PDA

View Full Version : More Obama nonsense



MikeJ
18th December 2009, 09:52
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/18/obama.copenhagen/index.html


Giving money to poor nations??? This is communism in its purest form. This guy truly makes me sick.

There is no fuckin' global warming. Anyone who says so is a complete idiot and knows NOTHING about science.

silverbullet
18th December 2009, 10:36
I hear you man!!! From Obama getting man of the year for 2008, the peace prize, bernanke getting man of year this year, the "politically correct" solution to rape the people via al gores global warming, etc... It feels like I'm taking crazy pills!!! But I have to keep reminding myself that as much as I hate these people, they're just pathetic puppets that the international bankers are pulling the strings of... "give mney to the poor nations" just another way to bankrupt and put the us economy in the grave so that they can set there global government in place!

Ringramjr1
18th December 2009, 12:52
That's precisely what they're doing. All of this nonsense we're seeing and hearing is by design. It all has a purpose.

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
18th December 2009, 19:05
It's a nonbinding goal, and the emissions targets "will not be by themselves sufficient to get to where we need to get by 2050,"

2050? Stupid and more stupid.

Unbelievable.

Bullseye
18th December 2009, 20:18
That's precisely what they're doing. All of this nonsense we're seeing and hearing is by design. It all has a purpose.

IMO it is by design, and purpose.....and it reads like one of the most printed
books thru-out the history of mankind ........just like labor pains, and its going to get worse and come faster....:)

hippiebrian
18th December 2009, 20:30
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/18/obama.copenhagen/index.html


Giving money to poor nations??? This is communism in its purest form. This guy truly makes me sick.

There is no fuckin' global warming. Anyone who says so is a complete idiot and knows NOTHING about science.

Can you give me a reason why I should trust you over a majority of climatologists? Where did you get your advanced science degrees, what reasearch did you do, and what exactly makes you a climate expert, if in fact you are one? Are you trying to say that climatologists with phd's know nothing about science?

Katwoman
18th December 2009, 20:49
Can you give me a reason why I should trust you over a majority of climatologists? Where did you get your advanced science degrees, what reasearch did you do, and what exactly makes you a climate expert, if in fact you are one? Are you trying to say that climatologists with phd's know nothing about science?

I can tell that there is hardly a field of research today in which the prevailing opinion of the "click" at the top of the game can be easily questioned. Unbiased research has been a thing of the past since government funding of research became the norm. If you want honest unbiased research you need to get rid of the government funding. Among those scientist with tenure there are fewer problems but unfortunately few academic scientists have tenure today.

hippiebrian
18th December 2009, 20:55
I can tell that there is hardly a field of research today in which the prevailing opinion of the "click" at the top of the game can be easily questioned. Unbiased research has been a thing of the past since government funding of research became the norm. If you want honest unbiased research you need to get rid of the government funding. Among those scientist with tenure there are fewer problems but unfortunately few academic scientists have tenure today.

I totally agree, science needs to be made pure again. Just as we have a separation of church and state, a separation of science and state, for lack of a better term, needs to take place. It would lead to more pure unbiased research, and an end to "emailgates".

silverbullet
18th December 2009, 21:26
I totally agree, science needs to be made pure again. Just as we have a separation of church and state, a separation of science and state, for lack of a better term, needs to take place. It would lead to more pure unbiased research, and an end to "emailgates".

Seriously, are you trying to insinuate with the term "emailgates", that the act of uncovering or I'm sure you would like to use "stealing" the emails and letting the truth out. The truth being that Al Gore and his "scientists for hirer" have been covering contradictory evidence that DISPROVES global warming via "hiding the deline" of the earths temps, fixings the charts and data and even completely making up data so that it coincides with what they want the world to believe is just as bad as them lying to the world, literally stealing millions if not billions of dollars from the people, not only of the U.S., but of the world then you are clearing very brainwashed by this lie that is global warming.

It is a LAW that if someone comes about evidence that proves a criminal act has taken place, then no matter by what means the evidence was gathered, they have a legal right to come out with it and not be prosecuted.

I have never believed in the "theory" of global warming. The earths climate cycles are cyclical for 1. For 2, if the earths temps are warming, then why are the average temps actually lower than they were 30 years ago. 3, It has been proven that the relative small amounts of CO2 that us humans make, whether it be breathing, driving, burning a fire does nothing to affect the earths temps/ozone. It has been proven that the earths temperature and climates are strictly affected by the intensity of the suns sunspots over any certain period of time.

Like I said, this has all been proven and the reason that the mass public has no knowledge of this is because the media outlets are owned by the same people that Al gore works for... and those people have a VERY STRONG interest in getting the Carbon Tax in place. THEY WANT MORE POWER, CONTROL, AND MONEY! We are already taxed on a local level, a state level, and a national level... and by passing the Carbon Tax Bill, we will be taxed at a international level as well!

All i'm asking is that before you believe what you hear, especially if it is from main media and especially if it is what the masses believe... question it... do your own research (and be careful to the source of that research)

I think i'm done ranting for now...

hippiebrian
18th December 2009, 21:47
Listen, I've posted a lot of proof in the past, just check my posts every time this subject comes up. I'm not posting these again, there here, if you want to see them, look them up. Honestly, the hottest years on record have happened since 2000. Want it to or not, the planet is warming. The real question is how do we slow it at least, stop it if possible (that's doubtful). This is where politics are going to fail us, as everyone wants to make a buck on the solution, and politicians, who are NOT scientists, are the ones who are trying to come up with solutions, which makes absolutely no sense. If you are concerned about how much this will cost, blame the politicians for coming up with bogus solutions, don't blame science. Just like everyone else, I'm upset about what was said in these emails, but that doesn't change the facts. This is why i say politics and science should be separated.

gottago
18th December 2009, 21:51
Can you give me a reason why I should trust you over a majority of climatologists? Where did you get your advanced science degrees, what reasearch did you do, and what exactly makes you a climate expert, if in fact you are one? Are you trying to say that climatologists with phd's know nothing about science?

STOP BELIEVING THE BULLS--T THAT THEY KEEP FEEDING YOU


A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

Katwoman
18th December 2009, 21:52
Listen, I've posted a lot of proof in the past, just check my posts every time this subject comes up. I'm not posting these again, there here, if you want to see them, look them up. Honestly, the hottest years on record have happened since 2000. Want it to or not, the planet is warming. The real question is how do we slow it at least, stop it if possible (that's doubtful). This is where politics are going to fail us, as everyone wants to make a buck on the solution, and politicians, who are NOT scientists, are the ones who are trying to come up with solutions, which makes absolutely no sense. If you are concerned about how much this will cost, blame the politicians for coming up with bogus solutions, don't blame science. Just like everyone else, I'm upset about what was said in these emails, but that doesn't change the facts. This is why i say politics and science should be separated.

Even if one were to believe in global warming based on the hottest years on record idea there is still no solid evidence that man is causing it to get hotter so why spend money trying to solve something you may not be causing? This idea simply makes no sense. ON the contrary as I have said numerous times before there are plenty of identifiable man-made problems that can be addressed first and far more effectively for far less money. Why can't you understand this?

silverbullet
18th December 2009, 22:01
Even if one were to believe in global warming based on the hottest years on record idea there is still no solid evidence that man is causing it to get hotter so why spend money trying to solve something you may not be causing? This idea simply makes no sense. ON the contrary as I have said numerous times before there are plenty of identifiable man-made problems that can be addressed first and far more effectively for far less money. Why can't you understand this?

BRAVO kat!

And Hippie, maybe you have done your own research. And i'm sure you have done a bit... but again, question your source of your info. All the charts that I have seen that tried to prove that the earth was warming, after a good deal of digging, revealed that the data was not over compilings of the whole planet, but selected areas. You will always be able to find area's that are having "extreme" weather. you could gather data from multiple area's that are leaning toward the warm extreme and say "look!!! Its global warming!!!" but at the exact same time, you could gather data from other areas that are leaning toward colder extremes and say "look!!! The earth is cooling!!!". Give me one source that compiles data on the earths temp as a whole...

hippiebrian
18th December 2009, 22:30
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B632920091208

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html check out question 3

There are some good links here as well as good info:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

As for physical evidence:

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091206184749.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483055/Arctic-ice-caps-shrink-smallest-size.html


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/science/Canada_Ice.html

http://arkansasmatters.com/content/fulltext/news/?cid=209131


I could post these all night, but I hope you get my point here...these and other sources I've posted here have me convinced of the science, although unsure about the politics. Understand the difference?

hippiebrian
18th December 2009, 22:34
Even if one were to believe in global warming based on the hottest years on record idea there is still no solid evidence that man is causing it to get hotter so why spend money trying to solve something you may not be causing? This idea simply makes no sense. ON the contrary as I have said numerous times before there are plenty of identifiable man-made problems that can be addressed first and far more effectively for far less money. Why can't you understand this?

There are other problems, but the order of importance is nothing other than opinion.

It is known as a fact that carbon dioxide is a major cause of global warming. It is also a fact that we're dumping more and more of it into the atmosphere, and temperatures are getting warmer because of it. I am worried about the condition of the planet we're leaving to our greandchildren.

While there are other problems, this one, in my opinion and a lot of other people's opinions, ranks right up there. And I don't want to leave my descendants wondering why greed appeared mor important than beeing good caretakers of their homes. Understand?

UmassSteve
18th December 2009, 22:40
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B632920091208

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html check out question 3

There are some good links here as well as good info:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

As for physical evidence:

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091206184749.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483055/Arctic-ice-caps-shrink-smallest-size.html


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/science/Canada_Ice.html

http://arkansasmatters.com/content/fulltext/news/?cid=209131


I could post these all night, but I hope you get my point here...these and other sources I've posted here have me convinced of the science, although unsure about the politics. Understand the difference?

Brian, man, you're just not getting it. You've gotta question your sources unless they're disputing global warming. That's what I've learned from board members here. A bunch of scientists in Europe, Antarctica, and at NASA are showing global temperature increases, receding glaciers, thinning glaciers, the opening of the northwest passage? You gotta question that **** man!

Question it until you find sources from Russian scientists whose grant money comes from Russia's oil rich, energy intensive economy and government man! Those sources are where its at. You've gotta question it until coal scientists show you their revised charts. NASA has been tampering with the data, but those coal scientists? They're the real deal, no need to question that. Hey, did you stumble across some emails that have phrases like "hide the decline" in it? Don't question it, don't learn what that email was talking about, just run with it!

Just take a page from Fox news: Question everything that doesn't fit with your world view!

JesterJay
18th December 2009, 22:41
OK, one more Bullshit flag thrown on brian the hippie.
Fact? Carbon dioxide causes global warming???
You can't be serious. CO2 is what plants LIVE ON!!!
If we don't have CO2 we don't have the cycle of life among plants and animals.
Yeah, and we are some of the animals that use the O2 (oxygen in molecular form) for our breath of LIFE and convert it BACK into the co2 that plants need....blah, blah, blah.
IT really is that simple, brian.
STOP posting those assinine links.
You just look like Captain Koolade!
And Steve is Lieutenant Lackey!
JesterJay



There are other problems, but the order of importance is nothing other than opinion.

It is known as a fact that carbon dioxide is a major cause of global warming. It is also a fact that we're dumping more and more of it into the atmosphere, and temperatures are getting warmer because of it. I am worried about the condition of the planet we're leaving to our greandchildren.

While there are other problems, this one, in my opinion and a lot of other people's opinions, ranks right up there. And I don't want to leave my descendants wondering why greed appeared mor important than beeing good caretakers of their homes. Understand?

Katwoman
18th December 2009, 22:44
There are other problems, but the order of importance is nothing other than opinion.

It is known as a fact that carbon dioxide is a major cause of global warming. It is also a fact that we're dumping more and more of it into the atmosphere, and temperatures are getting warmer because of it. I am worried about the condition of the planet we're leaving to our greandchildren.

While there are other problems, this one, in my opinion and a lot of other people's opinions, ranks right up there. And I don't want to leave my descendants wondering why greed appeared mor important than beeing good caretakers of their homes. Understand?

Again the assumption is than man produces enough CO2 to impact temperature and this is not substantiated but mere conjecture. On the contrary I have said numerous times if you really think man is contributing to CO2 then plant trees.....we know we are responsible for deforestation and we know trees absorb CO2 so by doing this you would kill two birds with one stone. Again the issue here is about control not about CO2; if it was really about CO2 then the people like you who claim to be concerned with it would be pleased to accept planting trees as a step in the right direction. But that is not what any of you are really about and you know it and so do we.

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
18th December 2009, 22:50
OK, one more Bullshit flag thrown on brian the hippie.
Fact? Carbon dioxide causes global warming???
You can't be serious. CO2 is what plants LIVE ON!!!
If we don't have CO2 we don't have the cycle of life among plants and animals.
Yeah, and we are some of the animals that use the O2 (oxygen in molecular form) for our breath of LIFE and convert it BACK into the co2 that plants need....blah, blah, blah.
IT really is that simple, brian.
STOP posting those assinine links.
You just look like Captain Koolade!
And Steve is Lieutenant Lackey!
JesterJay

And another thread hijacked.

Both Brian and Steve need to be banned. They are nothing but liberals here on an agenda. Everything gets twisted back to what they want to talk about.

hippiebrian
18th December 2009, 22:50
Again the assumption is than man produces enough CO2 to impact temperature and this is not substantiated but mere conjecture. On the contrary I have said numerous times if you really think man is contributing to CO2 then plant trees.....we know we are responsible for deforestation and we know trees absorb CO2 so by doing this you would kill two birds with one stone. Again the issue here is about control not about CO2; if it was really about CO2 then the people like you who claim to be concerned with it would be pleased to accept planting trees as a step in the right direction. But that is not what any of you are really about and you know it and so do we.

Where do you get that I don't see the planting of trees as part of the overall solution? I fully agree with that! Part of the cause, as you've stated, is deforestation! However, that does need to be combined with the overall reduction in our exhausting co2 and methane into the atmosphere. Many countries are already implementing the planting of massive numbers of trees, namely India and the U.S., and I totally applaud that as a step in the right direction!

JesterJay
18th December 2009, 22:52
And all I could do was toss the "bullshit" flag at him.
I'm so lame,
JesterJay



Again the assumption is than man produces enough CO2 to impact temperature and this is not substantiated but mere conjecture. On the contrary I have said numerous times if you really think man is contributing to CO2 then plant trees.....we know we are responsible for deforestation and we know trees absorb CO2 so by doing this you would kill two birds with one stone. Again the issue here is about control not about CO2; if it was really about CO2 then the people like you who claim to be concerned with it would be pleased to accept planting trees as a step in the right direction. But that is not what any of you are really about and you know it and so do we.

hippiebrian
18th December 2009, 22:53
OK, one more Bullshit flag thrown on brian the hippie.
Fact? Carbon dioxide causes global warming???
You can't be serious. CO2 is what plants LIVE ON!!!
If we don't have CO2 we don't have the cycle of life among plants and animals.
Yeah, and we are some of the animals that use the O2 (oxygen in molecular form) for our breath of LIFE and convert it BACK into the co2 that plants need....blah, blah, blah.
IT really is that simple, brian.
STOP posting those assinine links.
You just look like Captain Koolade!
And Steve is Lieutenant Lackey!
JesterJay

It's excess co2. Really, do you believe that I don't know that some co2 is necessary? Please, get a little educated before you spout out things like this.

silverbullet
18th December 2009, 23:00
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B632920091208

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html check out question 3

There are some good links here as well as good info:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

As for physical evidence:

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091206184749.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483055/Arctic-ice-caps-shrink-smallest-size.html


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/science/Canada_Ice.html

http://arkansasmatters.com/content/fulltext/news/?cid=209131


I could post these all night, but I hope you get my point here...these and other sources I've posted here have me convinced of the science, although unsure about the politics. Understand the difference?


again sources, sources, sources:

Link 1...source is Nasa! Nasa is being sued right now by three different partys for knowingly provide false info on different subjects... what makes you think this is different?

Link 2...Reuters... (main media)

Link 3...source is National climatic Data Center (a division of U.S. department of commerce!) no explanation needed there...
and so on... they are mainly Government based

as for the glaciers, they need to take photos of them during THE SAME TIME OF YEAR... they naturally melt and build back up through the seasons.

JesterJay
18th December 2009, 23:01
Excess co2.
Like in the excess money the Liberats want to scam off of us?
Like, "Sorry, 12 breaths too many today. That'll be $1200."
Like YOU KNOW how Gold Damp MUCH co2 is the
Correct Forking amount!!!
Geez brian. You really lost your mind on this one.
Captain Koolade Strikes AGAIN!!!!
JesterJay



It's excess co2. Really, do you believe that I don't know that some co2 is necessary? Please, get a little educated before you spout out things like this.

silverbullet
18th December 2009, 23:03
I'll post ONE source that will change your mind of global warming... Its a speech by Lord Christopher Monckton about how global warming is a fraud...

You watch this and I guarantee it will have you thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

LETMYSILVERGO
18th December 2009, 23:04
It's the Liberals that drag the convervatives screaming and scratching into the future.

hippiebrian
18th December 2009, 23:04
again sources, sources, sources:

Link 1...source is Nasa! Nasa is being sued right now by three different partys for knowingly provide false info on different subjects... what makes you think this is different?

Link 2...Reuters... (main media)

Link 3...source is National climatic Data Center (a division of U.S. department of commerce!) no explanation needed there...
and so on...

as for the glaciers, they need to take photos of them during THE SAME TIME OF YEAR... they naturally melt and build back up through the seasons.

Once again, I trust the scientists who are doing the research. I don't believe that reuter's is out to lie to me, and sorry, I trust the National Climactic Data Center scientists before I trust any bloggers, politically charged authors, or anyone paid by the coal, petroleum, or auto industries. Just me. BTW, these photos were taken at the same time of the year, and yes, I trust physical evidence. So shoot me...

hippiebrian
18th December 2009, 23:05
It's the Liberals that drag the convervatives screaming and scratching into the future.

You've just proven my point. What I'm talking about is science, not politics. The two need to be separated if we as a people are going to get anywhere.

hippiebrian
18th December 2009, 23:08
I'll post ONE source that will change your mind of global warming... Its a speech by Lord Christopher Monckton about how global warming is a fraud...

You watch this and I guarantee it will have you thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

Once again, this is about science, not politics. Here is a description of the man you're sourcing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Bre nchley

I request that, if you are going to rebut science, you quote a scientist next time.

hippiebrian
18th December 2009, 23:10
Excess co2.
Like in the excess money the Liberats want to scam off of us?
Like, "Sorry, 12 breaths too many today. That'll be $1200."
Like YOU KNOW how Gold Damp MUCH co2 is the
Correct Forking amount!!!
Geez brian. You really lost your mind on this one.
Captain Koolade Strikes AGAIN!!!!
JesterJay

I've yet to hear you mention science, let alone reference any, yet you are arguing against scientific data that has been collected by educated and trained climatologists. Who would you believe?

JesterJay
18th December 2009, 23:23
I just did...
Duh,
co2 ==> o2
o2 ==> co2
NOTHING but science.
Why do you need someone to tell you the opposite of the obvious?
Why do you put so much credence in "science" that has been proven to be fraudulent.
Oh, you listened to your Koolade Waiter, AlGore, tell you to ignore the fraud.
And you do,
JesterJay



I've yet to hear you mention science, let alone reference any, yet you are arguing against scientific data that has been collected by educated and trained climatologists. Who would you believe?

hippiebrian
18th December 2009, 23:26
I just did...
Duh,
co2 ==> o2
o2 ==> co2
NOTHING but science.
Why do you need someone to tell you the opposite of the obvious?
Why do you put so much credence in "science" that has been proven to be fraudulent.
Oh, you listened to your Koolade Waiter, AlGore, tell you to ignore the fraud.
And you do,
JesterJay

ya, you got me, once again, you are a god...

JesterJay
18th December 2009, 23:35
Now go get a haircut.
JesterJay
newly appointed god of....
Thunder, metalurgy, and women with long red hair!!!



ya, you got me, once again, you are a god...

argent_pur
19th December 2009, 00:23
I gotta say, this conversation is really something else. Nothing but foolishness it seems to me. I think it's pretty simple...

1) If you're human, you have an agenda.
2) Agenda here being defined as not merely a cause to defend but, additionally, a lens through which you view and understand the world.
3) Scientists are human, capable of mistakes and outright falsity if it suits their purpose, not unlike any other person.
4) A Ph.D., which hopefully will be mine shortly in Medical Virology, is not an adequate substitute for omniscience...they're just letters on a piece of paper.
5) Worldviews are not easily overturned.

My Precious
19th December 2009, 00:42
Hi, I have been following this forum for many months and I own a lot of physical silver.

I just had to enter this thread, I think the article posted below will show that the powers that be don't care if the science is right or not, they have their
agenda.

Scientist fired by Al Gore was told, “science will not intrude on public policy”.

Noted energy expert and Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer has sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers and a past director of energy research at the Department of Energy, called fears over global warming “mistaken”.

“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect”, said Happer. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.”

Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. “The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn’t support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy”, he said. “I did not need the job that badly”.

Happer’s latest remarks were made yesterday, as he asked to be included in a Senate Environment and Public Works report of scientists disputing global warming alarmism. Happer joins 650 other scientists on the list, many of whom have been interviewed previously by DailyTech.

“Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer concluded.

In response to Happer’s remarks, Senator James Inhofe, ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said, “The endless claims of a consensus on man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day”.

My Precious
19th December 2009, 00:48
Hi all,

Sorry, I didn't post a link to the article. There are many other sites with the same article.



http://patdollard.com/2008/12/al-gore-science-will-not-intrude-on-public-policy/

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 01:41
Hi all,

Sorry, I didn't post a link to the article. There are many other sites with the same article.



http://patdollard.com/2008/12/al-gore-science-will-not-intrude-on-public-policy/

His research is paid for by exxon-mobil, so I might be reading a conflict of interest here.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=609

Here's a list of orgs. which are funded by exxon-mobil:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

Like you all tell me, check your sources!

My Precious
19th December 2009, 06:53
As I said in the last post, many other sites carry this story. it is not a lie or propaganda. Al Gore did say "Science will not intrude on public policy"
Google this statement using the quotes and you get about a thousand hits.

Big oil is in bed with the "warmers". Ken Lay of Exxon came up with the idea of carbon credits and had meetings about this with AL Gore.

They are playing us off of against each other and in the mean time are getting rich. Al gore was worth $2 million after he left the vice presidency and now he is worth $100 million


http://www.ktradionetwork.com/tag/cru/


The big irony behind top globalists descending on Copenhagen in luxury private jets and stretch limos is not just the fact that their own behavior completely contradicts their self-righteous hyperbole about CO2 emissions, but that their propaganda is vehemently supported by the very same big oil interests they accuse climate skeptics of pandering to.

Probably one of the most flagrant examples of climate cronyism to emerge from the climategate scandal were emails in which CRU scientists, the body that provides much of the foundational global warming data for the UN IPCC, discuss how they conducted meetings with Shell Oil in order to enlist them as a “strategic partner” while getting them to bankroll pro-man made global warming research.

The emails reveal that the CRU was also trying to get money from oil giants British Petroleum and Exxon-Mobil, under its former identity as Esso.

“Now who is the shill for Big Oil again?” asks Anthony Watts. “Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.”

JCM6395
19th December 2009, 07:16
Now go get a haircut.
JesterJay
newly appointed god of....
Thunder, metalurgy, and women with long red hair!!!

I have to admit I have a weakness for the redheads...just saying.

Katwoman
19th December 2009, 08:22
His research is paid for by exxon-mobil, so I might be reading a conflict of interest here.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=609

Here's a list of orgs. which are funded by exxon-mobil:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

Like you all tell me, check your sources!

Didn't we just discuss the fact that all the others are paid by the US government? So in your government controlled mind if a scientist is paid by a government grant to study global warming she or he will have no bias but if she or he is paid by an Exxon-Mobile grant then bias will be rampant? Come on Hippie you can do better than that especially when we evidence of government funded climate scientists engaging in covert fraud!!

Katwoman
19th December 2009, 08:27
As I said in the last post, many other sites carry this story. it is not a lie or propaganda. Al Gore did say "Science will not intrude on public policy"
Google this statement using the quotes and you get about a thousand hits.

Big oil is in bed with the "warmers". Ken Lay of Exxon came up with the idea of carbon credits and had meetings about this with AL Gore.

They are playing us off of against each other and in the mean time are getting rich. Al gore was worth $2 million after he left the vice presidency and now he is worth $100 million


http://www.ktradionetwork.com/tag/cru/


The big irony behind top globalists descending on Copenhagen in luxury private jets and stretch limos is not just the fact that their own behavior completely contradicts their self-righteous hyperbole about CO2 emissions, but that their propaganda is vehemently supported by the very same big oil interests they accuse climate skeptics of pandering to.

Probably one of the most flagrant examples of climate cronyism to emerge from the climategate scandal were emails in which CRU scientists, the body that provides much of the foundational global warming data for the UN IPCC, discuss how they conducted meetings with Shell Oil in order to enlist them as a “strategic partner” while getting them to bankroll pro-man made global warming research.

The emails reveal that the CRU was also trying to get money from oil giants British Petroleum and Exxon-Mobil, under its former identity as Esso.

“Now who is the shill for Big Oil again?” asks Anthony Watts. “Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.”

Big businesses have a long history of supporting public policy that strengthens their hold on the market by making it harder for smaller competitors to compete. But Hippie only believes that this is true when it fits his scheme......at this point I have nothing left to say. Hippie has been shown the light of day and still prefers to stay in the dark......in other words you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink:(

Argyria
19th December 2009, 08:35
"They are playing us off of against each other and in the mean time are getting rich. Al gore was worth $2 million after he left the vice presidency and now he is worth $100 million"

If you can prove this I think it would be a coupe. It would surely explain his motive.

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 08:45
Okay.. I just got to ask... if and that is a big IF climate change is caused by humans why are y'all talking about trees and CO2? Or burning less fossil fuel or any of that other stuff?

If humans are causing the problem and you need to reduce the impact caused by humans .. then wouldn't you have to reduce the number of humans?

Sounds kinda of draconian I know.. but here is the problem .. the worlds population doubles about every 40 years or so.. and what are they shooting for in Copenhagen.. 20% reduction by 2050? http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html

Now concider why the human population is increasing so much ( from the above article)

•better nutrition
•greater access to medical care
•improved sanitation
•more widespread immunization

Thats health care reform. swine flu shots, social security all that safety net stuff...

Okay so as I undertsand it Liberals want to do all the things that make for more people but also do all those things that reduce the impact on the planet from people... sounds expensive to try to do both at the same time and unlikely to suceed if both objectives are in themselves successful.

maybe we ought to figure out what we want while the scientists are actually figuring out what is happening with the climate enough to be able to predict the weather , or at least major storms. We are functionally talking less than 33% accuracy on weather 30 days in advance..

All I know is that The President went to Copenhagen to work on climate change/ global warming.. the next day we have a record winter storm .. I thought it would be harder to fix.. seems like it was a one day job.. now thats climate change I can believe in.

But seriously folks if humans are causing the problem we really should decide if we want to spend so much money encouraging people to live longer have more healthy babies that survive etc... if you want to get into a more harmonious sustainable ecologically blanced world you ar simply going to have to let some of the organic enviromental controls on human lifespan and birth rate function without so much effort to thwart their impact on the population.... Trees??? you are talking a doubling of crop land by 2050 or a major revolution in agriculture which right now means genteticly modified crops and a 50% increase in cropland.

Or if you are going to insist that they live.. then you are going to need all the rsources you have to make for a decent quality of life.. which if humans cause global warming.. might mean a warmer planet...

However you cut it a 20% reduction in polution is going to be more than offset by a 100% increase in people by 2050.

Katwoman
19th December 2009, 09:24
Okay.. I just got to ask... if and that is a big IF climate change is caused by humans why are y'all talking about trees and CO2? Or burning less fossil fuel or any of that other stuff?

If humans are causing the problem and you need to reduce the impact caused by humans .. then wouldn't you have to reduce the number of humans?

Sounds kinda of draconian I know.. but here is the problem .. the worlds population doubles about every 40 years or so.. and what are they shooting for in Copenhagen.. 20% reduction by 2050? http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html

Now concider why the human population is increasing so much ( from the above article)

•better nutrition
•greater access to medical care
•improved sanitation
•more widespread immunization

Thats health care reform. swine flu shots, social security all that safety net stuff...

Okay so as I undertsand it Liberals want to do all the things that make for more people but also do all those things that reduce the impact on the planet from people... sounds expensive to try to do both at the same time and unlikely to suceed if both objectives are in themselves successful.

maybe we ought to figure out what we want while the scientists are actually figuring out what is happening with the climate enough to be able to predict the weather , or at least major storms. We are functionally talking less than 33% accuracy on weather 30 days in advance..

All I know is that The President went to Copenhagen to work on climate change/ global warming.. the next day we have a record winter storm .. I thought it would be harder to fix.. seems like it was a one day job.. now thats climate change I can believe in.

But seriously folks if humans are causing the problem we really should decide if we want to spend so much money encouraging people to live longer have more healthy babies that survive etc... if you want to get into a more harmonious sustainable ecologically blanced world you ar simply going to have to let some of the organic enviromental controls on human lifespan and birth rate function without so much effort to thwart their impact on the population.... Trees??? you are talking a doubling of crop land by 2050 or a major revolution in agriculture which right now means genteticly modified crops and a 50% increase in cropland.

Or if you are going to insist that they live.. then you are going to need all the rsources you have to make for a decent quality of life.. which if humans cause global warming.. might mean a warmer planet...

However you cut it a 20% reduction in polution is going to be more than offset by a 100% increase in people by 2050.

For those of you who do not know the world population was about 1 billion in the mid 1800s, topped 2 billion in the early 1900s and is over 6 billion today. During this time we have over fished the seas, strip mined mountains, destroyed forests and polluted the entire planet. If we were objectively looking at ourselves as we would any other animal we would say the population need to be culled.

Quite frankly it is much less expense to not make more kids than to worry about what will happen to them after you do. Unfortunately while most developed nations have been doing this the less developed nations have not.

Mankind has bigger things to worry about than CO2

UmassSteve
19th December 2009, 09:59
I totally agree with the idea that population needs to be curbed and reduced dramatically if we have any shot of doing this.

However, arguing that we should stop trying to keep people alive is fairly inhumane and will never fly. And unfortunately any attempts to teach kids to wear a condom or consider an abortion if they're fifteen or even the idea that contraceptives are morally acceptable is fought, tooth-and-nail by a small, but powerful and vocal portion of the religious right.

Katwoman
19th December 2009, 10:09
I totally agree with the idea that population needs to be curbed and reduced dramatically if we have any shot of doing this.

However, arguing that we should stop trying to keep people alive is fairly inhumane and will never fly. And unfortunately any attempts to teach kids to wear a condom or consider an abortion if they're fifteen or even the idea that contraceptives are morally acceptable is fought, tooth-and-nail by a small, but powerful and vocal portion of the religious right.

Well then you have just argued in favor of giving up on trying to control the behavior of other people who do not want to be controlled by you and your liberal socialist/communist friends. Why don't you people understand that you cannot control other people who do not want to be controlled? Why is it that you push push push until you get bit? Are you people just plain stupid? God's plan is for man to learn by experience. No one but God can see the future. And, most importantly no one but God can define the rights of man. Yet you liberals have tried for centuries to control people. Get a life will you!!

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 10:22
Don't get to caught up in birth rates two third world families each having 10 kids each of which 9 from each family died from natural causes, malnutrition or disease before puberty leaves only one breeding pair..
While in the developed world two similar famlilies each with two kids both of which survive leaves two breeding pairs.

I know many think talking about population reduction is inhumane... however I can't see how an unmodified natural human condition of being subject to the population controling forces of nature is inhumane .. but I can see how humans attempting to control the natural forces of nature that will eventually solve the population problem thru climate change could be concidered unnatural.

However.. 6 of one half a dozen of the other.. we face the inhumanity of the human condition if we unnaturally try to control natures process of reducing an out of control ( out of control by definition if nature is no longer controling) population.

I don't have any technical or moral answers.. or advocte any particular position.. I am just pointing out the elephant in the room that neither side wants to address when it comes to climate change and polution... and medical and thus birth/ survival rates are increasing at ever faster rates in the third world... hadn't we better address how to feed them before we save them all with medicine .. of course feeding them all means high tech high fossil fuel agricluture that will need large, enormous actually, swaths of rain forest and other natural habitat be plowed under.. plowed under by something more CO2 producing and much more powerful than a farting ox I might mention...

I mean why aren't all these climate change alarmists mentioning this... cap and trade would be much more effective if applied to baby making than burning fossil fuel. although maybe on both might even be better. IF humans burning fossil fuels are the problem in the first place... not saying they are.. jut saying at the current rate of population increase we will run out of food, energy, and raw material before climate change has very much impact regardless of what is causing it... imagine the CO2 reductions you can achieve by letting a population that has doubled use all the oil, coal, and gas, they want or can afford 25 years after peak everything.

Katwoman
19th December 2009, 11:23
We narrowly averted catastrophe this time folks but that does not mean the moon bats will retire. On the contrary, this will most likely energize them. It is time for the conservative conservationists of the Teddy Roosevelt ilk to take this nonsense seriously and work to nip it in the bud.

COPENHAGEN – The historic U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen ended Saturday after a 31-hour negotiating marathon, narrowly avoiding collapse by accepting a compromise that gives billions to poor nations to deal with global warming but does not require the world's major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.

Katwoman
19th December 2009, 11:48
We narrowly averted catastrophe this time folks but that does not mean the moon bats will retire. On the contrary, this will most likely energize them. It is time for the conservative conservationists of the Teddy Roosevelt ilk to take this nonsense seriously and work to nip it in the bud.

COPENHAGEN – The historic U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen ended Saturday after a 31-hour negotiating marathon, narrowly avoiding collapse by accepting a compromise that gives billions to poor nations to deal with global warming but does not require the world's major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.

BTW the billions predicted to be saved on healthcare is already spent on this nonsense!!! Since we are already operating in chronic deficit mode we will have to borrow the money we will be giving away.

More Obama nonsense is thus confirmed as the appropriate title for this thread!!

argent_pur
19th December 2009, 13:00
BTW the billions predicted to be saved on healthcare is already spent on this nonsense!!! Since we are already operating in chronic deficit mode we will have to borrow the money we will be giving away.

More Obama nonsense is thus confirmed as the appropriate title for this thread!!

I understand that most Americans know nothing about economics, national debts, trade deficits or surpluses, but come on...can it really be the case that people actually believe that any money the gov't "saves" will go into the Federal Cookie Jar for a rainy day???

argent_pur
19th December 2009, 13:41
What about this for an idea...

It's a tiny bit oldschool, but an en masse return to large, multi-generational homes would free up more land for re-foresting and farmland. Think about everyone who, when they become an adult, moves out from their parents house and has to find a spot of their own. That takes up alot of real estate. I don't think I'd mind really having a forest for my backyard, it would remind me of living back in the old days. People didn't always grow up and move hundreds or thousands of miles away like they do now.

It would also have the side benefit of drastically reducing individual debt burdens if three or four generations lived in a Mansion-style house if everyone pitched in for the mortgage.

Katwoman
19th December 2009, 13:57
What about this for an idea...

It's a tiny bit oldschool, but an en masse return to large, multi-generational homes would free up more land for re-foresting and farmland. Think about everyone who, when they become an adult, moves out from their parents house and has to find a spot of their own. That takes up alot of real estate. I don't think I'd mind really having a forest for my backyard, it would remind me of living back in the old days. People didn't always grow up and move hundreds or thousands of miles away like they do now.

It would also have the side benefit of drastically reducing individual debt burdens if three or four generations lived in a Mansion-style house if everyone pitched in for the mortgage.

It makes sense to me. I have never understood why people feel compelled to leave their aged parents in a nursing home. My maternal grandmother lived with us for 15 years after my grandfather died and we all really enjoyed having her around. We built an addition on the house for her to live in (which BTW she helped pay for along with many other things over the years which raised our standard of living just as you say). That house was really a home too. All my friends knew "Granny" and she loved talking to them about anything and everything.....it just made her day.

My Precious
19th December 2009, 14:19
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/04/it-pays-to-go-green-al-gores-net-worth-jumps-from-2-million-in-2000-to-100-million-in-2008/

JesterJay
19th December 2009, 14:24
Now we know why little Kitty is such a great person...
Granny didn't raise no slouch!
JesterJay



It makes sense to me. I have never understood why people feel compelled to leave their aged parents in a nursing home. My maternal grandmother lived with us for 15 years after my grandfather died and we all really enjoyed having her around. We built an addition on the house for her to live in (which BTW she helped pay for along with many other things over the years which raised our standard of living just as you say). That house was really a home too. All my friends knew "Granny" and she loved talking to them about anything and everything.....it just made her day.

JesterJay
19th December 2009, 14:29
Due to financial conditions, my 23 year old daughter is moving back in to the "home place".
Could it be that in the future more "consolidation of costs" will have to happen. Meaning of course, that elderly or not-so-elderly parents have to move in with adult children. Mom, Dad, Gramma/Grampa, Sons, Daughters, and even grandkids could all be FORCED to move in or live under an Interstate overpass down by the river.
I see MUCH more difficult times ahead....
Not hoping, PRAYING,
JesterJay



What about this for an idea...

It's a tiny bit oldschool, but an en masse return to large, multi-generational homes would free up more land for re-foresting and farmland. Think about everyone who, when they become an adult, moves out from their parents house and has to find a spot of their own. That takes up alot of real estate. I don't think I'd mind really having a forest for my backyard, it would remind me of living back in the old days. People didn't always grow up and move hundreds or thousands of miles away like they do now.

It would also have the side benefit of drastically reducing individual debt burdens if three or four generations lived in a Mansion-style house if everyone pitched in for the mortgage.

Katwoman
19th December 2009, 14:35
Now we know why little Kitty is such a great person...
Granny didn't raise no slouch!
JesterJay


When a teenage women disagrees with her mother her grandmother is always there to support her. On the contrary my poor mother got very little support from me when she had a run in with Granny....ouch!!

argent_pur
19th December 2009, 14:44
Before my brother moved to Sacramento, he lived just outside Chicago in a really nice subdivision with his wife...no kids. Next door lived an Indian family (from India) comprised of 3 generations. The houses themselves were nearly identical, so I imagine the mortgages were similar. They all either worked outside the home, or helped take care of the kids while the others went to work. Imagine how much easier it must have been for them to make their mortgage payment with all of them working together as opposed to just my brother and his wife. Of course, I have the advantage of actually loving (and liking) my family. Not every family is that way, but at least theoretically the idea could work. More land for trees to gobble up all that CO2 we apparently produce, and more land to farm to make more food for all those kids we apparently can't stop having.

UmassSteve
19th December 2009, 15:07
Well then you have just argued in favor of giving up on trying to control the behavior of other people who do not want to be controlled by you and your liberal socialist/communist friends. Why don't you people understand that you cannot control other people who do not want to be controlled? Why is it that you push push push until you get bit? Are you people just plain stupid? God's plan is for man to learn by experience. No one but God can see the future. And, most importantly no one but God can define the rights of man. Yet you liberals have tried for centuries to control people. Get a life will you!!

Actually I was arguing that the religious right has been thwarting attempts at human population control for decades by preaching against condoms, birth control, abortions, and safe sex. But, your continued ability to take an argument, ignore what was said, and then say an unrelated thing about how awful liberals are still impresses me. Bravo!

Katwoman
19th December 2009, 15:29
Actually I was arguing that the religious right has been thwarting attempts at human population control for decades by preaching against condoms, birth control, abortions, and safe sex. But, your continued ability to take an argument, ignore what was said, and then say an unrelated thing about how awful liberals are still impresses me. Bravo!

There you go again assailing those awful religious people for not doing something you want them them to do. Why can't you just leave people who are not asking for your help alone? Why do you feel compelled to control them? Do you not realize how hypocritical it is for a liberal to who wants sexual freedom to try to stop people from having sex for religious reasons in a country in which freedom of religion is a right definitely and irrefutably protected by the US constitution?

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
19th December 2009, 15:59
There you go again assailing those awful religious people for not doing something you want them them to do. Why can't you just leave people who are not asking for your help alone? Why do you feel compelled to control them? Do you not realize how hypocritical it is for a liberal to who wants sexual freedom to try to stop people from having sex for religious reasons in a country in which freedom of religion is a right definitely and irrefutably protected by the US constitution?

Didn't God tell us to be fruitful and multiply? I can't think of one thing the Earth has run out of, or will run out of. Even today, you could fit 6 billion people side by side in the city of Jacksonville, FL, and still half the city would be empty.

If you believe in God, we aren't going to run out of food, oil, or anything else critical; because he has foreseen all and provided for us.

slvr
19th December 2009, 16:57
Actually I was arguing that the religious right has been thwarting attempts at human population control for decades by preaching against condoms, birth control, abortions, and safe sex. But, your continued ability to take an argument, ignore what was said, and then say an unrelated thing about how awful liberals are still impresses me. Bravo!


Gosh, Steve... Can we please have your permission to be taught the prinicipals of our God and Creator?. Please? About how He tells us His principals on marriage and sex? Or should we just curl up and shut up to try and appease the worldly, fleshly view of how to live. Humm.. let's see should I live my life to please you or God??? It's not an agenda on popultation control.. its simply exercising the God given and Constitutional right we have to practice our own religion.. if that's OK with you. Or perhaps you would prefer Sharia law over Christianity. I personally don't give a damn what you or you liberal friends do.. just stay away from us with your stupid blaming games and leave us "Right wingers" alone.

argent_pur
19th December 2009, 17:00
Didn't God tell us to be fruitful and multiply? I can't think of one thing the Earth has run out of, or will run out of. Even today, you could fit 6 billion people side by side in the city of Jacksonville, FL, and still half the city would be empty.

If you believe in God, we aren't going to run out of food, oil, or anything else critical; because he has foreseen all and provided for us.

Therein lies the real crux of the matter. A lot of people either don't believe in God's existence or believe that He is so far removed from humanity as to be practically non-existent. If there is no God, then the earth running out of resources is a real problem since they are finite.

When we get right down to it, differences between liberals and conservatives and ALL THE ISSUES WE FIGHT OVER are really just battles of worldviews, which I've stated in a different post, are not easily overturned.

And it might seem like I'm trying to be neutral here, but I'm not. I'm one of those crazy people who still believes the Bible is true and provides more wisdom than a thousand university professors combined...it's just that I've been down this road many, many times with my BIOS profs. at school (all very civilized conversations BTW). They have a different worldview; a different starting point on which they base their values. I've learned that arguing doesn't do anything to change people's minds, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on.

UmassSteve
19th December 2009, 17:05
There you go again assailing those awful religious people for not doing something you want them them to do. Why can't you just leave people who are not asking for your help alone? Why do you feel compelled to control them? Do you not realize how hypocritical it is for a liberal to who wants sexual freedom to try to stop people from having sex for religious reasons in a country in which freedom of religion is a right definitely and irrefutably protected by the US constitution?

Here's the problem. Current abstinence-only programs misinforms kids, and lets them make their own decisions. Those darned liberal programs teach you how to use a condom, what birth control is, and how to prevent STDs, and then lets kids make their own decisions. Guess who makes better decisions?

Nearly every study I have ever found shows that kids are just as likely to engage in sexual activity regardless of what kind of sexual education they get. Abstinence-only kids just have it younger, without protection, and end up with higher rates of disease and pregnancy.

And, to your freedom of religion point. Public schools are funded by the state. Religious views, of any kind, should have absolutely no bearing in matters of the state. Something about the separation of church and state. So no, I see no hypocrisy in trying to uphold the separation of church and state by trying to prevent scripture from dictating curriculum.

argent_pur
19th December 2009, 17:17
I will say this, Mr. Steve. If you think all religion is absent from public education, you would be wrong. Theistic religion is entirely absent, that's true, and has been for many years...but it was replaced. Humanism, secularism, naturalism, whatever we shall call it are very much present, even if they don't enjoy status as official "religions" they are still unprovable a priori worldviews, much as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is unprovable. Theistic religion was simply replaced with a different one. And both camps ought to be restricted to philosophy class in public schools.

argent_pur
19th December 2009, 17:25
Now that I think about it, this thread really doesn't belong here:rolleyes:

Katwoman
19th December 2009, 18:18
Here's the problem. Current abstinence-only programs misinforms kids, and lets them make their own decisions. Those darned liberal programs teach you how to use a condom, what birth control is, and how to prevent STDs, and then lets kids make their own decisions. Guess who makes better decisions?

Nearly every study I have ever found shows that kids are just as likely to engage in sexual activity regardless of what kind of sexual education they get. Abstinence-only kids just have it younger, without protection, and end up with higher rates of disease and pregnancy.

And, to your freedom of religion point. Public schools are funded by the state. Religious views, of any kind, should have absolutely no bearing in matters of the state. Something about the separation of church and state. So no, I see no hypocrisy in trying to uphold the separation of church and state by trying to prevent scripture from dictating curriculum.

Sorry to burst your bubble Steve but the right wing does not want your liberal federal department of education funded and controlled schools to begin with. Again the schools are just another example of how liberals give you something and later tell you that to keep the benefit you need to behave the way they want you to which is why conservatives do not want anything from the federal government. We do not want your schools, your healthcare reform or your worthless FRNs. The only thing we want the federal government to do is provide the navy and air force we the people need to defend this great nation.

akak
19th December 2009, 18:54
Didn't God tell us to be fruitful and multiply? I can't think of one thing the Earth has run out of, or will run out of. Even today, you could fit 6 billion people side by side in the city of Jacksonville, FL, and still half the city would be empty.

If you believe in God, we aren't going to run out of food, oil, or anything else critical; because he has foreseen all and provided for us.


It is sad that so many people still have their heads completely buried in the sand regarding the human overpopulation of the earth and the devastating effects of the same, both ecologically, economically and politically.

The fact is that we are ALREADY at long-term unsustainable levels of human population on this planet, and at wildly unsustainable levels of resource exploitation. The fact that 6 billion people could be crammed into one city is moot --- what really matters is how well, and for how long, can our worldwide environment support that many people? When one examines history, it is clear that almost invariably, people will expand their populations and utilization of resources until they are at their maximum possible levels --- and then some natural or man-made catastrophe comes along to collapse the whole society. This has happened time and time again throughout the world, from ancient China, to Mesopotamia, to Easter Island, to the Anasazi in the US Southwest, to the Mayans, to Greenland, and on and on.

But one thing has remained constant throughout all of these societal collapses: the excessive and unsustainable utilization of resources, whether it be water or topsoil or trees or crops. To naively and simplistically say that "God will provide" is nothing but a cop-out and a complete shirking of responsibility for our collective future.

Merely pointing out the ecologically obvious (to those with any education in it) is not, however, to imply that I am suggesting any particular political action, as I am sure that some ignorant right-wingers will mistaken blast me as a "leftist greenie" for informing you that we do, indeed, live in a limited environment and on a limited world.

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
19th December 2009, 19:08
It is sad that so many people still have their heads completely buried in the sand regarding the human overpopulation of the earth and the devastating effects of the same, both ecologically, economically and politically.

The fact is that we are ALREADY at long-term unsustainable levels of human population on this planet, and at wildly unsustainable levels of resource exploitation. The fact that 6 billion people could be crammed into one city is moot --- what really matters is how well, and for how long, can our worldwide environment support that many people? When one examines history, it is clear that almost invariably, people will expand their populations and utilization of resources until they are at their maximum possible levels --- and then some natural or man-made catastrophe comes along to collapse the whole society. This has happened time and time again throughout the world, from ancient China, to Mesopotamia, to Easter Island, to the Anasazi in the US Southwest, to the Mayans, to Greenland, and on and on.

But one thing has remained constant throughout all of these societal collapses: the excessive and unsustainable utilization of resources, whether it be water or topsoil or trees or crops. To naively and simplistically say that "God will provide" is nothing but a cop-out and a complete shirking of responsibility for our collective future.

Merely pointing out the ecologically obvious (to those with any education in it) is not, however, to imply that I am suggesting any particular political action, as I am sure that some ignorant right-wingers will mistaken blast me as a "leftist greenie" for informing you that we do, indeed, live in a limited environment and on a limited world.

Oh come on.

You aren't going to change or regulate human nature. That is impossible. Humans are always to going to "over-use" resources (following the terms you used). What you have to believe is that God designed us, knows this, and has provided accordingly.

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 19:09
Assuming one square meter per person 6 billion folks would occupy 2316 sq miles... and if you put the porta johns on the down wind side some folks would have to walk almost 50 miles to take a leak. And nobody could lay down and stretch out to sleep . and tired people get cranky.. so there would probably be trouble at some point.

I see failing to provide adequate sex education as actually implementing my suggestion that we let nature take it's own course on population control with STD's, low birth weight babies, complications in delivery resulting in deaths etc... point of fact uncontroled reproduction by uneducated people has been the primary form of population control for millenium.. the problem only started with education and prenatal care and medical interventions foiling the will of God. All we have to do is to get the faithful to put the whole process completly in the hands of God... but they don't have enough faith for that.

akak
19th December 2009, 19:12
If you believe in God, we aren't going to run out of food, oil, or anything else critical; because he has foreseen all and provided for us.


The 90% of the Mayans would starved to death after the collapse of the classical Mayan civilization in the 10th century, or the less than 10% of Easter Islanders who remained in the 17th century after having to resort to cannibalism, or the 100% of Norse Greenlanders who died when their colony failed due to environmental damage and climate change, will I am sure be happy to know that.

It would seem that THEY were not provided for.

akak
19th December 2009, 19:13
Oh come on.

You aren't going to change or regulate human nature. That is impossible. Humans are always to going to "over-use" resources (following the terms you used). What you have to believe is that God designed us, knows this, and has provided accordingly.

So your program is: Bury head in sand and hope for the best.

Good luck with that.

JesterJay
19th December 2009, 19:17
I believe the point is that in the end after all our efforts have failed to get our fellow humans in line to "save" the planet all we have left to save us is the plan of the Creator.
He ought to know how,
JesterJay



So your program is: Bury head in sand and hope for the best.

Good luck with that.

akak
19th December 2009, 19:25
I believe the point is that in the end after all our efforts have failed to get our fellow humans in line to "save" the planet all we have left to save us is the plan of the Creator.
He ought to know how,
JesterJay

Sadly, you are probably right.

I say "sadly", because I am increasingly coming to believe that, as a species, humans are fundamentally insane, because after thousands of years and hundreds of examples, we refuse to learn from our mistakes, whether politically, socially or ecologically. It seems we must always run off the edge of the cliff before seeing how idiotic we have been behaving.

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 19:30
The 90% of the Mayans would starved to death after the collapse of the classical Mayan civilization in the 10th century, or the less than 10% of Easter Islanders who remained in the 17th century after having to resort to cannibalism, or the 100% of Norse Greenlanders who died when their colony failed due to environmental damage and climate change, will I am sure be happy to know that.

It would seem that THEY were not provided for.

Wrong Tribal God perhaps? You only mentioned godless pagan tribes having problems...

akak
19th December 2009, 19:37
Wrong Tribal God perhaps? You only mentioned godless pagan tribes having problems...

PLEASE!

:rolleyes:

By that reasoning, NO society in history would have prospered until Christianity (or the one TRUE God, whoever that might be) came along.

In the case of the Norse Greenlanders and Easter Islanders, in fact, a very good case can be made that it was their religious beliefs and practices that materially contributed to their downfall --- and the Greenlanders were fervent Christians.

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 19:42
PLEASE!

:rolleyes:

By that reasoning, NO society in history would have prospered until Christianity (or the one TRUE God, whoever that might be) came along.

Actually every society that existed, pre Christian, did fail .. and few of them ever developed indoor plumbing.. which is my basic criteria for civilization..

Etology not withstanding...:rolleyes: pretty sure the Greenlanders were at least in some part still pagan which explains their deaths..

akak
19th December 2009, 19:51
Actually every society that existed, pre Christian, did fail ..

And so have many Christian societies since!

How, then, so you account for the fall of the devoutly Christian Byzantine Empire, the fall of Christian Russia to the Tatars, the fall of the devoutly Christian Balkans and Greece to the Ottoman Empire for centuries, or the (so far permanent) fall of Christian Egypt and Arabia to Islam?


... and few of them ever developed indoor plumbing.. which is my basic criteria for civilization..

Interesting that the very first European civilization, that of the Minoans on Crete, had widespread use of flush toilets and indoor plumbing, something that even the Romans never quite acheived to the same extent.


Etology not withstanding...:rolleyes: pretty sure the Greenlanders were at least in some part still pagan which explains their deaths..

I am assuming you are joking here!

So they died because they were not pure enough Christians?

silverbullet
19th December 2009, 20:00
Once again, I trust the scientists who are doing the research. I don't believe that reuter's is out to lie to me, and sorry, I trust the National Climactic Data Center scientists before I trust any bloggers, politically charged authors, or anyone paid by the coal, petroleum, or auto industries. Just me. BTW, these photos were taken at the same time of the year, and yes, I trust physical evidence. So shoot me...

I understand that you trust the scientists that you are getting your info from, and I understand that science and politics need to sit in opposite corners... but unfortunately they do not! But how can you trust scientists that as another poster mention are granted and supported by politicians with profit agenda's?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

Again, watch this video and it will get you thinking! I know he is also a politician, but he is ALOT LESS bias than Al gore...

And here is a little fact... Lord Monckton has challenged Al Gore to a debate on Global Warming MULTIPLE times... and guess what? Al gore did what he usually does when someone with the intelligence to uncover the fraud of global warming comes around... Completely ignores the person and cowards like the dog he is...

He has time to come up with a Lame Ass poem/song about global warming but cant debate the facts on it? WTF???

He needs to get his fat ass off his private jet that him and his other lackies have and get put behind bars!

My Pants Are Cold
19th December 2009, 20:06
Listen, I've posted a lot of proof in the past, just check my posts every time this subject comes up. I'm not posting these again, there here, if you want to see them, look them up. Honestly, the hottest years on record have happened since 2000. Want it to or not, the planet is warming. The real question is how do we slow it at least, stop it if possible (that's doubtful). This is where politics are going to fail us, as everyone wants to make a buck on the solution, and politicians, who are NOT scientists, are the ones who are trying to come up with solutions, which makes absolutely no sense. If you are concerned about how much this will cost, blame the politicians for coming up with bogus solutions, don't blame science. Just like everyone else, I'm upset about what was said in these emails, but that doesn't change the facts. This is why i say politics and science should be separated.

You have posted exactly zero "proof". All you have done is parroted Al Gores bullshit. Our records only go back a couple hundred years at best. You really do not need a phd to understand that the plante cools and warms naturally. There are not "solutions" for naturally occuring phenomena. CO2 is not a poison. If indeed the planet is getting warmer it will be beneficial to mankind. Perhaps you should go back to a 7th grade science class and educate your self. Perhaps you'll not sleep through it this time.

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 20:48
Didn't we just discuss the fact that all the others are paid by the US government? So in your government controlled mind if a scientist is paid by a government grant to study global warming she or he will have no bias but if she or he is paid by an Exxon-Mobile grant then bias will be rampant? Come on Hippie you can do better than that especially when we evidence of government funded climate scientists engaging in covert fraud!!

Sorry, I have to believe that exxon mobil has more to lose if co2 emissions are cut than the government has to gain if they are...just common sense.

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 20:53
And so have many Christian societies since!

How, then, so you account for the fall of the devoutly Christian Byzantine Empire, the fall of Christian Russia to the Tatars, the fall of the devoutly Christian Balkans and Greece to the Ottoman Empire for centuries, or the (so far permanent) fall of Christian Egypt and Arabia to Islam?



Interesting that the very first European civilization, that of the Minoans on Crete, had widespread use of flush toilets and indoor plumbing, something that even the Romans never quite acheived to the same extent.



I am assuming you are joking here!

So they died because they were not pure enough Christians?

Byzatine? Orthodox?Russian Orthodox? Coptics? what kind of Protestant True Christian outfits are those????

Kidding.. of course not ..I am being ironic and sarcastic ( and perhaps far to subtile).. this is no joking matter!

Strictly King James Bible here.. if it was good enough for St Peter, it's good enough for me.

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 20:59
Sorry to burst your bubble Steve but the right wing does not want your liberal federal department of education funded and controlled schools to begin with. Again the schools are just another example of how liberals give you something and later tell you that to keep the benefit you need to behave the way they want you to which is why conservatives do not want anything from the federal government. We do not want your schools, your healthcare reform or your worthless FRNs. The only thing we want the federal government to do is provide the navy and air force we the people need to defend this great nation.

So, just how do you propose to pay for poor children's education and health care? Or should we just let them be starving illiterates, as we did in the 18th and 19th centuries? Some things are just the cost of living in a civilized society. Did you go to public school? In New England? You and I (I grew up in Mass. in the 60s and 70s) got some of the best education available, payed for by the taxpayers. Would you like that privilidge removed from future generations?

My Pants Are Cold
19th December 2009, 21:00
Oh come on.

You aren't going to change or regulate human nature. That is impossible. Humans are always to going to "over-use" resources (following the terms you used). What you have to believe is that God designed us, knows this, and has provided accordingly.
Yep, that's why we have nukes.

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 21:00
Oh come on.

You aren't going to change or regulate human nature. That is impossible. Humans are always to going to "over-use" resources (following the terms you used). What you have to believe is that God designed us, knows this, and has provided accordingly.

He really doesn't have to believe that God designed us. This is the United States, not a theocracy.

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 21:04
Wrong Tribal God perhaps? You only mentioned godless pagan tribes having problems...


Please educate yourself. The term "godless pagans" is an oxymoron. Pagans by definition believe in more than one god. Just because they don't believe in your version of God doesn't make them godless, or any less right than you are. Please, let me live in America, where Jefferson and Franklin made sure that we can worship (or not worship) a spiritual being as WE see fit, and noone else.

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 21:08
Actually every society that existed, pre Christian, did fail .. and few of them ever developed indoor plumbing.. which is my basic criteria for civilization..

Etology not withstanding...:rolleyes: pretty sure the Greenlanders were at least in some part still pagan which explains their deaths..


Yet another mistake. The Romans, while still pagan, designed plumbing. Where did you go to school?

And, just as an example, India fell, it's true, but are back on their feet, Hindus most every one. Let's not forget the Middle East, who regained soverignty as Muslims. Israel? Back even though their Jewish. The Turks? Muslims who have survived. Please, once again, think before you post.

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 21:10
Please educate yourself. The term "godless pagans" is an oxymoron. Pagans by definition believe in more than one god. Just because they don't believe in your version of God doesn't make them godless, or any less right than you are. Please, let me live in America, where Jefferson and Franklin made sure that we can worship (or not worship) a spiritual being as WE see fit, and noone else.

I said Godless specifically..I never said Goddessless

You some kinda strict fundamentalist pagan or something ?? go smudge and ground or Diana will give you a stroke geeze louise

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 21:16
I said Godless specifically..I never said Goddessless

You some kinda strict fundamentalist pagan or something ?? go smudge and ground or Diana will give you a stroke geeze louise

Actually, I'm a Unitarian Universalist who believes that if any God thought that we considered it O.K. to pollute our home's atmosqhere because "He's going to take care of us" he's get a little pissed...

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 21:24
Actually, I'm a Unitarian Universalist who believes that if any God thought that we considered it O.K. to pollute our home's atmosqhere because "He's going to take care of us" he's get a little pissed...

OMGess a fundy Unitarian.... but at least he thinks he knows the mind and will of Dieties...Have you smudged yet today?

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 21:34
OMGess a fundy Unitarian.... but at least he thinks he knows the mind and will of Dieties...Have you smudged yet today?

Yet another example of why I don't generally discuss religion here...and won't attack yours. Please don't attack mine.

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 21:42
Yet another example of why I don't generally discuss religion here...and won't attack yours. Please don't attack mine.

There is an old Buddhist Koan or teaching riddle ..

What do you get when you throw dog poop on the Buddha?

The answer is holy poop.. the mundane cannot profane the truely sacred, rather, the truely sacred sanctifies all that touches it. ]

So if you think you know what religion I am.. and have an urge to knock or bad mouth it, go for it... Nothing truely Holy can be blasphemed by a mere mortal. oh and btw... my religion has a sense of humor because it can afford to.

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 21:46
There is an old Buddhist Koan or teaching riddle ..

What do you get when you throw dog poop on the Buddha?

The answer is holy poop.. the mundane cannot profane the truely sacred, rather, the truely sacred sanctifies all that touches it. ]

So if you think you know what religion I am.. and have an urge to knock or bad mouth it, go for it... Nothing truely Holy can be blasphemed by a mere mortal.

Actually, that was funny! I've had tohe privilidge to have met the Dalai Lama once (very briefly after a talk) and would bet he'd laugh at that too!

Actually, I have no idea what your religion is, and truly believe it's none of my business. That's kind of the point I was making.

akak
19th December 2009, 21:51
Strictly King James Bible here.. if it was good enough for St Peter, it's good enough for me.


LOL!


OK, NOW I gotcha!

:D

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 21:57
Byzatine? Orthodox?Russian Orthodox? Coptics? what kind of Protestant True Christian outfits are those????

Kidding.. of course not ..I am being ironic and sarcastic ( and perhaps far to subtile).. this is no joking matter!

Strictly King James Bible here.. if it was good enough for St Peter, it's good enough for me.

O.k., I'm a bit slow here, and too used to defending myself! I missed the sarcasm totally, and apologize! I'm such a dumb%$# sometimes!

(note to self, don't take everything so personally!)

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 22:04
O.k., I'm a bit slow here, and too used to defending myself! I missed the sarcasm totally, and apologize! I'm such a dumb%$# sometimes!

(note to self, don't take everything so personally!)

Oh so you think it is okay for me to diss the others guys religion so long as I use some wit... uh huh whatever happened to having principles....

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 22:09
Oh so you think it is okay for me to diss the others guys religion so long as I use some wit... uh huh whatever happened to having principles....

Not quite what I was saying. Sarcasm is different from dismissal. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my or anyone else's religion, and sarcasm is a way of expressing that, but to disagree and disrespect are two different things. I apologized, because I reacted like I was attacked when I wasn't. Stupid on my part.

Keep it up, everyone needs to have their beliefs challenged once in a while, it's good for you!

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 22:19
Not quite what I was saying. Sarcasm is different from dismissal. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my or anyone else's religion, and sarcasm is a way of expressing that, but to disagree and disrespect are two different things. I apologized, because I reacted like I was attacked when I wasn't. Stupid on my part.

Keep it up, everyone needs to have their beliefs challenged once in a while, it's good for you!

Dali Lama huh... sounds like you talked to a couple Jesuits as well...Jesuits are fun in a food or word fight.

akak
19th December 2009, 23:02
Dali Lama huh... sounds like you talked to a couple Jesuits as well...Jesuits are fun in a food or word fight.


My neighbor has several llamas, and named one of them "Dolly".

I am ashamed to say, I didn't get the joke for about a year.

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 23:05
My neighbor has several llamas, and named one of them "Dolly".

I am ashamed to say, I didn't get the joke for about a year.


"Hello Dali, yes Hello Dali..."


O.K., I admit, that wasn't very funny...

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 23:10
"Hello Dali, yes Hello Dali..."


O.K., I admit, that wasn't very funny...
Actually the Dali Lama thought it was

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/dalai-lama-fist-bumped-by_n_295977.html

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 23:13
Actually the Dali Lama thought it was

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/dalai-lama-fist-bumped-by_n_295977.html

That's very cool, you gotta love the little guy, he does have a great sense of humor!

Bullseye
19th December 2009, 23:21
IMO America is eroding away because now "the biggest melting pot of the world" has also brought the "melting pot of religions".....Our forefathers believed in one God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This nation became "The Superpower" of superpowers in less than 200 years!! Were not
we One Nation Under God ???? Now we are not one nation under God.
We are hey, I believe we came from that tree-nation and I believe we came
from an alien planet -exr24 galaxy6- nation. This Powerful Nation was formed
as a "Christian Nation". But sadly to say these days just the word "God" has
offended a non-believer and has been removed from public schools. Wow
if you take a look at how many mass killings and shootings happen at schools!! That didn't use to happen. Kids killing kids??? We remove the 10
commandments from courthouses because it offened someone....And hey why not??? we dont need no stinkin commandments...what good are they?,
we got lawyers instead. God also told us to send "Him" our murderers(pre-meditated, not accidental killing) and rapists and child molesters, and "these things will stop happening". But hey why should we do that, Lets house them and feed them and let them get doctorate degrees while they are in prison.
Lets pay for that as well.....Well folks we have gotten far away from basic nature and human principals. This Nation is getting pathetic with greed, corruption, control and power run amuck! I really dont care what you believe in....but....dont change what made This country a Superpower!!! For the people that dont want to hear the word God, close your ears! For the people that dont want to see the 10 commandments, dont look! For the people that need special "foot baths" and rugs and have to point in a certain direction 10 times a day, dont do it in "our universitys!", build your own and shut-up or go to a nation that gladly accepts that!! The men that started this nation had good morales and great values, its to bad its starting to turn into the "What About Me Nation" that felt good to say...and it's my humble opinion......

akak
19th December 2009, 23:26
IMO America is eroding away because now "the biggest melting pot of the world" has also brought the "melting pot of religions".....Our forefathers believed in one God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This nation became "The Superpower" of superpowers in less than 200 years!! Were not
we One Nation Under God ???? Now we are not one nation under God.
We are hey, I believe we came from that tree-nation and I believe we came
from an alien planet -exr24 galaxy6- nation. This Powerful Nation was formed
as a "Christian Nation". But sadly to say these days just the word "God" has
offended a non-believer and has been removed from public schools. Wow
if you take a look at how many mass killings and shootings happen at schools!! That didn't use to happen. Kids killing kids??? We remove the 10
commandments from courthouses because it offened someone....And hey why not??? we dont need no stinkin commandments...what good are they?,
we got lawyers instead. God also told us to send "Him" our murderers(pre-meditated, not accidental killing) and rapists and child molesters, and "these things will stop happening". But hey why should we do that, Lets house them and feed them and let them get doctorate degrees while they are in prison.
Lets pay for that as well.....Well folks we have gotten far away from basic nature and human principals. This Nation is getting pathetic with greed, corruption, control and power run amuck! I really dont care what you believe in....but....dont change what made This country a Superpower!!! For the people that dont want to hear the word God, close your ears! For the people that dont want to see the 10 commandments, dont look! For the people that need special "foot baths" and rugs and have to point in a certain direction 10 times a day, dont do it in "our universitys!", build your own and shut-up or go to a nation that gladly accepts that!! The men that started this nation had good morales and great values, its to bad its starting to turn into the "What About Me Nation" that felt good to say...and it's my humble opinion......

A big part of the problem is that we became a superpower! The Founding Fathers were surely rolling in their graves over that development, among many others.

TheLoneRanger
19th December 2009, 23:29
IMO America is eroding away because now "the biggest melting pot of the world" has also brought the "melting pot of religions".....Our forefathers believed in one God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This nation became "The Superpower" of superpowers in less than 200 years!! Were not
we One Nation Under God ???? Now we are not one nation under God.
We are hey, I believe we came from that tree-nation and I believe we came
from an alien planet -exr24 galaxy6- nation. This Powerful Nation was formed
as a "Christian Nation". But sadly to say these days just the word "God" has
offended a non-believer and has been removed from public schools. Wow
if you take a look at how many mass killings and shootings happen at schools!! That didn't use to happen. Kids killing kids??? We remove the 10
commandments from courthouses because it offened someone....And hey why not??? we dont need no stinkin commandments...what good are they?,
we got lawyers instead. God also told us to send "Him" our murderers(pre-meditated, not accidental killing) and rapists and child molesters, and "these things will stop happening". But hey why should we do that, Lets house them and feed them and let them get doctorate degrees while they are in prison.
Lets pay for that as well.....Well folks we have gotten far away from basic nature and human principals. This Nation is getting pathetic with greed, corruption, control and power run amuck! I really dont care what you believe in....but....dont change what made This country a Superpower!!! For the people that dont want to hear the word God, close your ears! For the people that dont want to see the 10 commandments, dont look! For the people that need special "foot baths" and rugs and have to point in a certain direction 10 times a day, dont do it in "our universitys!", build your own and shut-up or go to a nation that gladly accepts that!! The men that started this nation had good morales and great values, its to bad its starting to turn into the "What About Me Nation" that felt good to say...and it's my humble opinion......

I'm a little confused by this post... I though all these non believers were brought here as a convience to prostlizers so we didn't have to send so many Missionaries overseas.. Surely you believe that the Truth will Triumph.. and having so many unbelievers here handy .. I just can't see anything but Victory for Jesus... You need to get out there with the Truth .. your faith must be stronger than theirs... all this doubting Thomas stuff is what is weakening this Great Nation .. it's the doubters in the power of the Truth that are bringing us down not the unbelievers .. for every unbeliever converted makes us stronger.. Keep the faith Brother walk the walk .. don't be shy

Bullseye
19th December 2009, 23:30
A big part of the problem is that we became a superpower! The Founding Fathers were surely rolling in their graves over that development, among many others.

I was actually thinking of that towards the end of my post!!! Dont get me wrong its still a great nation!!!:D

hippiebrian
19th December 2009, 23:41
IMO America is eroding away because now "the biggest melting pot of the world" has also brought the "melting pot of religions".....Our forefathers believed in one God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This nation became "The Superpower" of superpowers in less than 200 years!! Were not
we One Nation Under God ???? Now we are not one nation under God.
We are hey, I believe we came from that tree-nation and I believe we came
from an alien planet -exr24 galaxy6- nation. This Powerful Nation was formed
as a "Christian Nation". But sadly to say these days just the word "God" has
offended a non-believer and has been removed from public schools. Wow
if you take a look at how many mass killings and shootings happen at schools!! That didn't use to happen. Kids killing kids??? We remove the 10
commandments from courthouses because it offened someone....And hey why not??? we dont need no stinkin commandments...what good are they?,
we got lawyers instead. God also told us to send "Him" our murderers(pre-meditated, not accidental killing) and rapists and child molesters, and "these things will stop happening". But hey why should we do that, Lets house them and feed them and let them get doctorate degrees while they are in prison.
Lets pay for that as well.....Well folks we have gotten far away from basic nature and human principals. This Nation is getting pathetic with greed, corruption, control and power run amuck! I really dont care what you believe in....but....dont change what made This country a Superpower!!! For the people that dont want to hear the word God, close your ears! For the people that dont want to see the 10 commandments, dont look! For the people that need special "foot baths" and rugs and have to point in a certain direction 10 times a day, dont do it in "our universitys!", build your own and shut-up or go to a nation that gladly accepts that!! The men that started this nation had good morales and great values, its to bad its starting to turn into the "What About Me Nation" that felt good to say...and it's my humble opinion......

Actually, the U.S. never has been a Christian nation. When George Washington was asked such during trade talks with the Middle East, he affirmed that "in no way is the United States a Christian nation". I suggest you read the book "The religious Beliefs of our Forefathers" for further education. Although most (not all) of the members of the Continental Congress were members of Christian churches, most were deists and fully entrenched in what was known as the Age of Reason. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin (an atheist Quaker, by the way) worked hard to ensure we got what Jefferson described as a separation of church and state. Jefferson in fact was such a deist that he was accused falsley of atheism during the campaign for the 1800 election. People believed it, but he won anyway.

You bring up part of the pledge of alligence. You do realize that the phrase "under God" wasn't included until the 50's?

I cannot believe you parrot the 10 Commandments then bring up the death penalty. I could be wrong, but I believe one of those said commandments is "Thy Shalt not Kill." You also bring up the cost of housing these inmates. You may need to read this if the cost is really what you are worried about:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091218/us_nm/us_usa_deathpenalty.

Please, like our forefathers before us, join me in leaving religion out of government.

Bullseye
19th December 2009, 23:50
I'm a little confused by this post... I though all these non believers were brought here as a convience to prostlizers so we didn't have to send so many Missionaries overseas.. Surely you believe that the Truth will Triumph.. and having so many unbelievers here handy .. I just can't see anything but Victory for Jesus... You need to get out there with the Truth .. your faith must be stronger than theirs... all this doubting Thomas stuff is what is weakening this Great Nation .. it's the doubters in the power of the Truth that are bringing us down not the unbelievers .. for every unbeliever converted makes us stronger.. Keep the faith Brother walk the walk .. don't be shy

Thanks LoneRanger, ya know...being a christian is a reality, not a religion.
It is the doubters in the power of truth, that are bringing us down. The Word always was. Its the most printed "book" in the history of mankind. Its so simple in explaining EVERYTHING, yet not many take the time to read for themselves. But this is a pm's board and ......did I mention there are tons of "silver" and "gold" in the Bible....????? :wink:

Katwoman
20th December 2009, 00:23
So, just how do you propose to pay for poor children's education and health care? Or should we just let them be starving illiterates, as we did in the 18th and 19th centuries? Some things are just the cost of living in a civilized society. Did you go to public school? In New England? You and I (I grew up in Mass. in the 60s and 70s) got some of the best education available, payed for by the taxpayers. Would you like that privilidge removed from future generations?

Well I did not grow up in Mass so I am not a Masshole like you. Many of my friends and more importantly my learning disabled sister (who at the time could not get a decent education in a public school) went to Catholic schools and were educated by nuns and they turned out just fine thank you. Sister Eunice and Sister Francine Marie even came to our house on holidays and were like a part of our extended family. I was tutored by the sisters myself to make for the crappy public school math education I got which is probably why I am doctor today while many of my friends from public school never made it to college. So no thanks pal I am not buying any of your price of civilized society BS for even one minute.

Bullseye
20th December 2009, 00:26
Actually, the U.S. never has been a Christian nation. When George Washington was asked such during trade talks with the Middle East, he affirmed that "in no way is the United States a Christian nation". I suggest you read the book "The religious Beliefs of our Forefathers" for further education. Although most (not all) of the members of the Continental Congress were members of Christian churches, most were deists and fully entrenched in what was known as the Age of Reason. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin (an atheist Quaker, by the way) worked hard to ensure we got what Jefferson described as a separation of church and state. Jefferson in fact was such a deist that he was accused falsley of atheism during the campaign for the 1800 election. People believed it, but he won anyway.

You bring up part of the pledge of alligence. You do realize that the phrase "under God" wasn't included until the 50's?


cannot believe you parrot the 10 Commandments then bring up the death penalty. I could be wrong, but I believe one of those said commandments is "Thy Shalt not Kill." You also bring up the cost of housing these inmates. You may need to read this if the cost is really what you are worried about:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091218/us_nm/us_usa_deathpenalty.

Please, like our forefathers before us, join me in leaving religion out of government.


No, I didnt realize "under God" was introduced until the 50's....I will research that. As far as the book , it was written by one man. As far as the Bible, America is mentioned in the Bible and has to do with the the tribe of Manasseh....to lengthy to explain the leaving the land of canaan, over the caucas mountains, thru germany, scotland, the british isles then the americas etc. Actually their is proof as well that Europeans were living in America 4500
years before Columbus. Proof in ogam writings all up and down the eastern seaboard. And I will vote for people in government that have "christian views" Separation of church and state means our gov. can not tell us "who" to worship. The constitution is founded on "bible versus" Its not the cost of murderers that bothers me, Lord forbid one of your children is "murdered" or raped.....or then again it might not bother you that much....If you understand scripture...thou shall not kill means murder.....Our money has in God we Trust.....but your right....maybe only the fed.reserve trusts in God???

TheLoneRanger
20th December 2009, 00:45
Bullseye.. about the Pledge of Alliegence... and I want you to seriously concider this.. perhaps pray on this

The First Commandment

Exodus 20:2–17
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 Do not have any other gods before me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

Deuteronomy 5:6–21

6 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
7 you shall have no other gods before me.

8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,

Exodus 34:11–27

11 Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
12 Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you.

13 You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles

14 (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).

Three versions of the First Commandment straight from the Bible.. pretty clear in what it says

Are you sure you want to pledge alliegence to a flag, espcially a flag on a pole? or a republic? .. Are you really sure?.. wether it says one nation under God or not? Go reread what God has said in the Bible... many Christian Faiths will not say the Pledge for they have already Pledged their life to God and only God?

Up to you.. but be sure of what you are doing and what God has said in the Bible.

hippiebrian
20th December 2009, 00:46
No, I didnt realize "under God" was introduced until the 50's....I will research that. As far as the book , it was written by one man. As far as the Bible, America is mentioned in the Bible and has to do with the the tribe of Manasseh....to lengthy to explain the leaving the land of canaan, over the caucas mountains, thru germany, scotland, the british isles then the americas etc. Actually their is proof as well that Europeans were living in America 4500
years before Columbus. Proof in ogam writings all up and down the eastern seaboard. And I will vote for people in government that have "christian views" Separation of church and state means our gov. can not tell us "who" to worship. The constitution is founded on "bible versus" Its not the cost of murderers that bothers me, Lord forbid one of your children is "murdered" or raped.....or then again it might not bother you that much....If you understand scripture...thou shall not kill means murder.....Our money has in God we Trust.....but your right....maybe only the fed.reserve trusts in God???

Look up another one, our coinage didn't have in God we trust until the 1860's, and it didn't become law until the early 20th century. As of the rest...what?

hippiebrian
20th December 2009, 00:49
Well I did not grow up in Mass so I am not a Masshole like you. Many of my friends and more importantly my learning disabled sister (who at the time could not get a decent education in a public school) went to Catholic schools and were educated by nuns and they turned out just fine thank you. Sister Eunice and Sister Francine Marie even came to our house on holidays and were like a part of our extended family. I was tutored by the sisters myself to make for the crappy public school math education I got which is probably why I am doctor today while many of my friends from public school never made it to college. So no thanks pal I am not buying any of your price of civilized society BS for even one minute.

Thanks for the kind words. I do have to say, if there was no public education when I was a child, my alcoholic father could not have afforded a private education for me, nor did I have any other family members to educate me. Should I have gone without an education because a few taxpayers wanted to save a few bucks? I, for one, don't believe so, nor do I wish it on any other child, thanks. Again, someone has to pay for these things, and I don't mind that part of my tax burden.

TheLoneRanger
20th December 2009, 00:50
Look up another one, our coinage didn't have in God we trust until the 1860's, and it didn't become law until the early 20th century. As of the rest...what?

Hippie .. carefull here, you may be encouraging Bullseye to violate the First Commandment... Maybe he should make up his own mind about this. Just adding God's name to mundane things does not make them things of God. Pledging Allegance to something besides or in addition to God is a serious matter.

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
20th December 2009, 00:52
The 90% of the Mayans would starved to death after the collapse of the classical Mayan civilization in the 10th century, or the less than 10% of Easter Islanders who remained in the 17th century after having to resort to cannibalism, or the 100% of Norse Greenlanders who died when their colony failed due to environmental damage and climate change, will I am sure be happy to know that.

It would seem that THEY were not provided for.

The Mayans? Easter Islanders? Norse Greenlanders? Did they know Jesus? I think not.

God protects his own, learn the Bible, geez.

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
20th December 2009, 00:54
So your program is: Bury head in sand and hope for the best.

Good luck with that.

No, my "program" is to love God with all my heart and that will protect me, not here, but in the after life.

Learn Scripture, like I said.

Katwoman
20th December 2009, 00:55
Thanks for the kind words. I do have to say, if there was no public education when I was a child, my alcoholic father could not have afforded a private education for me, nor did I have any other family members to educate me. Should I have gone without an education because a few taxpayers wanted to save a few bucks? I, for one, don't believe so, nor do I wish it on any other child, thanks. Again, someone has to pay for these things, and I don't mind that part of my tax burden.

What do you think your property taxes are used for? For you information, The United States Department of Education was created by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88), it was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979 and began operating on May 4, 1980 so according to you this occurred after you graduated and you did not even benefit from it. Sorry but I am still not buying your nonsense.

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
20th December 2009, 00:59
PLEASE!

:rolleyes:

By that reasoning, NO society in history would have prospered until Christianity (or the one TRUE God, whoever that might be) came along.

In the case of the Norse Greenlanders and Easter Islanders, in fact, a very good case can be made that it was their religious beliefs and practices that materially contributed to their downfall --- and the Greenlanders were fervent Christians.

Your logic is somehow if we know the right God we are protected? This is all babbling garbage. You talk about humankind being ignorant regarding the environment, but you are the ignorant one.

hippiebrian
20th December 2009, 00:59
What do you think your property taxes are used for? For you information, The United States Department of Education was created by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88), it was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979 and began operating on May 4, 1980 so according to you this occurred after you graduated and you did not even benefit from it. Sorry but I am still not buying your nonsense.

Actually, it was created in 1867:http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

Federal tax money was going towards education long before I was born.

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
20th December 2009, 01:00
Yep, that's why we have nukes.

Whatever that means. Are you referring to the end times, ie. Revelation?

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
20th December 2009, 01:05
A big part of the problem is that we became a superpower! The Founding Fathers were surely rolling in their graves over that development, among many others.

Yeah, that's why Jefferson completed the Louisiana Purchase, tripling the size of the USA, and why some Founding Fathers tried to invade and conquer Canada in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Because they did not want us to be a superpower!

HOW F...ING STUPID

Bullseye
20th December 2009, 01:05
Hippie .. carefull here, you may be encouraging Bullseye to violate the First Commandment... Maybe he should make up his own mind about this. Just adding God's name to mundane things does not make them things of God. Pledging Allegance to something besides or in addition to God is a serious matter.

Dont worry Loneranger....I was trying to make a point about the "word" God.
My only pledge is to the One Most High, and his son Jesus the Christ. I couldnt look it up quick enough, but you pulled it out for me!!!!!
EXODUS 34:12 THANK YOU this is happening in "our " land!!!
Ive got better things to look up in my Bible....not what a "hippie" suggests!;-)

Katwoman
20th December 2009, 01:05
Actually, it was created in 1867:http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

Federal tax money was going towards education long before I was born.

Do you even read what you post:

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2008-2009, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where just over 92 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.

The original Department of Education was created in 1867 to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems. While the agency's name and location within the Executive Branch have changed over the past 130 years, this early emphasis on getting information on what works in education to teachers and education policymakers continues down to the present day.

In 1980, Congress established the Department of Education as a Cabinet level agency. Today, ED operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and some 56 million students attending roughly 99,000 public schools and 34,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 13 million postsecondary students.

So you see it was not until 1980 that the Dept of Ed really started to "touch on every area and level of education"

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
20th December 2009, 01:06
Well I did not grow up in Mass so I am not a Masshole like you.

Quote of the Year! A MassHole!

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
20th December 2009, 01:10
Do you even read what you post:

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2008-2009, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where just over 92 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.

The original Department of Education was created in 1867 to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems. While the agency's name and location within the Executive Branch have changed over the past 130 years, this early emphasis on getting information on what works in education to teachers and education policymakers continues down to the present day.

In 1980, Congress established the Department of Education as a Cabinet level agency. Today, ED operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and some 56 million students attending roughly 99,000 public schools and 34,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 13 million postsecondary students.

Doesn't dovetail to his agenda, so he blows it off.

As I said, hippie, and UMassSteve should be banned. They are nothing but viruses sent here to infest us. They don't care about Gold and Silver.

Katwoman
20th December 2009, 01:12
I think they are trolls working for the Obama administration.

hippiebrian
20th December 2009, 01:15
Do you even read what you post:

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2008-2009, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where just over 92 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.

The original Department of Education was created in 1867 to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems. While the agency's name and location within the Executive Branch have changed over the past 130 years, this early emphasis on getting information on what works in education to teachers and education policymakers continues down to the present day.

In 1980, Congress established the Department of Education as a Cabinet level agency. Today, ED operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and some 56 million students attending roughly 99,000 public schools and 34,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 13 million postsecondary students.

It's still primarily funded by the states, with some support from the feds. Historically, the feds had to kick in more money at the beginning of the 20th century (I forget the exact year, sorry) when they made it law that children had to attend school until the age of 14, a law passed primarily to counteract child labor. When public outcry against child labor became too loud to be ignored, something had to be done, and this was the result. The U.S. government started then subsidizing, as the states were complaining that they couldn't afford to put all these children in schools.

Also, even though it was expanded in 1980, it has been around for 150 or so years, and hasn't operated without some kind of financing...and where does the federal government get it's money? That's right, taxes.

hippiebrian
20th December 2009, 01:17
Doesn't dovetail to his agenda, so he blows it off.

As I said, hippie, and UMassSteve should be banned. They are nothing but viruses sent here to infest us. They don't care about Gold and Silver.


It takes a bit to respond, and I'm blowing it off...

Katwoman
20th December 2009, 01:18
It's still primarily funded by the states, with some support from the feds. Historically, the feds had to kick in more money at the beginning of the 20th century (I forget the exact year, sorry) when they made it law that children had to attend school until the age of 14, a law passed primarily to counteract child labor. When public outcry against child labor became too loud to be ignored, something had to be done, and this was the result. The U.S. government started then subsidizing, as the states were complaining that they couldn't afford to put all these children in schools.

Also, even though it was expanded in 1980, it has been around for 150 or so years, and hasn't operated without some kind of financing...and where does the federal government get it's money? That's right, taxes.

Again per your own reference

One final note: while ED's programs and responsibilities have grown substantially over the years, the Department itself has not. In fact, with a planned fiscal year 2009 level of 4,045, ED's staff is 46 percent below the 7,528 employees who administered Federal education programs in several different agencies in 1980, when the Department was created. These staff reductions, along with a wide range of management improvements, have helped limit administrative costs to approximately 2 percent of the Department's discretionary budget and less than 1 percent of all grants and loans made by the Department. This means that ED delivers about 99 cents on the dollar in education assistance to States, school districts, postsecondary institutions, and students.

Bullseye
20th December 2009, 01:18
Doesn't dovetail to his agenda, so he blows it off.

As I said, hippie, and UMassSteve should be banned. They are nothing but viruses sent here to infest us. They don't care about Gold and Silver.


They might be the same person!!!!

Katwoman
20th December 2009, 01:22
Sorry to have to burst your bubble "hippiebrain" but nearly everything that comes from you is nonsense, misquoted foolishness, or ill advised rubbish. You clearly are a brainwashed liberal moon bat who is unable to think critically or for yourself. You really need to go into the woods for a couple of years and let your mind clear.

hippiebrian
20th December 2009, 01:23
Again per your own reference

One final note: while ED's programs and responsibilities have grown substantially over the years, the Department itself has not. In fact, with a planned fiscal year 2009 level of 4,045, ED's staff is 46 percent below the 7,528 employees who administered Federal education programs in several different agencies in 1980, when the Department was created. These staff reductions, along with a wide range of management improvements, have helped limit administrative costs to approximately 2 percent of the Department's discretionary budget and less than 1 percent of all grants and loans made by the Department. This means that ED delivers about 99 cents on the dollar in education assistance to States, school districts, postsecondary institutions, and students.

Read it again. The Department of Education was created in 1867. It was changed to a cabinet department in 1980. Changing how a Department is classified is not creating a new department, just redefining an existing one. When you capitolize the words created in 1980, you are misreading the article to try and make it fit what you're trying to say, not changing what it says. Read the article again.

hippiebrian
20th December 2009, 01:25
Sorry to have to burst your bubble "hippiebrain" but nearly everything that comes from you is nonsense, misquoted foolishness, or ill advised rubbish. You clearly are a brainwashed liberal moon bat who is unable to think critically or for yourself. You really need to go into the woods for a couple of years and let your mind clear.

Saying that the department was CREATED in 1980 is a misquote. It's establishment as a cabinet department wasn't a creation, just a movement. Please, don't accuse me of misquoting when clearly I am not.

Katwoman
20th December 2009, 01:28
Read it again. The Department of Education was created in 1867. It was changed to a cabinet department in 1980. Changing how a Department is classified is not creating a new department, just redefining an existing one. When you capitolize the words created in 1980, you are misreading the article to try and make it fit what you're trying to say, not changing what it says. Read the article again.

I did not capitalize anything all I did was highlight in bold what they said. I am not the one with a maniacal agenda you are.

hippiebrian
20th December 2009, 01:32
I did not capitalize anything all I did was highlight in bold what they said. I am not the one with a maniacal agenda you are.

I've put out factual information to make a point, yes. I've put up with a lot of attacks for doing it. While that may be seen as maniacal, I see it as just putting out a different point of view. As unpopular as that may be on this forum, it is important to at least be shown different points of view if people are going to make intelligent choices, either cementing what they already believe or changing what they believe. When I see something I disagree with pointed out, yes, I speak out, and try to back my views. So does everyone else here. Please don't single me out just because I have a different viewpoint.

Katwoman
20th December 2009, 02:05
I've put out factual information to make a point, yes. I've put up with a lot of attacks for doing it. While that may be seen as maniacal, I see it as just putting out a different point of view. As unpopular as that may be on this forum, it is important to at least be shown different points of view if people are going to make intelligent choices, either cementing what they already believe or changing what they believe. When I see something I disagree with pointed out, yes, I speak out, and try to back my views. So does everyone else here. Please don't single me out just because I have a different viewpoint.

Factual? I cut and pasted the material directly from the link you posted!!! Perhaps the department of education needs to get its own story straight before it tries educating the rest of us!!

You are clearly being stubborn at best and at worst deliberately deceptive in your efforts at trying to con people who might not take the time to read it for themselves into thinking I manipulated the materials that you posted to suit my agenda.

Here is the whole thing you posted so everyone can read it for themselves al I have done is highlight in bold the passages of concern to you:

The Federal Role in Education

OVERVIEW
Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2008-2009, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where just over 92 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.

That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is a little under 8 percent, which includes funds not only from the Department of Education (ED) but also from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program and the Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program.

Although ED's share of total education funding in the U.S. is relatively small, ED works hard to get a big bang for its taxpayer-provided bucks by targeting its funds where they can do the most good. This targeting reflects the historical development of the Federal role in education as a kind of "emergency response system," a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise.


HISTORY
The original Department of Education was created in 1867 to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems. While the agency's name and location within the Executive Branch have changed over the past 130 years, this early emphasis on getting information on what works in education to teachers and education policymakers continues down to the present day.

The passage of the Second Morrill Act in 1890 gave the then-named Office of Education responsibility for administering support for the original system of land-grant colleges and universities. Vocational education became the next major area of Federal aid to schools, with the 1917 Smith-Hughes Act and the 1946 George-Barden Act focusing on agricultural, industrial, and home economics training for high school students.

World War II led to a significant expansion of Federal support for education. The Lanham Act in 1941 and the Impact Aid laws of 1950 eased the burden on communities affected by the presence of military and other Federal installations by making payments to school districts. And in 1944, the "GI Bill" authorized postsecondary education assistance that would ultimately send nearly 8 million World War II veterans to college.

The Cold War stimulated the first example of comprehensive Federal education legislation, when in 1958 Congress passed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik. To help ensure that highly trained individuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields, the NDEA included support for loans to college students, the improvement of science, mathematics, and foreign language instruction in elementary and secondary schools, graduate fellowships, foreign language and area studies, and vocational-technical training.

The anti-poverty and civil rights laws of the 1960s and 1970s brought about a dramatic emergence of the Department's equal access mission. The passage of laws such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which prohibited discrimination based on race, sex, and disability, respectively made civil rights enforcement a fundamental and long-lasting focus of the Department of Education. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act launched a comprehensive set of programs, including the Title I program of Federal aid to disadvantaged children to address the problems of poor urban and rural areas. And in that same year, the Higher Education Act authorized assistance for postsecondary education, including financial aid programs for needy college students.

In 1980, Congress established the Department of Education as a Cabinet level agency. Today, ED operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 14,000 school districts and some 56 million students attending roughly 99,000 public schools and 34,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 13 million postsecondary students.


MISSION
Despite the growth of the Federal role in education, the Department never strayed far from what would become its official mission: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

The Department carries out its mission in two major ways. First, the Secretary and the Department play a leadership role in the ongoing national dialogue over how to improve the results of our education system for all students. This involves such activities as raising national and community awareness of the education challenges confronting the Nation, disseminating the latest discoveries on what works in teaching and learning, and helping communities work out solutions to difficult educational issues.

Second, the Department pursues its twin goals of access and excellence through the administration of programs that cover every area of education and range from preschool education through postdoctoral research. For more information on the Department's programs see the President's FY 2010 Budget Request for Education.


STAFFING
One final note: while ED's programs and responsibilities have grown substantially over the years, the Department itself has not. In fact, with a planned fiscal year 2009 level of 4,045, ED's staff is 46 percent below the 7,528 employees who administered Federal education programs in several different agencies in 1980, when the Department was created. These staff reductions, along with a wide range of management improvements, have helped limit administrative costs to approximately 2 percent of the Department's discretionary budget and less than 1 percent of all grants and loans made by the Department. This means that ED delivers about 99 cents on the dollar in education assistance to States, school districts, postsecondary institutions, and students.

hippiebrian
20th December 2009, 02:18
Go up 4 paragraphs. They may have used the word created in the last paragraph incorrectly, and I missed it. I apologize, however a department which was created in 1867 cannot be created in 1980. Like I said earlier, it has changed to a cabinet, and it's scope was increased, however the public has been paying for the Department of Education in Washingto since 1867. With federal funds, as it is and always has been a federal agency. I also stated earlier that I was aware the it was primarily a function of the state, with federal subsidies. The "just under 8%" is where I read this. Sorry for the misunderstanding, however I still think that to state the department was created in 1980 was on their part a wrong choice of words, and was read with disregard for the rest of the article when you stressed it.

Katwoman
20th December 2009, 07:23
Go up 4 paragraphs. They may have used the word created in the last paragraph incorrectly, and I missed it. I apologize, however a department which was created in 1867 cannot be created in 1980. Like I said earlier, it has changed to a cabinet, and it's scope was increased, however the public has been paying for the Department of Education in Washingto since 1867. With federal funds, as it is and always has been a federal agency. I also stated earlier that I was aware the it was primarily a function of the state, with federal subsidies. The "just under 8%" is where I read this. Sorry for the misunderstanding, however I still think that to state the department was created in 1980 was on their part a wrong choice of words, and was read with disregard for the rest of the article when you stressed it.

How come the bugdet history they post on their own website only goes back to 1980? It sounds to me like they are embellishing their resume a bit:p

Furthermore with they state:

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2008-2009, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where just over 92 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.

So it does not sound to me like the 8% of funding that comes from the federal level is worth the intrusion or would cause the schools to go belly up. Most importantly in just confirms my original post which is that most funding comes from property taxes. There is no reason for schools to take money from a liberal biased federal albatross.

UmassSteve
20th December 2009, 09:06
I think they are trolls working for the Obama administration.

Its true Kat, The One has sent us to disrupt your board. You are the primary threat to national security, and this has top clearance. The fifty to sixty active people on this board and their cumulative net worth of a couple of million dollars in precious metals are so troubling to our prophet that he's sent us to post his liberal views in the hope of either converting you or getting you so angry you have a heart attack. In addition, we've wire tapped all your phones and watch you from vans all the time. Did you really think your neighbor's cable had been broken all these months? No, that's FBI.

It is true that we've had to take men away from watching Al Qaeda, Palestine, PETA, and the French for this, but you're as important as you seem to like to think you are.

In addition to Hippie and I, we've planted two other operatives, Might_Men and CCJoe to act as foils to our superior liberal views by parroting Glenn Beck, Fox News, and hard-core conservative view points. With their help, we seem more reasonable and believable by comparison.

Now that our cover has been blown, there is no choice but to have you taken.

Argyria
20th December 2009, 09:32
Ack! Duck and cover!

silverbullet
20th December 2009, 09:51
wow!!! this thread has really just blown through the roof... unfortunately I havent been able to participate much... :( I'll have to take a week off to read the entire posts all the way through LOL

Mighty_Men_of_Baltimore
20th December 2009, 14:51
wow!!! this thread has really just blown through the roof... unfortunately I havent been able to participate much... :( I'll have to take a week off to read the entire posts all the way through LOL

Just place hippe and MassHole on ignore, that covers about 75% of it.

Katwoman
20th December 2009, 15:40
Its true Kat, The One has sent us to disrupt your board. You are the primary threat to national security, and this has top clearance. The fifty to sixty active people on this board and their cumulative net worth of a couple of million dollars in precious metals are so troubling to our prophet that he's sent us to post his liberal views in the hope of either converting you or getting you so angry you have a heart attack. In addition, we've wire tapped all your phones and watch you from vans all the time. Did you really think your neighbor's cable had been broken all these months? No, that's FBI.

It is true that we've had to take men away from watching Al Qaeda, Palestine, PETA, and the French for this, but you're as important as you seem to like to think you are.

In addition to Hippie and I, we've planted two other operatives, Might_Men and CCJoe to act as foils to our superior liberal views by parroting Glenn Beck, Fox News, and hard-core conservative view points. With their help, we seem more reasonable and believable by comparison.

Now that our cover has been blown, there is no choice but to have you taken.

I may not be a threat to national security but when people like Janet Napolitano say that Ron Paul supporters need to be watched I can't help but wonder who really is watching chat rooms like this one, where people who still believe in the constitution and sound money hangout, if not just to know what they are thinking about. The government was watching the Fort Hood shooter so assuming that some nut like him could show up here or anywhere for that matter there is no reason to believe the government would not troll this site too. Whether or not you are one I certainly cannot say but since you espouse the ideals of the leftist loons who are running this country today I would not be the least bit surprised if what you "jest" said were really true. You certainly try hard to instigate fights with the people here which leads me to believe you have an agenda be it overt or covert.

I have done everything in my power to post logical, historical, and factual rebuttals to your at times outlandish leftist comments only to have you respond with more nonsensical rhetoric. I am not one to pressure the moderator to ban you as some here have proposed but I will ask you to tone it down and try to remember that this is a silver forum and that most people who believe in sound money also believe in the US constitution. I am sure you know this and yet you seem to take great pleasure in trying to push some people to their limit albeit to no avail. Being that I am one of the cooler heads here and that you even frustrate me leads me to suspect that your comments are construed by some at times as "inflammatory". That said, if you can't cool it then please leave.

akak
20th December 2009, 15:58
I may not be a threat to national security but when people like Janet Napolitano say that Ron Paul supporters need to be watched I can't help but wonder who really is watching chat rooms like this one, where people who still believe in the constitution and sound money hangout, if not just to know what they are thinking about. The government was watching the Fort Hood shooter so assuming that some nut like him could show up here or anywhere for that matter there is no reason to believe the government would not troll this site too. Whether or not you are one I certainly cannot say but since you espouse the ideals of the leftist loons who are running this country today I would not be the least bit surprised if what you "jest" said were really true. You certainly try hard to instigate fights with the people here which leads me to believe you have an agenda be it overt or covert.

I have done everything in my power to post logical, historical, and factual rebuttals to your at times outlandish leftist comments only to have you respond with more nonsensical rhetoric. I am not one to pressure the moderator to ban you as some here have proposed but I will ask you to tone it down and try to remember that this is a silver forum and that most people who believe in sound money also believe in the US constitution. I am sure you know this and yet you seem to take great pleasure in trying to push some people to their limit albeit to no avail. Being that I am one of the cooler heads here and that you even frustrate me leads me to suspect that your comments are construed by some at times as "inflammatory". That said, if you can't cool it then please leave.

Well, although I have frequently disagreed with Hippiebrian and UMassSteve, I don't really believe that either one is a real troll or disinformation agent. I really have seen such truly malicious, hyperactive spreaders of establishment propaganda on other forums, such as posters "Slapshot", "Trapp" and "PaJeff2" on the DailyPaul, or the infamous "RStones199" on the Kitco forum --- look them up and browse through their histories on those forums to see REAL disinformation agents in action; I have utterly no doubt that they were working for somebody nefarious.

I find these two posters to be perhaps gadflies, but certainly not disinfo agents, nor even trolls like the D-man (although UMassSteve does have some unusual architectural fantasies: http://forums.silverseek.com/showpost.php?p=82420&postcount=54)..

JesterJay
20th December 2009, 16:45
Would this make UMassSteve a member of "homo erectus"?
JesterJay



I find these two posters to be perhaps gadflies, but certainly not disinfo agents, nor even trolls like the D-man (although UMassSteve does have some unusual architectural fantasies: http://forums.silverseek.com/showpost.php?p=82420&postcount=54)..

akak
20th December 2009, 17:02
Would this make UMassSteve a member of "homo erectus"?
JesterJay

Not sure! But I think it is safe to say that he fervently hopes that property values stay firm!