Someone on my Facebook page posted: “Think of carbon mitigation as being your environmental 401k. Well, actually your environmental Roth IRA.”
I couldn’t help but post: “Just sayin’. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe. It is present in all known lifeforms, and in the human body carbon is the second most abundant element by mass after oxygen. This abundance, together with the unique diversity of organic compounds and their unusual polymer-forming ability at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth, make this element the chemical basis of all known life.”
Seriously people. Maybe I AM the asshole everyone says I am, but for God’s sake, enough is enough. I can’t take it anymore.
Let me get this straight, how someone can hold, simultaneously I might add, the beliefs that:
Killing human babies is like, totally cool
Killing convicted felons who’ve been on a binge of rapine and slaughter is like, totally bogus
It’s called cognitive dissonance, folks.
The disease of liberalism is like a childish social disorder. I think this camel’s back is broken.
My favourites are the “vegans”. Don’t even get me started on “vegans”.
Like that line from Buffy the Vamp Slayer movie. “What about like the Ozone layer…yeah we totally got to get rid of that!”
I think people watched to many lawyer shows and got used to the idea that “This” in no way effects “That”…until the next show were it does but doesn’t make the last show right.
Liberals are people who have bought into far fringe ideas that over time have become more accepted.
Like you posted…killing babies is ok but killing murderers and rapists isnt.
How can any logical person believe in those two beliefs? Ok to kill a baby but no ok to kill someone who murdered people?
Many of them push an agenda without the most basic understanding behind their beliefs. Like green energy is going to save the Earth. They take loon like Al Gore, and run with his beliefs. The fact Al Gore has a mansion, private jets, and rides around in motorcades of SUV’s doesnt seem to phase them. The fact he stands to make tens of millions on selling this idea doesnt bother them. But a “rich CEO” is evil because he made a few million in the financial world, and should be brought down to the level of the “common man”. Its ok for Bill Clinton to make millions giving speeches and writing books but CEO’s and execs dont work has hard as the people on the bottom end of the totem pole and should be punished.
Somehow Obama made enough as a “community organzier” to afford a million dollar home in the good part of town but they think he represents the little man.
Its ok to tax people 70%+ but its inhuman to reduce the amount we spend on welfare so we don’t drive our country further into insolvency.
There is no logic or factual basis behind their arguments and beliefs. My Obama loving MIL refuses to talk politics with me because she doesnt want her entire belief system shattered. I mentioned ACORN to her, and she said she didn’t care at all about it.
They have their own little world, and the best we can do is to make sure it doesnt become all of ours world. It has to be snuffed out at any opportunity otherwise their illogical and non-factual beliefs will be imposed on us.
There was an article in the WSJ on thurs or fri last week about the biggest windfarm in western TX is upgrading it’s turbines and ,drum roll please, buying them from China…
The short version, basically Modern Liberalism is a mental disorder, and is actually not even true liberalism in the classical sense. Modern Liberals are child-like in mentality, which is one of the reasons you can’t really argue with them and why facts don’t matter. They basically run purely on emotions and basically are grown ass 5 year olds, and honestly they should be treated as such. Unfortunately some of those grown ass 5 yr olds actually end up in positions of power in determining the future of this country. In that regard, it’s sort of like giving the keys to a brand new 612hp Porsche Carrera GT…to a 5 year old, the wreck is basically inevitable. :rolleyes:
Emphasis mine. That’s the real ball burner for me. Or why there’s so many double-standards, self-hatred cloaked as self-righteousness, and a general holier-than-thou attitude.
Language is the means through which we communicate. It’s our responsibility to be as clear as possible so that we can worry about the things worth worrying about and not about figuring out what he/she said. Every time you screw up this distinction between conservative this and liberal that you help keep people divided along make-believe ideological lines. Conservatism and liberalism are not belief systems. They’re methods of accomplishing something. That’s it. Every successful act of liberalism is maintained by an act of conservatism, and every act of liberalism must first overcome an act of conservatism. Gilbert Keith Chesterton described it pretty damn well: “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”
Wanna guess what District of Columbia v. Heller was? Liberalism. Roe v. Wade? Liberalism.
Flip side: Keeping the NFA? Conservatism. Maintaining that terrorists outside the country don’t have the same rights as those inside the country? Conservatism.
Every time we fight legally and politically to take back freedoms taken away from us, we’re being liberal. Every time we fight legally and politically to keep the freedoms we have, we’re being conservative. The idiocy of calling one word ‘bad’ because the vast majority of those using it are blind to what it means can’t be overstated. If you well and truly believe in the evil of liberalism, go right ahead and denounce every single instance of it in our society (you’ll be at it a while). Or you can take the easy way out and resort to catch-phrases, overgeneralizations, and self-imposed ignorance. They work too. :rolleyes:
Yes and No. Words have meaning, but words also have generally accepted meaning, even if it is wrong according to the sense of the history of the language.
Today “liberal” = “progressive”
The old definition of “liberal”, in the USA at least, is not really important any more.
The commonly accepted use of it is
liberal is a progressive is a left winger
conservative is a right winger
This is why we have the term libertarian. Libertarianism generally holds to classical liberal ideas. But since the progressives have co-opted liberal in the USA, we now call it libertarian.
It is like the word “gender”. Gender is not your sex. It is a grammatical term. Words have gender – animals don’t. Animals have a sex, male or female. But today gender has taken over for sex as a characteristic of animals. It is not worth fighting the change in that word.
Guys,this statement,as most of the above just about sum it up.Liberalism is some sort of delusional/emotionally retardation.It is a mental disorder that seems to affect the weak minded. They are too weak to make rational decisions for themselves.They are almost like pre-teens who are unfortunately stuck in adult bodies.
The biggest thing that I have found with Liberals or the far left is their arguments are based on an emotional response not a logical response.
About a year ago I was involved in a discusion with my girlfriends best friend about Iraq. She went on a rant how it was all George W’s fault yada yada!
My response, “Do you know the number provinces in Iraq, and can you name at least 3?, Can you tell me the major religous sects of Iraq?, Can you tell me the first time that women where allowed to vote in Iraq?”
She could not answer these questions, could not even come close, my response, “We can not have a conversation or debate on this issue because you do not know the facts or have any idea about the current events or history about Iraq! So I can not debate this issue with someone that has no idea what the hell they are talking about!”
I believe you are right on target. I used to consider myself conservative, but in the last decade or so I’ve drifted towards libertarianism. I have a real problem with the rampant hypocrisy of the people that make the rules.
John Stossel addressed this in “Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity”. I could go on and on but I think you know what I mean.
Not to jump into a “global warming” argument here, but honestly, the fact that carbon is vital to life and the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas really have nothing scientifically to do with each other. There are a plenty of good arguments out there you can use to argue against climate change; this just really isn’t one.
I remember when the same over-educated enviro-nazis were claiming we were headed for the next ice age back in the '70s. When will they realize that that big ball of hydrogen fusion about 93million miles from here has more of an effect on our climate than anything man-made?
BTW - follow the money. Al Gore and his buds stand to rake in 100’s of millions of dollars brokering carbon credits. Don’t think his interest is magnanimous.
Our Founding Father’s were classic liberals but that is because they wanted to change their current government into something else. The conservatives of that era were the Loyalists.
Today the people with the same wants of government are conservatives because they want to keep the system as is.
Today’s liberals want to change the current system into something else.
If you apply that VERY STRICTLY then yes Heller v. DC was a liberal act because Heller wanted to change the current gun laws in DC…but he wanted to change them back to how they were. Regression not progression.
Modern liberal ideology hinges on progression of their agenda.
Modern conservative ideology hinges on regression.
But are both liberals because they are trying to change the system?
Or are the only TRUE conservatives the people who simply want NOTHING to change at all?
The best reaction to any liberal, or liberal nonsense, is laughter. It reinforces that they’re loons, who can’t be taken seriously. It’s good medicine for us, and only makes them madder, which makes them sillier!
I’m not going to get into the bandwagon rant about your current issues with liberals. Hell, if you gave me a 500 word limit I would write a very scientific thesis on why vegans are idiots. I would also write a constitutional argument quoting our founding fathers about why extreme fundamentalist christians that insist on excluding real science from the classroom are equally as stupid. But, I wont go there…
Rather I have a question for you. The above statement scientifically does nothing, NOTHING AT ALL to disprove or even question the data supporting climate change. All it does is state known data showing Carbon’s place within the natural environment. In fact you are just rambling data in order to make your point sound valid in order to support your subjective ideology. Please elaborate on your statement for us! Show us links and peer reviewed articles that offer the reader consistent data stating that an increase in carbon within the natural environment is either not harmful, or beneficial. Please? Links would be great too, not quotes.
Oh and before you respond look up the definition of “Peer Reviewed”.
