death then I want the murderer to live with their crime as long as possible.
In regards to pollution, the STUPIDITY is thinking that we can continually pollute our air, water, and soil and not directly affect our own existence. As far as a 'decline in our standard of living': tooo bad !!! If Coca Cola is spewing waste into a river require them to treat the waste and they can add the cost of waste treatement to the cost of a bottle of Coke. If they can't treat the waste and maintain a price/profit in the bottle of Coke then we'll simply have to do without Coke. Obama has established an 8.5 billion dollars fund to clean up the Great Lakes over the next 10 years. For the past 200 years companies and their shareholders have reaped profits by NOT treating their waste. Consumers of those products paid less money because the cost did not include the social cost of cleaning up their waste. Now ALL OF US will pay that cost in tax dollars. Finally, 49% of the US air pollution is caused by coal burning electric plants. It would cost about 26 billion dollars to implement scrubber technology in every coal burning plant in the US. Spread out over all taxpayers for the life of the plant is peanuts compared to our federal budget.
Hope you aren't too lazy to read this.
If you think that reproductive rights including abortion are already protected by a 'rational law' then why would you object to a constitutional admendment that protects these rights? We need a constitutional admendment to prevent states from passing laws that threaten this right. These laws include parental/spouse notification requirements, waiting periods, sonar grams, intrusive questioning, special record keeping requirements, requiring 'burial rites' off aboted fetus's and all other laws that are being passed to discourage and make women feel guilty about choosing when they had a child. A constitutional admendment would also put the power of the federal gov't fully behind the protection of the law from the idiot fringe group who want to control others. It would a statement of SUPPORT for this very important right.
As far as the death penalty goes: there is NO guarantee that our justice system has found the guilty party. DNA has helped a lot but there will always be errors. Errors in evidence gathering, errors in eye witness recollections, and frameups by the police. All of this aside, since I don't believe in the hereafter and certainly not punishment after death then I want the murderer to live with their crime as long as possible.
In regards to pollution, the STUPIDITY is thinking that we can continually pollute our air, water, and soil and not directly affect our own existence. As far as a 'decline in our standard of living': tooo bad !!! If Coca Cola is spewing waste into a river require them to treat the waste and they can add the cost of waste treatement to the cost of a bottle of Coke. If they can't treat the waste and maintain a price/profit in the bottle of Coke then we'll simply have to do without Coke. Obama has established an 8.5 billion dollars fund to clean up the Great Lakes over the next 10 years. For the past 200 years companies and their shareholders have reaped profits by NOT treating their waste. Consumers of those products paid less money because the cost did not include the social cost of cleaning up their waste. Now ALL OF US will pay that cost in tax dollars. Finally, 49% of the US air pollution is caused by coal burning electric plants. It would cost about 26 billion dollars to implement scrubber technology in every coal burning plant in the US. Spread out over all taxpayers for the life of the plant is peanuts compared to our federal budget.
Hope you aren't too lazy to read this.
Quote from RangeBar:
Pggybank,
1)If you think that reproductive rights including abortion are already protected by a 'rational law' then why would you object to a constitutional admendment that protects these rights? We need a constitutional admendment to prevent states from passing laws that threaten this right. These laws include parental/spouse notification requirements, waiting periods, sonar grams, intrusive questioning, special record keeping requirements, requiring 'burial rites' off aboted fetus's and all other laws that are being passed to discourage and make women feel guilty about choosing when they had a child. A constitutional admendment would also put the power of the federal gov't fully behind the protection of the law from the idiot fringe group who want to control others. It would a statement of SUPPORT for this very important right.
2)As far as the death penalty goes: there is NO guarantee that our justice system has found the guilty party. DNA has helped a lot but there will always be errors. Errors in evidence gathering, errors in eye witness recollections, and frameups by the police. All of this aside, since I don't believe in the hereafter and certainly not punishment after death then I want the murderer to live with their crime as long as possible.
3)In regards to pollution, the STUPIDITY is thinking that we can continually pollute our air, water, and soil and not directly affect our own existence. As far as a 'decline in our standard of living': tooo bad !!! If Coca Cola is spewing waste into a river require them to treat the waste and they can add the cost of waste treatement to the cost of a bottle of Coke. If they can't treat the waste and maintain a price/profit in the bottle of Coke then we'll simply have to do without Coke. Obama has established an 8.5 billion dollars fund to clean up the Great Lakes over the next 10 years. For the past 200 years companies and their shareholders have reaped profits by NOT treating their waste. Consumers of those products paid less money because the cost did not include the social cost of cleaning up their waste. Now ALL OF US will pay that cost in tax dollars. Finally, 49% of the US air pollution is caused by coal burning electric plants. It would cost about 26 billion dollars to implement scrubber technology in every coal burning plant in the US. Spread out over all taxpayers for the life of the plant is peanuts compared to our federal budget.
Hope you aren't too lazy to read this.
1) If you re-read my post then you will realize why I don't want "reproductive rights" in the Constitution. The law is fine until the answer is DEFINITIVELY known (when is a fetus a child). Hypothetically if at 1 month a fetus is in fact ALIVE, then a women can't have an abortion afterwards because that IS murder. As for it being made difficult, so what, it isn't quite the same as getting a physical for instance, but it is still LEGAL. To me this is not an issue of control, but protection for infants that can't protect themselves. Here is what I do know: late in pregnancy when it LOOKS like a baby, that is a baby and abortion at that point is unacceptable.
2) Confession is 100% foolproof. DNA is pretty damn close by itself, combined with witnesses, being caught in the act etc, it is indisputable. These are the instances I am talking about. A serial killer or child rapist is not worth a dime of taxpayer dough, not a dime.
3) I agree that we can't pollute our planet forever, but your dreaming if u think the whole world is going to regress back into the dark ages because of an extremely politicized "prediction" of the future. There is no indisputable evidence at this time that should require these companies to clean up or shut down by law. And it appears a gradual change is already underway. Hopefully, and maybe even likely, technology will advance to the point where we can operate with little or no pollution, or allow us to clean up the messes we make. Real science is applicable to reality.
Since you brought up confession, please confess:
Do you argue from religion and your religion's belief system to conclusions of "science" that suggests whatever polluting man does will be stopped by God, or that God is planning on destroying the earth, so let Jesus take care of it when Jesus returns?
Do you argue from religion and your religion's belief system to conclusions of "science" that suggests whatever polluting man does will be stopped by God, or that God is planning on destroying the earth, so let Jesus take care of it when Jesus returns?
Quote from PiggyBank:
1) If you re-read my post then you will realize why I don't want "reproductive rights" in the Constitution. The law is fine until the answer is DEFINITIVELY known (when is a fetus a child). Hypothetically if at 1 month a fetus is in fact ALIVE, then a women can't have an abortion afterwards because that IS murder. As for it being made difficult, so what, it isn't quite the same as getting a physical for instance, but it is still LEGAL. To me this is not an issue of control, but protection for infants that can't protect themselves. Here is what I do know: late in pregnancy when it LOOKS like a baby, that is a baby and abortion at that point is unacceptable.
2) Confession is 100% foolproof. DNA is pretty damn close by itself, combined with witnesses, being caught in the act etc, it is indisputable. These are the instances I am talking about. A serial killer or child rapist is not worth a dime of taxpayer dough, not a dime.
3) I agree that we can't pollute our planet forever, but your dreaming if u think the whole world is going to regress back into the dark ages because of an extremely politicized "prediction" of the future. There is no indisputable evidence at this time that should require these companies to clean up or shut down by law. And it appears a gradual change is already underway. Hopefully, and maybe even likely, technology will advance to the point where we can operate with little or no pollution, or allow us to clean up the messes we make. Real science is applicable to reality.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Since you brought up confession, please confess:
Do you argue from religion and your religion's belief system to conclusions of "science" that suggests whatever polluting man does will be stopped by God, or that God is planning on destroying the earth, so let Jesus take care of it when Jesus returns?
What? I am not religious so... nope.
So you are claiming that your reasoning is devoid of religious belief...
...so you have some scientific foundation that leads you to a conclusion that if we did go too far in polluting our earth (try drinking water from the lakes and streams in the USA) that science will simply be able to flip a switch to reverse the trend?
Do you know what a phase transition is?
...so you have some scientific foundation that leads you to a conclusion that if we did go too far in polluting our earth (try drinking water from the lakes and streams in the USA) that science will simply be able to flip a switch to reverse the trend?
Do you know what a phase transition is?
Quote from PiggyBank:
What? I am not religious so... nope.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
So you are claiming that your reasoning is devoid of religious belief...
...so you have some scientific foundation that leads you to a conclusion that if we did go too far in polluting our earth (try drinking water from the lakes and streams in the USA) that science will simply be able to flip a switch to reverse the trend?
Do you know what a phase transition is?
Yeah I am devoid of religious belief. I have serious doubts about the claims of AGW, and the consequences of it. I believe the problem stems from politicians and their bureaucratic appointees, more than it does from science...
And no I don't know what a phase transition is.
So you don't know what a phase transition is, yet you feel competent to evaluate the science of AGW?
Could you possibly be influence by the right wing media who claims that AGW is fully political in nature, devoid of science?
Could you possibly be influence by the right wing media who claims that AGW is fully political in nature, devoid of science?
Quote from PiggyBank:
Yeah I am devoid of religious belief. I have serious doubts about the claims of AGW, and the consequences of it. I believe the problem stems from politicians and their bureaucratic appointees, more than it does from science...
And no I don't know what a phase transition is.