White House warns climate inaction could cost US billions

Jul 29, 2014
Delaying efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could cost the US $150 billion per year, the White House warns

Delaying efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could cost the US $150 billion per year, the White House warned Tuesday in a report on the economic consequences of inaction on climate change.

"Although delaying action can reduce costs in the short run, on net, delaying action to limit the effects of climate change is costly," the report said.

"A delay that results in warming of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels, instead of 2 degrees, could increase economic damages by approximately 0.9 percent of global output," the report said.

That figure represents approximately $150 billion in terms of the estimated 2014 US GDP.

"These costs are not one-time, but are rather incurred year after year because of the permanent damage caused by increased climate change resulting from the delay," the report said.

The United States was 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer during the last decade than the 1901-1960 average.

It was also the warmest 10-year period on record both in the United States and worldwide, the report added.

President Barack Obama, who made the battle against a core promise of his 2008 election campaign, has faced opposition from lawmakers.

In early June he announced a major initiative that aims to cut carbon emissions from power plants by 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels.

Climate change is a hot-button issue in American politics.

Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, are against any new law touching on it, with some even disputing the existence of global warming. Others cast doubt on whether humans are to blame for the phenomenon.

In 2009, Obama pledged to reduce the country's by 17 percent by 2020 compared to 2005 levels.

Explore further: Carbon plan still leaves US short of UN pledge

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Carbon plan still leaves US short of UN pledge

Jun 05, 2014

President Barack Obama's plan to cut the carbon emissions of US power plants by up to 30 percent will leave America far short of its current pledges at UN climate talks, a study said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Rating the planet's oceans

3 hours ago

The most comprehensive assessment conducted by the Ocean Health Index rates the Earth's oceans at 67 out of 100 in overall health. In addition, for the first time, the report assessed the Antarctic and the ...

Feds to unveil cleanup plan for nuke waste dump

5 hours ago

After nearly eight months, the U.S. Department of Energy has formalized a plan for cleaning up the federal government's troubled nuclear waste dump in southeastern New Mexico.

Climate change affecting species

7 hours ago

The Global Change and Sustainability Research Institute (GCSRI) and the Wits Rural Facility (WRF) hosted a top climate change scientist, Professor Camille Parmesan, who delivered a talk to staff, students ...

User comments : 199

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JamesG
2.1 / 5 (25) Jul 29, 2014
Climate action will cost us trillions. Seems cost effective to me.
Pexeso
1.3 / 5 (18) Jul 29, 2014
White House warns climate inaction could cost US billions
Actually it's just the White House, which is the main exponent of this inactivity. For example the current U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz was actively engaged in boycott of cold fusion research at M.I.T., thus denying the main perspective of environmentally safe fossil fuel replacement. Not surprisingly Obama's government takes a sh*t about cold fusion findings, like these ones (1, 2). The main strategy here is not to threat the social position, grants and money of researchers working in another areas of energetic research - not the savings of life environment.
TegiriNenashi
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 29, 2014
Speaking of government actions, how is that Solyndra investment doing recently?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 29, 2014
His Highness Barack I could take action at anytime if he chose to do so.
Pexeso
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 29, 2014
The "fight against AGW" is today understood preferentially as an occupational program for proponents of green lobby. As this article point outs clearly, a shift to renewable energy will just replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals). Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity meets about 7 percent. For example, to match the power generated by fossil fuels or nuclear power stations, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass. Also, the wind turbines only work when there's wind, although not too much, and the solar panels only work during the day and then only when it's not cloudy. Nobody actually bothers about situations, when these plants cannot run. It's just a big cheating of tax payers.
Pexeso
2 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2014
The activities like so-called "biofuels" are actually doing the GW thing much worse in long term perspective. Not only they contribute to massive deforestation of rainforests (just consider the Lufthansa planes flying on "green" palm oil) and destruction of biodiversity there, but they even exhaust soil for nitrogen and phosphorus, thus preparing these areas for desert spreading in future. Why the hell we should invest into such a plot just a single dollar? It's opened destruction of the rest of life environment in the name of "green" lobbyist group. Just because some natural resources still exist there it doesn't mean, we can exploit them in so shameless way.
bdiddy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2014
Measurements of the total potentially available energies from renewable are unambiguous. High capital investment and some resource strain could be required to capture and transmit that energy, but there is a reason they call them renewables--after your initial capital investment you have a very long period of economic utility, and that will likely be extendable through incremental investments in improved technologies, etc. Compare that with the major capital expense associated with bring new oil extraction online, and then having to duplicate that capital investment again every so many years as fuels are depleted. Renewables make business sense in the long term.
cjn
2.6 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2014
Let me preface this by saying that I'm not making a statement for or against AGW/Climate change.

If the impact of *not* enacting law/policies/whathaveyou is 0.9% of global GDP after a 3C increase in temperatures, then what is the cost of 1) execution new regulations; 2) the increased cost of doing business due to energy costs; and 3) opportunity costs lost on 1 & 2? It seems a little disingenuous to have a cost the the US economy of a global temperature increase and omit a comparison of the costs of mitigation activities. Lastly, what, if any, guarantees can there reasonably be that the investment would result in the desired outcome? These are things which must be discussed when one presents the "cost of doing nothing".
pianoman
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2014
I50 bil isn't much compared to dumping B.O. and saving trillions.
supamark23
3.6 / 5 (19) Jul 29, 2014
I see the paid to post deniers are out in full force spreading lies and bullshit - how would their parents feel about their child making a living lying on the internet (and promoting objectively harmful policies)? Probably quite embarrassed about bringing such worthlessness into the world.
TegiriNenashi
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2014
...after a 3C increase in temperatures...


This often cited 2-3K temperature increase is meaningless. 1K/century (at best) is the current trend:
http://wattsupwit...-update/
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 29, 2014
...after a 3C increase in temperatures...


This often cited 2-3K temperature increase is meaningless. 1K/century (at best) is the current trend:
http://wattsupwit...-update/


Err .... any "current trend" is a projection forward of WEATHER.
When in fact we are experiencing CLIMATE change due Global warming.
Another example of the denialatti expecting an average global temp trend to maintain a constant slope.
FFS
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 29, 2014
Current trend is 35 years long satellite observational record. The longer surface station based record is flawed for many reasons (coverage, UHI, station quality, etc).
runrig
4.1 / 5 (17) Jul 29, 2014
Current trend is 35 years long satellite observational record. The longer surface station based record is flawed for many reasons (coverage, UHI, station quality, etc).

Compete bollocks...
You do not get to choose which data you prefer to follow.
The instrumental data is the standard to follow.
Sat data has many possible flaws ... far more than the surface instrumental record ( but that's OK eh, since it produces a less extreme trend for you).
Sat data FI only measures a skin temp (cannot measure at the standard height of 4ft).
Coverage is fine thanks as we are comparing like with like going on back >100 years.
UHI has been shown to be negligible (look up Muller's BEST study).
Station quality is fine also once errors are corrected for such as reading a max temp near a possible time of a max (only in US - 2% of the world), and hence having it recorded twice.
Etc nothing. FFS
ItsThatGuy
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2014
Remember anytime you reference Watts, you're referencing a Lie
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 29, 2014
Remember anytime you reference Watts, you're referencing a Lie

Obama: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Just one of dozens of lies.
3432682
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 29, 2014
"It was also the warmest 10-year period on record both in the United States and worldwide, the report added."

"Recored" time is but a blip in history. Using the "recorded" time frame is a trick, a deception. Let's look at the last 12k years instead.

It was about as warm in the 1930's. It was warmer during the medieval warming (1k years ago), the Roman period (2k years ago), the Minoan period (3.5k years ago), and almost all the time previous to that back to the end of the ice age 12k years ago.

90% of the last 750k years has been ice age. If we do know how to create global warming it will be the greatest, most beneficial discovery in human history.

For those who are doing open-minded reading on this subject, it appears that a doubling of CO2 from here would create about 1C increase in temperature. That's based on the increase of CO2 in the last 150 years (about 50% increase) and the temp increase which has occurred (about 0.7C). That covers the "recorded" history.
marcush
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2014
That's right, all you online pundits are right and the worlds scientists are wrong. You're as bad as the creationists.....what are you doing on a science/tech site anyways?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 30, 2014
the worlds scientists are wrong.

Wouldn't be the first time, and not all climate scientists are AGWites.
'Scientists' say eggs are bad for you. Then 'scientists' say eggs are good for you. Then.....
Why does anyone trust 'scientists'?
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2014
and not all climate scientists are AGWites.

None of them are...You know: scientists. Facts and shit.
THAT's the reason why they warn about climate change - not because they want X or Y to be true.
The facts are just there. If you can't read them then that's your problem - not theirs.

'Scientists' say eggs are bad for you. Then 'scientists' say eggs are good for you.

No: Journalists say these stupid things absed on papers they didn't understand. You will not find: 'bad for you' or 'good for you' in any scientific paper. They will list correlations of diseases with diets overly rich in eggs or devoid of eggs.
If you can't deduce from this that there is a sweet spot (and that it is different for each person) for the consumption of eggs then you're just dumb.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2014
You know: scientists. Facts and shit.


"A leading scientific journal is taking an unusual step today — it is retracting three papers it published in recent years. Science magazine is taking the action in response to a fraud scandal uncovered in Germany last year. There, a researcher faked certain key experiments. The case illustrates how safeguards in science sometimes fail. Alison Richards reports. "
http://www.npr.or...=1050374
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 30, 2014
You know: scientists. Facts and shit.

"David Wright, director of the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS) Office of Research Integrity (ORI), has quit and will officially leave his post on March 27, according to his letter of resignation, which was obtained and published by ScienceInsider this week (March 12). Wright, who became ORI director in January 2012, cited frustration with "dysfunctional HHS bureaucracy" as his main reason for leaving."
http://www.the-sc...l-Quits/

Why does one need a govt agency for scientific integrity if scientists are angels?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 30, 2014
"RPJR: If you are engaged in public debates on issues that people care passionately about, then you will be called names and worse. It goes with the territory. It is not pleasant of course, but at the same time, it is a pretty strong indication that (a) your arguments matter and (b) people have a hard time countering them on their merits. Even so, it is remarkable to see people like Paul Krugman and John Holdren brazenly make completely false claims in public about my work and my views. That they make such false claims with apparently no consequences says something about the nature of debate surrounding climate."
"It seems that labeling someone a "denier" offers a convenient excuse to avoid taking on arguments on their merits and to call for certain voices to be banished."
http://blogs.disc...fRYBdU-s
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 30, 2014
"Disaster losses continue to increase worldwide. Carbon dioxide continues to accumulate in the atmosphere. The world continues to demand ever more energy. Climate policies in place or proposed are not up to the task. In short, we need more ideas, more debate, more disagreement if we are to make intelligent progress. Efforts to demonize or silence unwelcome voices probably don't move the dial very far on any of these issues Was this campaign to have me removed from 538 a victory for the climate movement? Was it the right battle to wage? I hope the climate hawks ask themselves these questions."
http://blogs.disc...fRYBdU-s
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 30, 2014
"The report details how an elite group of rich liberal donors such as Tom Steyer and Hank Paulson - "the Billionaire's Club" - is directing and controlling the far-left environmental movement, "which in turn lobbies and controls major policy decisions and lobbies on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).""
"

In advancing their cause, these wealthy liberals fully exploit the benefits of a generous tax code meant to promote genuine philanthropy and charitable acts, amazingly with little apparent Internal Revenue Service scrutiny. Instead of furthering a noble purpose, their tax deductible contributions secretly flow to a select group of left wing activists who are complicit and eager to participate in the fee-for-service arrangement to promote shared political goals. Moreover, the financial arrangement provides significant insulation to these wealthy elite from the incidental damage they do to the U.S. economy and average Americans."
http://www.breitb...reitbart
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2014
Boarder inaction is not costing the USA Billions..... Obama and the Democrats do nothing but encourage more criminal immigrants.
White house and the Democrats calling 17-21 year old criminal aliens who are gang members, drug dealers, rapists, murderers, Children..... How many US citizens and legal residence are going to be killed, raped, victimized in the next year because the Democrats and Obama do nothing?

If you like criminals, terrorists, high unemployment, skyrocketing debt, corruption..... vote democrat.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 30, 2014
"This report proves that the Obama EPA has been deliberately staffed at the highest levels with far-left environmental activists who have worked hand-in-glove with their former colleagues. The green-revolving door at EPA has become a valuable asset for the far-left and their wealthy donors. In addition to providing insider access to important policy decisions, it appears activists now at EPA also funnel government money through grants to their former employers and colleagues. The report tracks the amount of government aid doled out to activist groups and details a troubling disregard for ethics by certain high powered officials."
www.breitbart.com...y-Report

Looks like all the money goes to the AGWite 'donation' plates.
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 30, 2014
Democrats with ethics is like Obama and truth.

They don't exist together.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 30, 2014
" urging Congress to "stop hatin' all the time."

"They have announced that they are going to sue me for taking executive actions to help people," he said during an event in Kansas City. "They're mad because I'm doing my job." "
http://www.nbcnew...-n168756

Enforcing laws is the job of the President. This president ignores laws and fabricates new ones on a whim.
He is not doing his job and like all 'liberals' who have lost the argument, plays the pity card, or the race card or ....
freethinking
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2014
Can anyone tell me which laws are still enforced in the USA.
Is selling guns illegally still illegal? Apparently for Obama it isn't ie. Fast and Furious.
Is deserting the army and aiding the enemy illegal? Obama doesn't thinks so.
What about the boarder? Is it legal to enter the USA without documentation?
I can go on and on..... but.....

Seriously, can anyone who supports the current Obama Democrat government please tell me, which i laws are currently being enforced, which ones are being ignored? What free speech is still allowed without fear that Obama or other Democrats will send the IRS, DOJ, DOE, DHS, or other government agencies to destroy you or your business?
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2014
Only people who support terrorists, privileged rights of the two percenters, special rights for Criminal Aliens, racists, enslaving our children by debt, reducing wages and job opportunities of the poor, dictatorial powers for the president, government control of personal life decisions, the abolishment of free speech, corruption, murderers, rapists, child molesters, will vote for a democrat.
Scottingham
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2014
For a slow afternoon this insane partisan hack posts are hilarious!

Dr_toad
Jul 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2014
How about this, vote out ANYONE who supports Terrorists, Criminal Aliens, Corruption, Rapists, Murderers, child molesters, special rights for the two percenters, use of government agencies against political foes. etc. etc.

I don't care if they are Democrat or Republicans.

Currently every Democrat in or running for office supports the above and so do Progressive Republicans, so if you are against Progressive corruption, let's have a house(s) cleaning and vote all Progressives out.

If anyone gets elected and then they turn out to be progressive, vote them out. Contrary to the Progressive lie, there are honest politicians.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2014
Actually, the art of compromise is much unappreciated. Maintaining a balance is much harder than surrendering to radical ideas. Does the US need "change" now? Find yourself new country and establish whatever political system you subscribe to.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2014
Dr_Toad, we already know that the CURRENT government along with Public Service Unions, are paid to go on blogs to push the government agenda.

We know that the news media is 95% progressive and they manipulate the news by way of what they report or "choose" not to report, and how they report. (ever wonder why you never see Hamas firing a missile or holding a gun, yet you see Israeli soldiers)

We know the government is corrupt (unless you believe the IRS story that every email that contained incriminating evidence of the Government going after conservative groups disappeared because multiple hard drive somehow just crashed and were scrapped and any backups just happened not to work).

I wonder how many who post on Physorg are posting from government offices using government computers.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2014
TegiriNenashi I want what the founders of the USA put into the constitution, which is why I moved here many years ago.

I want free speech, freedom of religion, and all the other rights given to me by the constitution. I want a government free of corruption, a safe country where people are expected to follow the rule of law. I want a country where our children are not enslaved by debt. I want a country where citizens are treated with respect and where criminals are not given preferential treatment.

So, given your response, TegiriNenashi I take it you are for corruption, enslavement, government control, etc. etc. If you are, then when slavery you want comes, I hope you and your family are the first ones enslaved by the very corrupt system you support.
TegiriNenashi
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2014
...I want free speech, freedom of religion, and all the other rights given to me by the constitution. I want a government free of corruption, a safe country where people are expected to follow the rule of law. I want a country where our children are not enslaved by debt. I want a country where citizens are treated with respect and where criminals are not given preferential treatment...


So you challenge the idea that the US possesses these qualities? As we are here at science dedicated website, can you convert your qualitative assertion into quantitative form to have a more meaningful discussion?
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2014
Yup,

I could give you all the scandals and law breaking and abuse of government powers stories..... but if you haven't heard about them by now, you don't want to know about them or are an Obama/Democrat supporter.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2014
Actually, the art of compromise is much unappreciated. Maintaining a balance is much harder than surrendering to radical ideas. Does the US need "change" now? Find yourself new country and establish whatever political system you subscribe to.

Compromise is not in the vocabulary of socialists like Obama or any socialist.
The US has a political system defined by a Constitution that has been violated by socialists for nearly 100 years.
We want to restore what socialism is destroying.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2014
" Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., requested the travel ban in a Tuesday letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry.

Citizens of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone should be barred from entry, Grayson wrote, as should any foreign national who visited one of the countries 90 days before their intended visit to the U.S. "
http://www.usnews...ountries
Why doesn't he care about those walking across the southern border?
TegiriNenashi
2.2 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2014
Again, give me some numbers, e.g. "here is a graph of political scandals during the US history", or "here is list of countries ordered by their corruption rates". Then, make your proposition explicit, and explain why and how you think it would affect these data.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2014
TegiriNenashi did you vote for Obama in the last election and do you still support the Democrats and Obama?
TegiriNenashi
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2014
I wonder why so many people miss something very obvious. There are numerous social and political issues. There are only two parties. No matter how you partition the answer to all questions between these parties, chances are neither party would fit perfectly into your world view. For example, are you implying that republicans flirting with religion and bending their programme to appeal to religious folks is OK to you? What are you doing on this scientific site, then?
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2014
BINGO TegiriNenashi, since you are a progressive and a Obama and Democrat supporter no evidence will ever convince you that Obama and the Democrats are destructive and corrupt. You see nothing wrong with Obama and the Democrats using government powers to silence critics. You see nothing wrong with giving special privileges to criminal aliens (did you know that in a disaster they will be the first ones the government look after, did you know they get in state tuition, did you know they can fly without documentation). You see nothing wrong with two percenters getting special treatment. You see nothing wrong with Obama giving guns to drug lords and terrorists. You see nothing wrong with Obama using executive orders bypassing congress. You see nothing wrong with government going after religious organizations that don't tow the governments line. You see nothing wrong with Obama lying about peoples health care, you see nothing wrong with obstructing justice.
TegiriNenashi
3 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2014
Most regulars here are probably spilled their coffee at the keyboard at the suggestion that [based on my posting history] I'm Obama and Democrat supporter.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2014
Example of progressive bias in Reporting.
http://news.msn.c...za-strip

Looks like MSN if following Hamas rules when reporting on the conflict.
http://www.idfblo...-terror/

Never mind Hamas is shooting civilians fleeing areas that the Israelis have warned will be bombed.
Never mind Hamas doesn't tell the truth about casualties or for that matter anything.
Never mind Hamas stores and launches missiles from schools, hospitals and mosques.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2014
Most regulars here are probably spilled their coffee at the keyboard at the suggestion that [based on my posting history] I'm Obama and Democrat supporter.

Not I.
are you implying that republicans flirting with religion and bending their programme to appeal to religious folks is OK to you?

What program?
What religious folks?
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2014
TegiriNenashi if you are not a Progressive I apologize for calling you a progressive. As you can tell I have no tolerance for corruption.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2014
TegiriNenashi if you are not a Progressive I apologize for calling you a progressive. As you can tell I have no tolerance for corruption no matter which party it is in.

However why did you single out Republicans and religion when it is the Progressive Democrats are forcing their religious views into schools, into laws, and into the market place.

It is the Progressives that try and destroy and vilify businesses and people who go against, or even just speak against Progressive religious views especially on their religious views on granting special treatment for the two percenters.
TegiriNenashi
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2014
...when it is the Progressive Democrats are forcing their religious views into schools, into laws, and into the market place...


I'm not sure if you are serious. Democrats introduce creationism into school curriculum? They are influenced by their religion views in what has to be strictly medical issue (abortion)?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2014
Progressive Democrats are forcing their religious views into schools, into laws, and into the market place.


I don't understand the 'progressive' atheists here who get so upset about what they consider to be 'conservative' religion. Usually they refer to the TX school board that wants to include ID or question evolution.
For some reason this issue is so important they ignore that the state of TX, or any state, has a central authority that chooses text books. The quick solution is to support school choice: vouchers just as Sweden does.
'Progressive' atheists don't seem to care about Islam's abuse of women, forced genital mutilation, murders, etc. Or maybe they are too afraid to speak up? They can attack Christians all day and they won't fight back. Attack Muslims and they might just put a knife in your chest. Hypocrites and cowards!
(PS: I wrote this BEFORE I saw T's response.)
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2014
strictly medical issue

Murdering babies is a medical issue?
Eugenics was a 'medical issue' vigorously supported by the scientific community for decades. Abortion was a favorite method for Sanger to reduce the population of undesirables.
TegiriNenashi
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2014
strictly medical issue

Murdering babies is a medical issue?
Eugenics was a 'medical issue' vigorously supported by the scientific community for decades. Abortion was a favorite method for Sanger to reduce the population of undesirables.


Well, calling fetus a baby is akin to PETA demanding animal rights elevated to humans. (After all chimps and people are genetically 98% identical!). Where is that elusive demarcation line between just an egg and human being?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 30, 2014
The genes of a human fetus are 100% human, half from the mother, half from the father.
Since a fetus is genetically human, why not treat it like a human being?
TegiriNenashi
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2014
This is a slippery slope you are in: a convicted murderer is human being as well; is lethal injection a humane way to treat him? As for fetus being potential human being, as somebody who is rejected by his biological parents, is this person going to fully enjoy life? And finally, based upon your morality principle you do you allow any exceptions (e.g. for criminal cases where a fetus it totally unwanted)?
TegiriNenashi
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2014
Genetic tests for fetuses are routine practice in contemporary medical practice. No argument in the world about fetus being potential human being would save it if it has been tested positive for known genetic decease.
Dr_toad
Jul 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2014
...I don't understand the 'progressive' atheists here who get so upset about what they consider to be 'conservative' religion. Usually they refer to the TX school board that wants to include ID or question evolution...


People choose gods matching their level. So, let's them sing and pray what harm can it possibly do? It develops humility and moral values, that is certainly positive?

Religion main premise that the world is a wonderful place. A little dull, yet spectacular. Created in just 7 days, long long time 6000 years ago! Now, religion fanatic would answer this as the genesis shouldn't be taken literally. The story becomes to sound little resembling to our main topic [lack of warming in Antarctic]. Obfuscation and excuses.

One side describes the world as good place to live (with much better followup). The other describes a grandiose construction expanding with every new discovery. You choose.

Dr_toad
Jul 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 31, 2014
This is a slippery slope you are in: a convicted murderer is human being as well

What has an unborn baby DONE except to live?
A fetus IS a human being, not a potential human being. That slippy slope led to gas chambers in Poland.
a fetus it totally unwanted

An unborn human baby is NEVER unwanted by someone. Usually by someone from a religion that respects and reveres life.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 31, 2014
People choose gods matching their level

I have noticed that it is the 'liberal' who believe themselves to be God, outside of the natural world.
'Liberal' environmentalists here decry how humans are destroying nature. But if humans have evolved IN nature, how can humans be not of nature and outside nature?
Since humans evolved in nature, what humans have done and are doing must be natural.

It is in the Judeo-Chrisitian Bible where God gave nature to man to use and conserve for man's needs.
But the 'liberal' enviro typically attacks God and religion while acting like God (believing they are outside of nature) and following God's direction to conserve nature.
No wonder 'liberals' become deranged.
TegiriNenashi
2 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2014
...who believe themselves to be God...


A man regarding himself a god is an assertion that can be quantified. So if somebody says that he is bigger (smarter) than the whole universe, can this be challenged?

How many atoms does a typical person have? 10^30 at best, which is very rough estimate of system's complexity. But how do we know that each item state is binary, and what is actually the building block? We seems trying to catch something elusive. Enter the holographic principle. Human's complexity upper limit is probably the same as the black hole with the same mass. It certainly can't be more than black hole with the same surface area. This second number is much much bigger, but this doesn't matter. The complexity of known universe is astronomical. We humans are somewhere in the middle of complexity spectrum. This is a rational reason to be humble; no need to appeal to religion.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 31, 2014
This is a rational reason to be humble; no need to appeal to religion.

'Liberal' enviros state many times humans, or at least they, are outside of nature, like gods.
freethinking
1 / 5 (13) Jul 31, 2014
TegiriNenashi you said : Religion main premise that the world is a wonderful place.

Christians believe the world is a fallen place, full of sin, where brother is killing brother, nation against nation, disaster after disaster...... Obviously you don't know Christianity very well.

Here are some very short videos that might be able to enlighten you on your journy in understanding Christians.

Is God Dead? https://www.youtu...I83PxvhQ

the image of God https://www.youtu...PHk4HF6k

Truth https://www.youtu...L4fsmWXE

Hope https://www.youtu...4601fQ6E

TegiriNenashi
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 31, 2014
Here are some very short videos that might be able to enlighten you on your journy in understanding Christians


You seems to enjoy to enhance your knowledge on worn old book of sketchy origin. Did you ever try reading popular science book?

If you are displeased with my arrogance which is in sharp contrast to religion's humility and tolerance, then please note that the world is rarely hinged on a single quality. It is a fine balance between humility and arrogance that characterizes science.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2014
TegiriNenashi based on your arrogance, comments and ignorance of Christianity and the Bible you appear to be the product of the progressive outcome based educational system and have been watching too many bible conspiracy theory television shows.

But being a progressive..... what can you expect???
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2014
worn old book of sketchy origin

What other worn old book of sketchy origin has endured and is so popular?
freethinking
1 / 5 (11) Jul 31, 2014
rygg.... a worn old book of sketchy origin is actually the humanist manifesto I written in 1933 by the 34 of the greatest minds that atheist could find. Unfortunately it needed major revisions by the greatest minds atheists could find in 1973 because the greatest atheists minds in 1933 manifesto basically excused the excesses of Nazism and World War II. But wait in 2003 the greatest minds atheists could come up revised the humanist manifesto of 1977 and created the humanist manifesto III because the greatest atheists minds in 1973 were very long winded and confused and disoriented. The next revision will probably come out shorty.

The funniest thing is that these "great" atheist minds over the last almost century in all their manifestos and writings, don't understand the simple concept of love. Nowhere in their many iterations of their manifesto do they mention love... which is probably one reason they hate so much.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2014
rygg.... a worn old book of sketchy origin is actually the humanist manifesto I written in 1933 by the 34 of the greatest minds that atheist could find. Unfortunately it needed major revisions by the greatest minds atheists could find in 1973 because the greatest atheists minds in 1933 manifesto basically excused the excesses of Nazism and World War II. But wait in 2003 the greatest minds atheists could come up revised the humanist manifesto of 1977 and created the humanist manifesto III because the greatest atheists minds in 1973 were very long winded and confused and disoriented. The next revision will probably come out shorty.

The funniest thing is that these "great" atheist minds over the last almost century in all their manifestos and writings, don't understand the simple concept of love. Nowhere in their many iterations of their manifesto do they mention love... which is probably one reason they hate so much.


Better act quick. Your tinfoil hat isn't working.
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2014
TegiriNenashi if you are not a Progressive I apologize for calling you a progressive. As you can tell I have no tolerance for corruption no matter which party it is in.

However why did you single out Republicans and religion when it is the Progressive Democrats are forcing their religious views into schools, into laws, and into the market place.

It is the Progressives that try and destroy and vilify businesses and people who go against, or even just speak against Progressive religious views especially on their religious views on granting special treatment for the two percenters.


@freethinking - This is possibly the stupidest thing I've read on here this week... congrats on being Moron #1! I don't even like Tegiri, but I gotta say they're better than you.

You may want to have a look at the US Constitution, and pay special attention to the 1st Amendment... the one that says that the church is an entity separate from the state, which is a good thing for both.
freethinking
1 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2014
A progressive understanding the constitution is like Obama telling the truth..... It doesn't happen.

Here is the First Amendment text: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see the words "church is an entity separate from the state". supamark23 before you call someone a moron for not understanding the constitution, perhaps you should... ... like... .... read the constitution!

Supamark23 have you ever read the constitution or did you just lean about the constitution at a Progressive Outcome Based school somewhere?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 31, 2014
The problem with atheist manifestos like Mao's little red book is that those who read it are likely to be murdered by the authors.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (14) Jul 31, 2014
Fun constitutional facts.
Contraceptives are not a constitutional right, neither is getting an Obamaphone or a EBT card.
Forcing a baker to go against their religious beliefs to bake a cake for a two percenters "wedding" is prohibiting the free exercise of their religion.
Free speech means Obama can't use the IRS to go after those who speak against him.
Not allowing a devoted Christian to be the President of the United States goes against the constitution

Obama and Progressives believe they are constitutional experts, the problem is they most likely have never read it, if they lack the intelligence to understand it, or if by chance they understand it, they hate so much that they purposely misinterpret it.

BTW, my 12 year old has read it and keeps a copy with him at school. It's funny when a progressive teacher insists something is in the constitution and he goes up to them and asks them to show him where...... back-peddling progressive teachers are funny to watch.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2014
@(not)freethinking

Reading the Constitution is not the same thing has understanding it. To fully appreciate that great document you have to know the history of it's formation and the thinking of it's authors.

Even the most pious of the delegates knew they were creating a secular government, that entangling church and state leads to the corruption of both.

Every part of the Constitution was hotly debated, over and over again. At times the effort
came near collapse. Only "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" was adopted without opposistion.

Seperatation of church and state is not explicit in the Constitution, but it was understood by the Framers. "Slavery" never appears in the Constitution but was protected in that document.

If you want to truely appreaciate the Constitution you have to understand the HISTORY of the Constitution.
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2014
The head line should of read:
Climate inaction will cost US Hundreds of Billions

It's a budgetary fact that the dim bulb deceptiCONs just don't get and never will.

Let me tack on to what Viet said; read the "Preamble to the Constitution of the United States" and then begin your ignorant meaningless rants.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2014
Not allowing a devoted Christian to be the President of the United States goes against the constitution

When did that ever happen?
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2014
It's typical of the deceptiCONs; If it plays to their base, just make stuff up! They do it with everything, from global warming to the war on immigration. If the facts don't fit or the science doesn't lean towards their evil schemes, then just make stuff up!
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2014
Not allowing a devoted Christian to be the President of the United States goes against the constitution

When did that ever happen?


Yes, I would love to have Freefromthinking answer that one.

I would also like to know what kind of an ass indoctrinates his kid to take the constitution to school and challenge the teachers over what his dad has told him it means. You are a real moron free-from-thinking. I can't imagine you have a bit of knowledge other than that passed on from Watts and Rush.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 01, 2014
Reading the Constitution is not the same thing has understanding it. To fully appreciate that great document you have to know the history of it's formation and the thinking of it's authors.

Even the most pious of the delegates knew they were creating a secular government, that entangling church and state leads to the corruption of both.


If it plays to their base, just make stuff up!

Another example of 'liberal' projection, making stuff up. Where in the Constitutions does it state that the rights of some must be sacrificed to pay for a woman's 'right' to kill her baby? 'Liberals' just made it up out of thin air.
Yes, one must read the Federalist Papers to appreciate and understand the Constitution.
But they were not anti-religon. They were anti-state-sponsored-religion.
Today's 'liberal' is anti-religion, except, of course, for his religion, atheist socialism.
Mayor__Dooley
4.3 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2014
FreeThinking, an ironic name for one who brainwashes their innocent child into being an ignoramus in his own image.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 01, 2014
MD: So typical of the 'liberals', attacking others instead of defending their own, indefensible positions.
Challenging a union teacher with law of the land is brainwashing?
Sounds more like opposing the 'liberal' brainwashing that occurs every day at govt/union schools.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2014
Reading the Constitution is not the same thing has understanding it. To fully appreciate that great document you have to know the history of it's formation and the thinking of it's authors.

Even the most pious of the delegates knew they were creating a secular government, that entangling church and state leads to the corruption of both.

Yes, one must read the Federalist Papers to appreciate and understand the Constitution.
They were not anti-religon. They were anti-state-sponsored-religion.
Today's 'liberal' is anti-religion, except, of course, for his religion, atheist socialism.

If it plays to their base, just make stuff up!


Another example of 'liberal' projection, making stuff up. Where in the Constitutions does it state that the rights of some must be sacrificed to pay for a woman's 'right' to kill her baby? 'Liberals' just made it up out of thin air.

(cleaned up the quote marks)
freethinking
1 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2014
Progressives believe it's brainwashing to let a 12 year old to read the constitution, yet believe it is enlightened to just accept anything a Progressive teacher says.

Also, can anyone say with a straight face that IF a Presidential Candidate said they are a disciple and follower of Jesus Christ, believe that the Bible was Inspired by God, and that they want to follow Biblical principles in their life, that the media and progressives, no matter how qualified the candidate is, will shout that the candidate isn't qualified based on his religious views to be President? Who believes the media and progressives would not demean, insult, and attack and try to humiliate the candidate Mercilessly?

The only people who don't believe Progressives would attack the candidate....are the same one who believes Obama...... the stupid and the ignorant.

freethinking
1.1 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2014
I must be doing something right with my kids..... one of them is a scientist in hard (real) science field, another just graduated and is now working full time in his chosen career, while someone who graduated a year earlier is working as a cashier (and actually asked for help finding a job.)
Another child is just entering college....

All were brought up with the understanding it is ok and expected to question anyone about anything.

Progressives are a funny lot, anyone who doesn't agree with them, anyone who thinks outside the box, anyone who questions, is considered closed minded and indoctrinated. But then again, many of them can only get government jobs or jobs where they must spew progressive lies to get ahead, that is if they actually have a job and are not living in mommies and daddies basement at 40 getting free stuff from Obama
Dr_toad
Aug 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2014
You'll never understand the irony of what you just said.

Must be the fault of Jon Stewart, tweets, and inability.
'Liberals' can't explain themselves, only 'snark'.

Reminds me of cliques in Jr.High that fabricate words amongst themselves. Their own little code so they can feel superior to others.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2014
Progressives believe it's brainwashing to let a 12 year old to read the constitution, yet believe it is enlightened to just accept anything a Progressive teacher says.

Also, can anyone say with a straight face that IF a Presidential Candidate said they are a disciple and follower of Jesus Christ, believe that the Bible was Inspired by God, and that they want to follow Biblical principles in their life, that the media and progressives, no matter how qualified the candidate is, will shout that the candidate isn't qualified based on his religious views to be President? Who believes the media and progressives would not demean, insult, and attack and try to humiliate the candidate Mercilessly?

The only people who don't believe Progressives would attack the candidate....are the same one who believes Obama...... the stupid and the ignorant.



How do you explain George W Bush?
Scroofinator
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2014
Shame on Phys.org for publishing a political article such as this. It was intended to stir up entirely non-scientific bickering.

Religion and politics have nothing to do with the science of climate change.

Dr_toad
Aug 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2014
Yessir. Anymore questions?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2014
no matter how qualified the candidate is, will shout that the candidate isn't qualified based on his religious views to be President?
A US politician CANNOT get elected unless he proclaims his faith in god. But in a few gens the people will be so sick of politicians "who steer the ship of state not with a compass but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken" that they will DEMAND that their leaders be religion-free.
https://www.youtu...TVUulGwc

-@ 1:00

-Because, as you know, all religions preach that those who dont believe in their particular god cant be good and so are 2nd class citizens. And bigotry, along with divining and seersucking, have no place in true democracies.
Dr_toad
Aug 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2014
Ignorant? It's "Any more", not "anymore".

Note there are two words. Tough for you? Too bad.
For the anal morons who are too lazy to actually check:

"1 Any more

Adjective any (negative) + adverb (quantity)more; or additional spelling of anymore

Examples

I don't need any more clothes.

2 Anymore - No longer; (usually used with a negative)

Examples

Alice doesn't live here anymore "
Scroofinator
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2014
Wow, forgot a space. Did'nt realize this was grammar website. Way to cement your self as King Douche
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2014
Shame on Phys.org for publishing a political article such as this. It was intended to stir up entirely non-scientific bickering.

Religion and politics have nothing to do with the science of climate change.


AGW has everything to do with politics and religion.
The first step to 'battle' AGW was political, the IPCC.
IPCC created their clergy and AGW became a religion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2014
" Former far-left environmentalists working at EPA funnel government money through grants to their former employers and colleagues, often contributing to the bottom line of environmental activist groups."
"EPA has given more than $27 million in taxpayer-funded grants to major environmental groups. Notably, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund – two key activists groups with significant ties to senior EPA officials – have collected more than $1 million in funding each."
http://washington...2551550/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2014
Religion and politics have nothing to do with the science of climate change.


"Democrats are working hard to convince the public that regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions are necessary to avoid economic and ecological catastrophe, according to a memo obtained by The Washington Post.

The memo from Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, tells members how to talk about global warming's budgetary impact. The memo details how "disaster relief; transportation and infrastructure; national security and agriculture" will all be affected by global warming, reports the Post."
"Democratic claims that "extreme weather" was becoming more common as carbon dioxide levels increase have been disputed by scientists who say the data tells a different story."
http://dailycalle...-points/
Scroofinator
4.1 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2014
rygg,
Do you really think spamming the page with quotes makes you sound smarter? It doesn't, and for me, it's annoying as hell.

AGW has everything to do with politics and religion

Then leave it to the politicians and the clergy. We must stick to the science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2014
We must stick to the science.

Please do.
AGWite 'liberals' refuse the opportunity.
chrisn566
1.3 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
ROFL Someone actually said "take a look at the constitution" while in an article about what Obama says? Thats just rich!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
worn old book of sketchy origin

What other worn old book of sketchy origin has endured and is so popular?

the Dictionary
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
@free from thought
this particular line specifies there is to be NO STATE SPONSORED RELIGION which is where the differentiation between church and state comes from... if you read the SCOTUS findings regarding this particular line as well as Thomas Jeffersons quotes, to which the SCOTUS actually uses as a benchmark for defining the parameters of the 1st amendment... you would realise that though your phrase does not appear, the necessary supporting phrases that support the conclusion "separation of church and state" do appear, and thus the summation regarding the comment is clear, concise and accurate which is why SCOTUS ALSO used the exact same PHRASE when describing the 1st amendment.

EPIC FAIL on your part... sorry brain dead troll
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
@ryggeson2
Before this thread comes to a merciful and off topic end I need to make a point you don't understand. The Federalist Papers while important, were arguments for ratification not the story of the WRITING of the Constitution. Nothing Hamilton offered at the convention was adopted. Had all of Madison's proposals been adopted our government would look much different. They both believed in a strong central government at the expense of the states.

If you want a an unbiased account of the four months it took to write the Constitution there is no better book than PLAIN, HONEST MEN, The Making Of The Constitution by Richard Berman.

Do you have the guts to read it?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 02, 2014
separation of church and state

That's NOT what the Constitution states and if you want it to say that, there is an amendment process.
Today, the atheist religion dominates the state, violating your admonition of separation.
Again, the key phrase is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
There is not supposed to be a state religion and the state can't interfere with religious practices as long as those practices don't violate the life, liberty and property of the individual.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 03, 2014
No shit? I was wondering how much they get per spew.
-- toadstool
That would be more than you can count, which is 20 or 21 if you drop your pants. A limp 21 according supatard, who shares that lone neuron with you.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2014
That's NOT what the Constitution states and if you want it to say that, there is an amendment process.
@rygtard
are you stupid? or you just didn't bother reading what I wrote?
i said it didn't use those words- BUT - Jefferson and the SCOTUS used them to clarify and define the paragraph, which means that the paragraph MEANS the same thing, per SCOTUS, the founding fathers and the underlying statement here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
so arguing against that is simply your version of BLATANT STUPIDITY and proving:
you are illiterate
a troll
stupid
not capable of comprehending the document that governs your own country (and that you proclaimed you supposedly were commissioned to do per the authority of: 5 USC § 301 and MAYBE 10 USC Sec. 2104, Subtitle
A, Part III, Chapter 103)

perhaps you should retract your statements? because you obviously don't know SQUAT about the constitution OR the Navy
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2014
Today, the atheist religion dominates the state, violating your admonition of separation.
@rygtard
Atheism is a religion much the same way that OFF is a TV channel

your logic is based upon conspiracy and denial of reality

go take your meds and put your tinfoil hat back on... or GO GET some meds... whichever applies today in your case
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2014
hich means that the paragraph MEANS the same thing, per SCOTUS, t

No, it does not.

It meant precisely what it states. Congress shall pass NO law prohibiting the FREE exercise of religion.

Establishment of a state religion means just that. The state sponsors a religion just as Saudi Arabia does, as do many Scandinavian states, England, ....Sponsorship means the state uses plundered wealth from the taxpayers to support the its favored religion.
State acknowledging the existence of a religion and respecting that religion does not establish that religion.
How do you like the idea that two people can use the IRS to attack the freedom of speech for all those who practice a religion in the USA?
Atheism is a religion as they believe God does not exist AND the SCOTUS stated it was.
Dr_toad
Aug 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2014
@ryggy

Atheism is a religion as they believe God does not exist AND the SCOTUS stated it was.

You are wrong on both counts.

Atheism is a LACK of belief and SCOTUS never said atheism is a religion, despite the headlines on rightwing media.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2014
@ryggy

Atheism is a religion as they believe God does not exist AND the SCOTUS stated it was.

You are wrong on both counts.

Atheism is a LACK of belief and SCOTUS never said atheism is a religion, despite the headlines on rightwing media.


VietVet: Sorry for the 1 rating. My finger hit it when I saw Ryggy at the top. You are correct and should have been rated up for that answer.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2014
It meant precisely what it states. Congress shall pass NO law prohibiting the FREE exercise of religion
@rygtard
unless you are Lakota and pre-mid 1980's ... there IS no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, moron!
Sponsorship means the state uses plundered wealth from the taxpayers to support the its favored religion
so now you are saying SCIENCE is a religion? i guess like MATH is a religion? are you really that stupid?
Atheism is a religion as they believe God does not exist AND the SCOTUS stated it was
PROVE IT.
and not some blog post by a nut like you... EMPIRICAL PROOF from court record!

SCIENCE doesn't count as a religion... only in YOUR head because you are an illiterate moron TROLL.

ANYONE who thinks science is a religion must also believe that the moon landing was faked and that the Illuminati actually run the world by transcribing alien messages received by the ark of the covenant stored under the pyramids... just as believable as YOUR crap!
Phil DePayne
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2014
Wow, can someone give me an unbiased opinion of this article? Or how about an unbiased opinion of religion? That's OK, I know you can't. I pity you since religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world and the soul of soulless circumstances.
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
separation of church and state

That's NOT what the Constitution states and if you want it to say that, there is an amendment process.
Today, the atheist religion dominates the state, violating your admonition of separation.
Again, the key phrase is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
There is not supposed to be a state religion and the state can't interfere with religious practices as long as those practices don't violate the life, liberty and property of the individual.
...
life, liberty and property of the individual

If somehow your twisted brain gets that out of "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" ... there is no hope for you. Way to go, @R2.
howhot2
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
Sorry for the follow-up but apparently @R2 needs an education on the American Constitution and the history of our founding fathers. John Locke wrote "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.", a member of the Wig party (supporters of the British merchant class) and not the revolutionaries and freedom fighters of the American Revolution. Actually, as an American, I'm very insulted that @R2 used that god-damn phrase in a debate on our great constitution. A damn Wig!

You know what @R2, "you can read the lines between the stripes as easy as you can read the line between my fingers.", Me.

Jimee
5 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2014
Bigots, scumbags, and morons are soooo thick on this one.
Mayor__Dooley
5 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
Rygg,
You misquote and misunderstand, and on the pillars of cretinism you hoist yourself high. From there you sneer, spit and cry, it's all a conspiracy! It's all a lie! Without a thought of your own you shake irate, with your floundering logic and tenuous tales. But your lack of understanding is not your own fault, of course, it's all a dastardly liberal plot.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2014
John Locke wrote "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.",

So?
The Costitution of VA, written by George Mason.

"Section 1. Equality and rights of men.

That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
http://constituti...nia.gov/

Note they didn't say "The rights of man" like the French proto-communists did.

"Life, Liberty and Property" are not in the US Constitution nor the Declaration. It was strongly argued to use 'property' instead of 'pursuit of happiness', but I believe they used the VA Constitution as an example and shortened " with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." to "pursuit of happiness"
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2014
@ryggy

And George Mason owned 300 hundred slaves.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
@ryggy

And George Mason owned 300 hundred slaves.

So?
How does that diminish the message?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2014
@ryggy

And George Mason owned 300 hundred slaves.

So?
How does that diminish the message?


You don't see the hypocrisy?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014


@ryggy

And George Mason owned 300 hundred slaves.

So?
How does that diminish the message?


You don't see the hypocrisy?

"Possibly the second largest slave owner in Fairfax County (after George Washington), Mason's views on slavery are revealed in his writings. He intensely disliked and disapproved of the institution and argued against it. He wrote:

[Slavery is a] slow Poison, which is daily contaminating the Minds & Morals of our People. Every Gentleman here is born a petty Tyrant…. And in such an infernal School are to be educated our future Legislators & Rulers.[1]"
"At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 he said:

Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. [Slaves] bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not [sic] be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects[,] providence punishes national sins, by national calamities.[2]"
http://gunstonhall.org/geo
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
"The present question concerns not the importing States alone but the whole Union…. Slavery discourages arts & manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich & strengthen a Country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not [sic] be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities….[It is] essential in every point of view that the Genl. Govt. should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.[6]"
http://gunstonhal...ery.html
Substitute slaves for illegal immigrants and it sounds just like today.
'National calamity' => The Civil War?
howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2014
You know, sometime there are subjects you poke your head into and you walk away having learned something new. One of my interests is American history and what created our system of government. Why would good men fight and suffer to establish a new country? As I've read more about John Locke, he had a lot of influence on the constitutions of the USA, France, and ideas effecting England. His concept of property was very different from a tangible plot of land. Locke meant the joy obtained from ownership. In England (and early British controlled USA), Land was owned by the Monarchy (King George) and given to the Lords, Dukes, etc. etc. So individual property ownership would have been a big deal.

Your concept of "Life, Liberty and Property" @R2 is very different than that of John Locke. My rant on the Wigs was meant at the supports of the monarchy rule (Tories). Locke was one of the influences of the American Whig party, and opposed the monarchy. I take back my rant against him.
howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2014
@Mayor__Dooley's reply with minor edits:
You misquote and misunderstand,
and on the pillars of cretinism you hoist yourself high.
From there you sneer, spit and cry,
it's all a conspiracy! It's all a lie!
Without a thought of your own you shake irate,
with your floundering logic and tenuous tales you berate.
But your lack of understanding is not your own fault,
of course, it's all a dastardly liberal plot.
We all know the source, John Galt.

howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2014
@Mayor__Dooley's reply with minor edits:
You misquote and misunderstand,
and on the pillars of cretinism you hoist yourself high.
From there you sneer, spit and cry,
it's all a conspiracy! It's all a lie!
Without a thought of your own you shake irate,
with your floundering logic and tenuous tales you berate.
But your lack of understanding is not your own fault,
of course, it's all a dastardly liberal plot.
We all know the plot source; John Galt.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Your concept of "Life, Liberty and Property" @R2 is very different than that of John Locke.

No, it is not.
" Locke established that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: "every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his." He continues: "The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property."

Locke believed people legitimately turned common property into private property by mixing their labor with it, improving it. Marxists liked to claim this meant Locke embraced the labor theory of value, but he was talking about the basis of ownership rather than value.

He insisted that people, not rulers, are sovereign. :
http://www.fee.or...roperty/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
"In 1693, Locke published Some Thoughts Concerning Education, which offered many ideas as revolutionary now as they were then. Thomas Hobbes had insisted that education should promote submission to authority, but Locke declared education is for liberty. Locke believed that setting a personal example is the most effective way to teach moral standards and fundamental skills, which is why he recommended homeschooling. He objected to government schools. He urged parents to nurture the unique genius of each child."
" Voltaire had promoted Locke's ideas in France. Ideas about the separation of powers were expanded by Baron de Montesquieu. Locke's doctrine of natural rights appeared at the outset of the French Revolution, in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, but his belief in the separation of powers and the sanctity of private property never took hold there. Hence, the Reign of Terror."
http://www.fee.or...roperty/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
"Then Locke virtually vanished from intellectual debates. A conservative reaction engulfed Europe as people associated talk about natural rights with rebellion and Napoleon's wars. In England, Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham ridiculed natural rights, proposing that public policy be determined by the greatest-happiness-for-the-greatest-number principle. But both conservatives and Utilitarians proved intellectually helpless when governments demanded more power to rob people, jail people, and even commit murder in the name of doing good."
{aka Socialism}
http://www.fee.or...roperty/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2014
@Mayor__Dooley's reply with minor edits:
You misquote and misunderstand,
and on the pillars of cretinism you hoist yourself high.
From there you sneer, spit and cry,
it's all a conspiracy! It's all a lie!
Without a thought of your own you shake irate,
with your floundering logic and tenuous tales you berate.
But your lack of understanding is not your own fault,
of course, it's all a dastardly liberal plot.
We all know the plot source; John Galt.

@howhot2
@Mayor__Dooley

very poetic and cogent
howhot2
5 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2014
Wikipedia has an excellent entry on "The Age of Enlightenment" of which Locke was a major figure.Wikipedia is worth the look.The problem I have with your presentation is that you explain "Life Liberty and Property" with all intention of pushing a Libertarian agenda. However, that is not what the U.S. Declaration of Independence says, does it? It says "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It was written by Thomas Jefferson with all consideration to John Locke. From Wiki-P, Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government. There are people that don't own property and many American Indian tribes had no concept of property. So unless Locke meant the person property as in health, body, mind, personal thought, then his philosophy doesn't really apply for all people.

Jefferson and Franklin understood the foundations for Government as did the many patriots that wrote the Declaration and it has functioned well
howhot2
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2014
@Mayor__Dooley's reply with minor edits:
You misquote and misunderstand,
and on the pillars of cretinism you hoist yourself high.
From there you sneer, spit and cry,
it's all a conspiracy! It's all a lie!
Without a thought of your own you shake irate,
with your floundering logic and tenuous tales you berate.
But your lack of understanding is not your own fault,
of course, it's all a dastardly liberal plot.
We all know the plot source; John Galt.

@howhot2
@Mayor__Dooley

very poetic and cogent

Thanks Cap, and the Mayor. And we all need to thank the person that inspired this poem when it wins a Pulitzer. @R2.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2014
Jefferson and Franklin understood the foundations for Government

Yes, they understood govt must be limited and power must be dispersed.

"Unfortunately, Thomas Jefferson himself never explained his use of the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. However, he was almost certainly influenced by George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights (adopted June 12, 1776), which referred to "the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety" (Section 1).[1]

Jefferson's rough draft of the Declaration used the expression, "...life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;" and in the final version of the Declaration it was altered slightly to "...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""
http://www.montic...appiness

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2014
"The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 affirms that "the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality, and . . . these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality."

So, too, Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 affirms that "religion, morality, and knowledge" are "essential to the happiness of mankind."

Affirmations of these kinds could be multiplied many times from documents and speeches of the time. The upshot is that "happiness" in the Declaration should be understood centrally as a sort of virtuous felicity, perhaps in the sense of Greek eudemonia , although one refined by Christian sensibilities. "
http://www.firstt...essrdquo
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2014
"In this sense "pursuit" means occupation or practice. We might even think of it in the sense of vocation.

So "the pursuit of happiness" means something like occupying one's life with the activities that provide for overall wellbeing. This certainly includes a right to material things, but it goes beyond that to include humanity's spiritual and moral condition.

That the "pursuit of happiness" is an inalienable right"one that cannot be given away"and that governments have been tasked to protect it suggests a relationship between government and humanity's moral ends in tension, if not in outright contradiction, with modern liberalism. It seems to assume an objective moral order from which a person may not alienate himself. "
http://www.firstt...essrdquo
James R. Rogers is department head and associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2014
"Furthermore, as the quotation from Locke demonstrates, "the pursuit of happiness" is a complicated concept. It is not merely sensual or hedonistic, but engages the intellect, requiring the careful discrimination of imaginary happiness from "true and solid" happiness. It is the "foundation of liberty" because it frees us from enslavement to particular desires. - See more at: http://hnn.us/art...z4.dpuf"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2014
efferson and Franklin understood the foundations for Government


""To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
-- Thomas Jefferson letter to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

""The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
-- Thomas Jefferson"
""I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil."
-- Ben Franklin"
Ben would not like Obama.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2014
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 17:380
Mayor__Dooley
5 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
Rygg,
You continue to misquote and misunderstand at every step. You take words removed from their context, so that they can be used to support you or indeed contradict you. This unfathomable junk that you spew, logorrhoea, is misguided by the notion of qauntity before quality.

For you to think your posts will have a positive effect, you must assume the reader is a simpleton. An assumption that tends to offend.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
"Misquote", "Misunderstand"
So you say.
assume the reader is a simpleton

Given your response, and the irrational responses of so many socialists here, yes.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
Maybe this explains AlGore's apparent hypocrisy?

"A new study finds affirming belief in scientific progress appears to reduce the likelihood of acting in environmentally responsible ways.



Advocates for environmental action also tend to be strong believers in science. Could this explain why they've had so little success in persuading people to change their behaviors?"

""When media outlets paint a picture of omniscient science and unconditional and ongoing progress, one consequence may be that people become passive and less motivated to behave in environmentally friendly ways," University of Amsterdam researchers Marijn Meijers and Bastiaan Rutjens write in the European Journal of Social Psychology."
http://www.psmag....r-87692/
Pexeso
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
Just research the cold fusion and magnetic motors - everything else just replaces the fuel energy for energy required for mining of raw sources and wastes the money of tax payers in this way. The EMDrive example just illustrated, the ignorance of science is bottomless in the matter of things, which seemingly don't fit the existing theories well. The Americans shouldn't wait with research of these technologies for China and another more pragmatic countries - or they will really become a country on decline. When the natural resources are limited, the research is the only way, which can provide further progress. For USA it's a matter of their survival.
howhot2
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2014
That the "pursuit of happiness" is an inalienable right"one that cannot be given away"and that governments have been tasked to protect it suggests a relationship between government and humanity's moral ends in tension, if not in outright contradiction, with modern liberalism. It seems to assume an objective moral order from which a person may not alienate himself. "

On this point, I sharply disagree @R2. I see absolutely no contradiction nor moral tension between the "Pursuit of Happiness" and modern liberalism. In fact, the opposite. I see far more contradiction between "Pursuit of Happiness" and conservatism, and neo-ibertarianism! Women's rights for example; a modern woman's ability to control her own body or destiny is hindered by the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism and religious dogma. Similarly, Equal rights, or the right for Labor unionize and to bargain. These all fall under the Pursuit of Happiness ideas but not personhood for corporations for example.
Pexeso
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
If you would have a reliable energy source, then you can produce the gasoline from carbon dioxide and water from air. Conversely, until you produce most of electricity with burning of fossil fuels, then the switching to electromobiles will not help you with anything, with energetic crisis the less. It's just an occupational program for few Al Gore supporters - nothing else.

It's as simple as it is.
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
Maybe this explains AlGore's apparent hypocrisy?
Or maybe it explains yours.
Ben would not like Obama.
Just the opposite. Franklin would hate modern Libertarians and Conservatives. He would admire the fact that a man, disadvantaged by race as Obama was, could aspire through education and wit, to be president of the United States. You can't get over how Obama won and was re-elected. Your just a sore looser @R2 proving it everyday and with every post.
Regardless, I think these points are valid:
When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-- Benjamin Franklin
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788
Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
-- Thomas Jefferson...

1) is generally valid.
2) is valid and taken out of context.
3) is valid.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
I see absolutely no contradiction nor moral tension between the "Pursuit of Happiness" and modern liberalism.


'Liberalism' is socialism is state control of property, your means to pursue happiness.

How can you pursue your happiness when the state controls everything?

a modern woman's ability to control her own body

You mean to right to murder her baby? To extinguish the happiness of another human being?
Why do women need the state to plunder the wealth of others to pay for their birth control and for their abortions? With rights come responsibilities.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
disadvantaged by race as Obama was

What disadvantage?
Obama is a product of 'affirmative action' and took advantage of being a foreign student.
All sorts of excuses were made for him to get through Harvard.

" There was also the Harvard Law student who couldn't get into a Dershowitz class despite multiple attempts: Barack Obama.

"Twice because the computer kept him out," Dershowitz said. "It wasn't my fault.""
http://www.thebla...illiant/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
Just the opposite. Franklin would hate modern Libertarians and Conservatives.

Back it up with research and analysis.

"In the story of America's Great Seal, a particularly relevant chapter is the imagery suggested by Benjamin Franklin in August 1776. He chose the dramatic historical scene described in Exodus, where people confronted a tyrant in order to gain their freedom. "
"Thomas Jefferson liked the motto "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God" so much, he used it on his personal seal. Also, it seems to have inspired the upper motto on the final reverse side of the Great Seal: Annuit Coeptis (God has favored our undertakings). "
http://www.greats...rse.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.

Benjamin Franklin

Read more at http://www.brainy...S6Lrz.99

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion about the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

Benjamin Franklin

'Liberals' perpetuate poverty to keep a constituency.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
"Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.

And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?"
http://www.americ...a_the_af
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
Given Obama's 'accomplishments' I don't think Franklin would have voted for or respected Obama.

Besides white hating, Obama seems to hate Christians, too. {As do so many who post here.}
Only after much pressure has he allowed some aid to flow to Christians and non-Muslims being massacred in Iraq.
Contrast this with Obama's illegal support of Muslims in Libya. Illegal as he used military force with out approval or even consultation with Congress.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
" When Mr. Obama first announced American military involvement in Libya, he notified Congress within 48 hours, as prescribed by the War Powers Act. This initiated a 60-day period, during which he was required to obtain approval from Congress; if he failed to do so, the act gave him at most 30 days to halt all "hostilities."

Last Sunday was the 90th day of bombing in Libya, but Mr. Obama — armed with dubious legal opinions — is refusing to stop America's military engagement there. His White House counsel, Robert F. Bauer, has declared that, despite the War Powers Act, the president can continue the Libya campaign indefinitely without legislative support. This conclusion lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years. "
http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
"For the first time since launching attacks against Libyan targets, President Obama defended his actions to reporters and said the allies needed to act quickly to avoid atrocities."
http://abcnews.go...-crisis/
Why did Obama wait so long to attack ISIS for their atrocities?
Tony Blair:
"And he pointed the finger of blame at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki – and more pointedly at Mr Obama – for leaving Iraq defenceless.

'Three or four years ago, Al Qaeda in Iraq was a beaten force. The sectarianism of the Maliki government snuffed out a genuine opportunity to build a cohesive Iraq. And there will be debate about whether the withdrawal of US forces happened too soon.' "
http://www.dailym...cks.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
""He's [Obama] not looking for a fight, unless you're in the Tea Party or the Republican Party, then he's looking for a fight. But if you're an Islamonazi, or a fascist KGB man like Putin, or you've got a cabal of Communist dictators like in China, he's not looking for a fight, he's looking for a way out."

http://www.breitb...ea-Party

Ben Franklin opposed tyranny. Obama encourages tyranny.
Pexeso
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
Ben Franklin opposed tyranny. Obama encourages tyranny.
Not so fast. Don't forget, the economical crisis has started just under Bush government. The institutions which suck the contemporary Americans so much (like the NSA) were established under conservative government, 9/11 was plot of conservative government.

The nation, which doesn't remember its past (at least ten years) doesn't deserve the future. This doesn't mean, I'm a supporter of Obama regarding his energetic politics. His energy secretary Moniz boycotted the cold fusion research at MIT most obstinately. The USA has lost many years of energy research just because of him.
Mayor__Dooley
5 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
"Misquote", "Misunderstand"
So you say.
assume the reader is a simpleton

Given your response, and the irrational responses of so many socialists here, yes.


How much more self-evident do you want?
But, we all know that's the limit of your dribbling wit. To cherry-pick a few words and just spit them back.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
9/11 was plot of conservative government.

What 9/11 plot?
The attack on the USA on 9/11/01 was planned during the Clinton administration.
Recall there was an attack on the WTC in 1993.
Do you consider Clinton to be conservative?
the economical crisis has started just under Bush government.

The first securitized mortgages occurred in 1997, while Clinton was president.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2014
Why should anyone trust the White House?

"Daily Beast: Even Hawaii Hates Obama Now"
http://www.thedai...now.html
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
" But if you're an Islamonazi, or a fascist KGB man like Putin..."

Putin had 86% popular support BEFORE USA/NATO supported the NAZI invasion in Eastern Ukraine

Obama/Bush/Kerry/McCain etc. are all just string puppets of banksters and kleptocrats with ties to the Pilgrim Society. You waste your time as these minions are nothing like their brand names conservative/liberal
howhot2
5 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2014
Man @R2, you sure know how to work yourself into a rabid leather. Way back you said; "'Liberalism' is socialism is state control of property, your means to pursue happiness." 'Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.' Did you get the part about LIBERTY! Liberty, Equality, Justice are the principle values of liberalism. I'm damn proud to be an American liberal because it is moral and decent system of governance. Were as your ideas seem to be from a foreign country. What you confuse is economic philosophy for ideas. Socialism is an economic structure for governance as is communism, capitalism, or Somalian anarchy as you would like. Everytime you mention property, you seem to assume it's yours to do whatever with; Drill, mine, plow, harvest, destroy, pollute or poison. We all live here for a small amount of time in the most abstract sense, we all own the world and share it for that time. Why should you have more rights than I?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
It was FDR that adopted the use of 'liberal' to sell his socialism.
He used 'liberal' to differentiate the use of 'progressive' that Hoover used.
'Progressive' is what the socialists began to use in the beginning of the 20th century.
Socialists always need to keep changing what they call themselves.
merican liberal because it is moral and decent system of governance.

Plundering wealth is moral? Forcing people into unemployment is moral? Murdering babies is moral?
Everything the 'progressive'/'liberal'/socialist stand for is immoral as they use force to control the lives of others.
Hottie proud of this?
Why should you have more rights than I?

'Liberals' claim illegal aliens have more rights than citizens.'Liberals' claim (pick a minority) has more rights to jobs, education ... than a different group.
Liberty, Equality, Justice are the principle values of liberalism.

Not today.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
A typical 'liberal':
"Video surfaced on Thursday showing Michael Mulgrew, president of New York's United Federation of Teachers, as he unloaded a hateful rant against critics of the Common Core Standards Initiative.

"If someone takes something from me, I'm going to grab it right back out of their cold, twisted, sick hands and say it is mine!" Mulgrew bellowed clownishly. "You do not take what is mine!"

The union boss also challenged opponents of Common Core and union control over education to a fist fight.

"I'm going to punch you in the face and push you in the dirt because this is the teachers'!" Mulgrew threatened."
http://dailycalle...e-video/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2014
'Liberals' today oppose the Bill of Rights. They propose legislation to restrict speech, religious liberty, confiscate all firearms (except for govt agents).
The record is quite clear that 'liberals' are opposed to life, liberty and property.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2014
'Liberals' today oppose the Bill of Rights. They propose legislation to restrict speech, religious liberty, confiscate all firearms (except for govt agents).
The record is quite clear that 'liberals' are opposed to life, liberty and property.


It's one thing to be a rigid idealoge but with you're deep into delusional paranoia.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2014
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"A new Senate bill show that Democrats love the First Amendment only when it suits them. And the same is true, alas, of the GOP."
http://www.thedai...isy.html

"The ongoing debate over gun control is just another attempt by liberals to make the average American dependent on the government in order to increase liberalism's power. "
http://www.americ...rol.html

kochevnik
1 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2014
Strange days when ryggie makes more sense than the looney USA "liberals" aka Nazi sponsors trying to ignite WWIII for their bankster bosses

I'm more convinced than ever that anything coming from the US State Department is straight from the Pilgrims Society. If Kerry is a liberal and McCain is a moderate and Hitlery is a presidential candidate then the party is truly zombified
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2014
Another 'liberal's' attempt to limit liberty:
"Rep. Mike Honda, (D-CA), has submitted a bill to the U.S. House that would prohibit the sale, use or possession of what he terms military-grade body armor.

Honda reasons that this measure would aid law enforcement in taking out an active shooter, since the active shooter wouldn't be able to obtain body armo

Read more at http://minutemenn...GDfoH.99
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2014
@R2, its amazing how nutty you sound;
It was FDR that adopted the use of 'liberal' to sell his socialism.
FDR pulled America's fat out of the deep hard depression. He did that and not a singer libertarian was even there to point out to FDR that his work looked like socialism to the poorly educated @R2. Suffice it to say when John Locke calls for "Life, Liberty and Property" he is not talking or property in your sense @R2. Your ideas and his are not even remotely similar. From all I see, Libertarians oppose the Bill of Rights, and the Republicans just absolutely fear it.

Liberals embrace the Bill of Rights and would like to extend it and give it more powers. More rights to the people. Decepticons always seem to want to take right away. The right to vote, the right to medical care etc. etc. And the example above isn't about limiting Liberty, it's about reducing violent crime, you said so in the next sentence. It seems practical to me, maybe there is better.

howhot2
5 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2014
So from the discussion, when it's reported that
White House warns climate inaction could cost US billions
the democratically elect government is giving a warning to all people, that climate is not addressed in the near future, that the cost tax payers hundreds of billions. It doesn't get much clearer than that. As a citizen you need to know that in-action by your congress man will cost the US tax pay significant sums. Far more than if action is taken now.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
the democratically elect government is giving a warning to all people,

The 'democratically elected govt' is 1/3 of the govt.
1/2 of the other third of the govt, the House of Representatives, the part of the govt that is closest to the people, is more skeptical of the socialist Regulatory State.
That inaction IS what the people want.
FDR pulled America's fat out of the deep hard depression.

FDR's socialist policies extended ans worsened the Depression. The DATA is quite clear.
From all I see, Libertarians oppose the Bill of Rights,

You must be blinded by socialism.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Rygg2 says that the world is socialist and he personally hates that politics. He sees the world as being socialist and he sees himself as the only anarchist that can keep the world under control. He is delusional and deserves what comes to him.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
I am not alone:

http://www.fee.org/
"Some of your favorite famous people just may be libertarian! Check out this definitive list of celebrities and VIPs who believe in individual liberty, free markets, and peace. Just about everyone has libertarian views on some issues, and many people are libertarian but don't know there's a name for what they believe (or who choose not to publicly label their views). However, we have a special criteria for someone making this list: they have publicly declared themselves "libertarian.""
http://www.theadv...brities/
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
From what I read on physorg the ocean itself causes global warming. It's a great leap of faith to say that carbon dioxide is the primary culprit, and further that taxes are the solution. This comes from the same administration that supports cannibal terrorists in Syria and Nazis starting WWIII in Russia. Kolomoysky has his own private army and wants to nuke Russia, but he is funded directly by the neoliberal State Department in turn supported by useful looney liberal idiots. The carbon tax idea began with with a Rothschild bankster and is extremely suspect
howhot2
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
I was once a Libertarian but then I came to my senses. As most do. When you realize that almost always, Liberals provide better government to the people than conservatives or libertarians. When you realize Liberals are all about Liberty, Equality and Justice, the other not so as much. When you look at the issues Liberal governments tackle, and solve, you have issues like, the right to wealth equality, the right of labor to unionize, the right to health care, the right to a good education, the right to safe streets, the right to practice science, the right to make a real wage, the right of small business to thrive, the right to equal housing, the list just goes on and on.

So far @R2, all I've heard from you in favor of Libertarians is the right to abuse your own property; which doesn't seem all that beneficial to establishing a 'More Perfect Union'. And lets not forget the DecptiCONs; the want to screw everyone (and do) to get power.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
The bigger the government, the more tyrannical. That is obvious. There is a current article on the subject which supports my conclusion
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
I'm not alone:

"Consider the levels of confidence that Americans have in the following institutions: small business (63 percent), churches/organized religion (44 percent) Congress (13 percent) local government (61 percent); banks (21 percent) big business 21 percent) organized labor (21 percent) and public schools (29 percent). The implications of these results are easily understood when these institutions are divided into two categories: The first, are large, distant institutions over which voters feel that they have no real influence but are failing them or negatively affect their lives. In this category we put Congress, banks, big business, organized labor and public schools. The second category represents local organizations over which voters feel they have influence and which they can relate to. Here we have small business, churches, and local government."
http://dailycalle...the-gop/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2014
Liberals provide better government to the people

Where?
If they can, people are fleeing 'liberal'/socialist govts in the US like Detroit, NYC, California, MA,..
The only people flocking to 'liberal'/socialist govts are illegal aliens.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
the right to make a real wage

A legitimate 'right' cannot violate legitimate rights of anyone else.
Minimum wage laws violate the rights of the employer, employees and customers (that's everyone).

kochevnik
1 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
True objective of USA neoliberals. FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE and first nuclear strike on Russia: https://www.youtu...ge#t=393

Carbon taxes will pay for more USA wars
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
the right to abuse your own property;

What business is it of yours what I do with my property?
The 'liberals' made a big deal about why should the govt care about what I do with my body in my bedroom? My body is my property. Why does the 'liberal' claim the wealth I create with my body, my labor, my ingenuity is not mine?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
"Mesa is the most conservative big city in the country, according to research examining municipal politics nationwide.

And, little surprise, San Francisco is the most liberal.

The paper, "Representation in Municipal Government," analyzed public policy in cities across the country in search of trends in local ideology."
http://www.usatod...3641061/
Correlating this with the fastest/slowest growing cities:

http://www.forbes...-cities/
Least conservative scale: -1
Most conservative: +1

Conservative rating of top growing cities: -0.171111111
Growth rate since 2000: 35.69%

Conservative rating of bottom growing cities: -0.54625
Growth rate since 2000: 0.66%

Slow growth, no growth, decline correlates with being less conservative.

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
"when government erodes private property rights, interferes with trade, distorts prices, and manipulates money, it doesn't just make it harder to be efficient; it also pulls the rug from under the very ability to spot inefficiencies at all."
"An economy without inefficiencies is either one where knowledge is so perfect that no one ever makes a mistake, or it's one in which government policy has effectively foreclosed the very possibility of inefficiency. In a world of surprise and discovery, of experiment and innovation, the former is impossible; the latter sort of economy, as Mises showed almost 100 years ago, is impossible as well as intolerable."
http://www.fee.or...ficiency
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
One of the most common excuses made by socialists for their failures:

"All We Need Is the Right People to Run the Government"

" if our purpose is to preserve and promote liberty while seeking the benefits of a market-driven economy, we'll look in vain for reasonable answers and solutions from government—no matter who runs it. We are slowly learning this lesson, though at great cost. "
{Written in 1994 and no one has learned this lesson}

http://www.fee.or...vernment
kochevnik
1 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
USA liberals can't defend their politics or president. Only response is from some passive-aggressive Internet troll who lost his own war in the 60s, VietVet. Yet his only retort is silent stalking with rank sniping. Debate seems a lost skill in USA now it's just force-fed soundbites. I suspect the new silent neoliberals have no opinion worth writing because they now share more in common with Mussolini than Kennedy or King. Putin predicted war during the Olympics. I hope the sleeping intelligentsia in USA will wake up
kochevnik
1 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
As for global climate change, it would seem that humanity is incapable of mounting a coherent response because it is too preoccupied with starting wars and most blindly follow their controlled media. Such unthinking creatures do not deserve to inherent a beautiful planet like Earth. Overall man is clever enough to be aware of the consequences of his behavior, but too still stupid to act upon those realizations. In that case only war, famine and pestilence will restore order
howhot2
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
@R2 says
What business is it of yours what I do with my property?
Is it really your property? What happens to it when you die and would you care. I can say that I own one square inch of the moon, but really it's just society that recognizes that fact, the courts, and a social system that empowers one to recognize that fact. Without government, there is no property for you to own! And since it is society that owns your land by the government we have established, you must obey societies rules on your property. That means citizens and fellow neighbor country men will hold hearings, listen and decide if the the fracking well you put on your property (for example) is acceptable is acceptable to the community.

Your libertarian ideas seem like dictatorship or totalitarianism trying to impose your will over people.



howhot2
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
@Kocheif say;
As for global climate change, it would seem that humanity is incapable of mounting a coherent response because it is too preoccupied with starting wars and most blindly follow their controlled media
No, I don't think humanity is all the preoccupied with war. Certainly the media is. Global warming will absolutely be here for 1000's of years forward. Get used to that fact!

Humanity though, may change when leadership develops and viable commercial solutions to non polluting energy sources are created an nurtured.


kochevnik
1 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
@R2 says
What business is it of yours what I do with my property?
Is it really your property?
A common question in many prisionyards. In reality ownership was protected at gunpoint long before governments took root in North America. Governments are necessary for thieves to hook their tentacles into your wealth "legally"
howhot2
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
@R2 says
What business is it of yours what I do with my property?
Is it really your property?
A common question in many prisionyards. In reality ownership was protected at gunpoint long before governments took root in North America. Governments are necessary for thieves to hook their tentacles into your wealth "legally"

Yeah, sure there were feudal systems in Japan too. Question for you then, are any of those systems legally binding? Not without the government's (and therefore society's) approval. Like it or not, your part of society in some fashion, so it's not a question of government's tentacles, but your reluctance to enjoy the party.
howhot2
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
R2 also say "Slow growth, no growth, decline correlates with being less conservative.". But of course, that is typical when Liberals take over to fix the mess conservatives leave behind, it can be difficult to fix. You take Kansas for example. Their tea party gov has pretty much tanked to whole state with tax breaks for the wealthy and higher taxes for the impoverished poor. It will be fun watching them pull there fat goat roper buts out of that screw up.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2014
Not without the government's (and therefore society's) approval.

Society is not the state.
Your libertarian ideas seem like dictatorship or totalitarianism trying to impose your will over people.


Ever read 1984?
Liberty is now tyranny?
viable commercial solutions

Why do you care about viable commercial solution? A socialist tyranny can order it done and not have to worry about commercial viability.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
A common question in many prisionyards. In reality ownership was protected at gunpoint long before governments took root in North America. Governments are necessary for thieves to hook their tentacles into your wealth "legally"

Yeah, sure there were feudal systems in Japan too. Question for you then, are any of those systems legally binding? Not without the government's (and therefore society's) approval. Like it or not, your part of society in some fashion, so it's not a question of government's tentacles, but your reluctance to enjoy the party.
In North American territories without a binding legal system, rule of law was maintained with personal arms. You should look up the "appealing to authority" fallacy in regards to the necessity of government. Kleptocracies and oligarchies can only function within a legal system purpose built around their interests. Society is not the government
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2014
In North American territories without a binding legal system, rule of law was maintained with personal arms


Which is why the socialist govts want to ban firearms. They want to be the only ones with weapons to control society.
Civil societies understand the need for a 2nd amendment.
supamark23
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
True objective of USA neoliberals. FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE and first nuclear strike on Russia: https://www.youtu...ge#t=393

Carbon taxes will pay for more USA wars


Protip - The United States and its citizens don't give a fuck about Russia - Russia is nothing but an ass backwards dictatorship run for the oligarchs by a midget named Putin. We'd much rather just watch as Putin runs Russia into the ground, it's pretty funny to watch you guys kill yourselves on cheap vodka, drug resistant tuberculosis, and krokodil - life in Russia must be awesome!
howhot2
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
@R2;
Ever read 1984?
Have you? Do you know what it means and have you ever listened to yourself?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
@R2;
Ever read 1984?
Have you? Do you know what it means and have you ever listened to yourself?

You didn't explain how liberty is tyranny.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Liberals take over to fix the mess conservatives leave behind,

California was growing when conservatives were leading.
California is in decline with a one party, socialist state.
The same is true for MA.
viable commercial solutions to non polluting energy sources are created an nurtured.

Why do socialist need to worry about viable commercial solutions?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
Hottie seems to be annoyed how anti-socialists promote life, liberty and property.
A general theme from socialists is they seem very worried that anti-socialists will hoard property and keep it from them. Sounds like a throw-back to hunter-gatherer days.
One thing the socialists seem to forget, or not even consider, is the anti-socialists may choose to give away their property to whomever they deem worthy.
The great 'robber-barons', so called by the socialists, have endowed foundations that have existed for decades donating their wealth to (mostly) worthy causes. I say mostly as some foundations, like Ford, donate to many pro-socialist groups.
Studies have shown the conservatives donate more time and money to charity than do the 'liberals'.
The key concept here is donate, give vs socialist plunder.
howhot2
5 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2014
Actually @R2, I'm still trying to understand whatever it is you think is Liberalism is, vs Socialism, compared to Conservatism and free markets. Those are your opposite extremes? Correct. Well how the survival of mankind occurs depends on many different views converging and concluding that it is in mankind's best interest to listen to the Government paid scientists that global warming is real and needs immediate and absolute attention, by regulation and laws.

But if you really want to understand what is really happening with the country, nobody says it better than good old Gregory Crawford. For example @R2, you support ALEC right?

https://www.youtu...ybzeDkIU

You see the problem with you is your so brain washed with corporatism wingnut stuff that makes you forget that most of the framer's of the constitution where Liberals. You seem to belittle that fact with your libertarian slants and false labels. You know, I don't think you know anything about the framers.
howhot2
5 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2014
@R2 reasons
The key concept here is donate, give vs socialist plunder.
Haha. Give to whom, is it far, is it just, does it help the afflicted. Who do you give to? Does it help society?
Your making a ludacris claims. People just don't work that way. In fact deep down, that is one reason why there is such an vast separation in wealth between the 1% and the 99% below that line. Wealthy don't give or donate enough back to society to justify that opulence. Maybe you can find examples, but doesn't it tick you off that society is held back a few right wing greedy mo-fos who can take your land with the right hand shake with the right person?

It's the reason global warming has been met with push back, wealthy interests.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2014
mankind's best interest to listen to the Government paid scientists

Why does this make them more worthy of trust?
Govt bureaucrats have every interest to repeater a problems to stay employed and expand their fiefdom.
Wealthy don't give or donate enough back to society to justify that opulence.

Ever here of the Carnegie foundation? Carnegie Mellon, Carnegie Hall...
Why do the wealth create foundations and not donate their wealth to the state? They know how ineffective and wasteful the state is. They want to know their wealth will be effectively applied.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2014
Of course the most obvious way 'the rich' give back is by investing in new business ventures and research.
Why didn't NASA develop Spaceship One or Falcon 9?
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2014
mankind's best interest to listen to the Government paid scientists

Why does this make them more worthy of trust?

Well probably like yourself, you spent years in college specializing in your knowledge, the issues, the problems, and the solutions. You understand the in-depth detail of a subject unlike most. That knowledge is what makes scientist worthy of trust. You know that @R2; why ask?

Govt bureaucrats have every interest to repeater a problems to stay employed and expand their fiefdom.
Bull shit. For workers, everyone wants to stay employed obviously, and no one can rule out bad eggs. But experience shows just the opposite of your ideas.
Wealthy don't give or donate enough back to society to justify that opulence.

Opulence is a word neither you or I will know much about. When I say they don't give back enough to society it's born out in statistics. It's one thing to be rich, but another to be over the top opulent. Did the opulent make NASA?
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2014
Of course the most obvious way 'the rich' give back is by investing in new business ventures and research.

You need to ask yourself when you say 'RICH', just how rich are you talking about? Believe it or not, there is a problem speaking in global economic terms, with so much wealth collected at the top. The Opulent.

For the statistic of the wealth in-equality issue:
http://thinkprogr...percent/

Why didn't NASA develop Spaceship One or Falcon 9?

Because of folks like you that don't believe in NASA or the good that government can achieve. Instead, we have RICH Liberals building Spachship One and Falcon 9! And let's not forget Tesla!

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2014
For workers, everyone wants to stay employed obviously, and no one can rule out bad eggs.

"Bored Government Workers Spend Their Days Watching Porn"
" For one Federal Communications Commission worker, his porn habit at work was easy to explain: Things were slow, he told investigators, so he perused it "out of boredom" — for up to eight hours each week.

Lack of work has emerged time and again in federal investigations, and it's not just porn, nor is it confined to the FCC. Across government, employees caught wasting time at work say they simply didn't have enough work to do, according to investigation records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. "
http://townhall.c...n1874007
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2014
@R2 says;
"Bored Government Workers Spend Their Days Watching Porn"


Yeah, actually that sound like something you would be doing @R2. Spending all of your days on Porn I would suspect. That has not been my experience with government. Far from it. It's always been how can they help me, and very seriously they get down to the matter of facts.

I think you just hate the US government. For what reason of ideology you hate the USA, I don't know. Because of that, nothing you say really matters because your not really a citizen and therefore need to be deported.