Reply With Quote
I like the idea of a party that would push a states right agenda and gut the federal goverment. I don't think the repubs will do it I know the dems won't.
99% of the libs?
Makes things easier to group all non nutjobs together doesn't it?
I like the idea of a party that would push a states right agenda and gut the federal goverment. I don't think the repubs will do it I know the dems won't.
I'd settle for sound money at this point.
There are a few things that would greatly improve the GOP:
1) Fiscal conservatism. Actually put forward a realistic plan that balances the budget, even if that means increased taxes here and there. Sorry, realistic at this point does not mean eliminating SS or Medicare or Medicaid. Also, blindly cutting taxes to increase the federal debt is not fiscal conservatism.
2) Fairness in the marketplace. Actually be for regular citizens rather than big business. The GOP social agenda was a way to appeal to many of us without sacrificing their kowtowing to giving big business the right to gouge us. The GOP's positions on curtailing credit/debit card usury and improving student loans are not helping.
3) Environmental conservatism. Actually be for the environment instead of pollution and global warming. I am not sure why the global warming skeptics want to play Russian roulette with the climate.
I don't think any of the above conflicts with being conservative.
Backing a consumption tax in place of an income tax would do a lot for distancing the GOP from perceived corporate servitude by the party.
There is nothing better than listening to libs ask and talk about how to fix the republican party. Of course they want repubs to go left, thats when they win. It seems all the repubs have to do is sit and watch the libs jack everything up. All the repubs have to do is run conservatives against the blue dogs. Then the usual battles and they got majority by 2012. The Conservatives need to move the primaries out of iowa and NH lastly. These two have no business being the most influential states in the process. Make Ohio, Virginia, and Texas the first three.
The first two are spot on. The Environmental thing is still unproven.Many people believe global warming to be a hoax.
The majority of American's are more conservative than liberal (this was also poven by a recent poll).
I dont appreciate the south's view on most social issues, but Republicans (specifically Ronald Reagan) won the "is government good or bad" debate a LONG time ago. If the Dems tried to ins ute any type of real socialism, mainstream America would kill it in the blink of an eye.
The GOP will be fine. Obama's doing most of their work for them. America likes its celebrities, but they love their leaders. Reagan, JFK, Roosevelt etc.
Obama is not a leader. He has no clue what to do and it shows.
Global warming is not a "liberal" position. Part of the problem with the GOP is claiming that science they don't like is "liberal". The reason the GOP sides with the global warming skeptics is because big polluting businesses want to keep their polluting business model going as long as they can.
Yup, it's not so much as Global warming as it is pollution being the issue. We need to stop putting crap in our air and water. Any time I pass near a industrial facility out in East TX I gag. It's literally sickening. A lot of things are deep in the ground for a reason.
I'll give you that.
It's an ignorant, dangerous position.
Today I read that the melting of the Antarctic Ice sheet is going to cause sea levels to rise. These sheets have no land under them; solid ice; with Sea, ostensibly, below. If the ice is "floating" on the water, when it melts it WILL NOT cause the sea levl to rise, right? I mean, when my ice melts in my ice tea glass, the water doesn't run over. Somebody 'splain.
Yeah, that is pretty wrong, it shouldn;t change. Are you sure they weren't referring to places with land? Irregardless of global warming or not, if a lot of the ice melts (on land) it will cause sea level to rise.
There was a report that said although the sides of glaciers are melting, there are other glaciers that are getting thicker and bigger. Pollution is another thing. This should be a local or state issue. If a state like California wants to make pollution standards ridiculously high, then fine(this is a bad example becuz Cali cant run the state even slightly efficient.) and if Texas rather have more jobs then that should be good too. There should be a minimum level (or maximum level in this case) for pollution.
What? Pollution control makes no sense (especially in small states) if it's not enforced completely. We have the EPA for a reason.
I don't think that global warming is a "liberal" position. I also don't think being skeptical of the "science" behind AGW is a "conservative" position.
If I put a flawed statistical analysis in a scientific journal and you point it out, does that mean you "dislike" my science? Or does it mean that my analysis is just flawed?
Likewise, if I publish the result of a calculation, say the sum of a column of numbers, and my decimal is in the wrong place, making my result wrong by a factor of ten, and you point this out to me, are you just disliking my science? Or, are you pointing out an error.
Both of these examples really occured in past IPCC reports. So, it's not that I dislike the concept of anthropogenic global warming, I just don't like flawed analyses.
Let the country fall.
COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
By John Coleman
[email protected]
it is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.
Some das ly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes do entary segment.
I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.
However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.
I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research ins utions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.
Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and at udes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.
And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.
So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.
There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.
I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.
I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.
I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.
The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.
What a waste of an article and a life. Global warming is real. Whether it is significantly caused by us is debate able.
Yes this is an interesting phenomena,and this isn't even the first second or third thread where leftists offer up their advice on how to "help" the republicans whereas I have never seen a thread on how conservatives think the DNC could be "helped". I don't know if they're so dillusional they can't percieve the irony,or they're so facisnated by their own brilliance they feel a need to share but it's kinda funny.
Unfortunately it is taboo to debate it,at least to any great extent.because of the political pressure a great many scientists voices are being silenced by this goverment, and by the U.N.
Scientific inquiry is not politacally correct, the people doing it are convinced it is for the good of the planet, but intelligent people want all the information not just what the U.N. allows them.This suppression of information makes people skeptical of what they hear, which is a shame because it is an issue that really needs to be discussed in an open and impartial way.
Well California does attempt to ship as much of their toxic garbage as they can to the poorer states to deal with, and barring that ship more of it into the third world to dispose of it's called "green for me and you succa"
It's your basic rich liberal solution.Pretty soon the poor of california will be forced to ride buses, cause they won't be able to afford to drive,But they will get a tax break on bicycles.They've drained the eel river dry for the wine industry,but somehow I don't think the liberals of the Bay Area are going to give up good afforable chardonay for a bunch of stupid fish or spotted owls or anything else, well maybe for the mexican drug cartels growing pot in the national forests.
Ignoring scientists who are warning you of a large potential for disaster is an even more ignorant and dangerous position.
I.e., citizen's rights to breathe clean air are superseded by those of a few who want to squeeze every single cent of profit possible, to with anyone else.
Science and religion are one and the same to lots of conservatives.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions