This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: A Message To The 'Left' From A 'Right Wing Extremist'

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

A Message To The 'Left' From A 'Right Wing Extremist'

Some discoveries are exciting, joyful, and exhilarating, while others can be quite painful.  Stumbling upon the fact that you do not necessarily have a competent grasp of reality, that you have in fact been duped for most of your life, is not a pleasant experience.  While it may be a living nightmare to realize that part of one’s life was, perhaps, wasted on the false ideas of others, enlightenment often requires that the worldview that we were indoctrinated with be completely destroyed before we can finally resurrect a tangible identity and belief system.  To have rebirth, something must first die...

In 2004, I found myself at such a crossroads.  At that time I was a dedicated Democrat, and I thought I had it all figured out.  The Republican Party was to me a perfect sort of monster.  They had everything!  Corporate puppet masters.  Warmongering zealots.  Fake Christians.  Orwellian social policies.  The Bush years were a special kind of horror.  It was cinematic.  Shakespearean.  If I was to tell a story of absolute villainy, I would merely describe the mass insanity and bloodlust days of doom and dread wrought by the Neo-Con ilk in the early years of the new millennium.

But, of course, I was partly naïve...

The campaign rhetoric of John Kerry was eye opening.  I waited, day after day, month after month for my party’s candidate to take a hard stance on the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I waited for a battle cry against the Patriot Act and the unconstitutional intrusions of the Executive Branch into the lives of innocent citizens.  I waited for a clear vision, a spark of wisdom and common sense.  I waited for the whole of the election for that man to finally embrace the feelings of his supporters and say, with absolute resolve, that the broken nation we now lived in would be returned to its original foundations.  That civil liberty, freedom, and peace, would be our standard once again.  Unfortunately, the words never came, and I realized, he had no opposition to the Bush plan.  He was not going to fight against the wars, the revolving door, or the trampling of our freedoms.  Indeed, it seemed as though he had no intention of winning at all.

I came to see a dark side to the Democratic Party that had always been there but which I had refused to acknowledge.  Their leadership was no different than the Neo-Cons that I despised.  On top of this, many supporters of the Democratic establishment had no values, and no principles.  Their only desire was to “win” at any cost.  They would get their "perfect society" at any cost, even if they had to chain us all together to do it. 

There was no doubt in my mind that if the Democrats reoccupied the White House or any other political power structure one day, they would immediately adopt the same exact policies and attitudes of the Neo-Conservatives, and become just as power-mad if not more so.  In 2008 my theory was proven unequivocally correct.

It really is amazing.  I have seen the so-called “anti-war” party become the most accommodating cheerleader of laser guided death and domination in the Middle East, with predator drones operating in the sovereign skies of multiple countries raining missiles upon far more civilians than “enemy combatants”, all at the behest of Barack Obama.  I have seen the “party of civil liberties” expand on every Constitution crushing policy of the Bush Administration, while levying some of the most draconian legislation ever witnessed in the history of this country.  I have seen Obama endorse enemy combatant status for American citizens, and the end of due process under the law through the NDAA.  I have seen him endorse the end of trial by jury.  I have seen him endorse secret assassination lists, and the federally drafted murder of U.S. civilians.  I have seen him endorse executive orders which open the path to the declaration of a “national emergency” at any time for any reason allowing for the dissolution of most constitutional rights and the unleashing of martial law.

If I was still a Democrat today I would be sickly ashamed.  Yet, many average Democrats actually defend this behavior from their party.  The same behavior they once railed against under Bush.

However, I have not come here to admonish Democrats (at least not most of them).  I used to be just like them.  I used to believe in the game.  I believed that the rules mattered, and that it was possible to change things by those rules with patience and effort.  I believed in non-violent resistance, protest, civil dissent, educational activism, etc.  I thought that the courts were an avenue for political justice.  I believed that the only element required to end corruption would be a sound argument and solid logic backed by an emotional appeal to reason.  I believed in the power of elections, and had faith in the idea that all we needed was the “right candidate” to lead us to the promise land.  Again, I believed in the game. 

The problem is, the way the world works and the way we WISH the world worked are not always congruent.  Attempting to renovate a criminal system while acting within the rigged confines of that system is futile, not to mention delusional.  Corrupt oligarchies adhere to the standards of civility only as long as they feel the need to maintain the illusion of the moral high ground.  Once they have enough control, the mask always comes off, the rotten core is revealed, and immediate violence against dissent commences. 

Sometimes the only solutions left in the face of tyranny are not peaceful.  Logic, reason, and justice are not revered in a legal system which serves the will of the power elite instead of the common man.  The most beautiful of arguments are but meaningless flitters of hot air in the ears of sociopaths.  Sometimes, the bully just needs to be punched in the teeth.

This philosophy of independent action is consistently demonized, regardless of how practical it really is when faced with the facts.  The usual responses to the concept of full defiance are accusations of extremism and malicious intent.  Believe me, when I embarked on the path towards the truth in 2004, I never thought I would one day be called a potential “homegrown terrorist”, but that is essentially where we are in America in 2013.  To step outside the mainstream and question the validity of the game is akin to terrorism in the eyes of the state and the sad cowardly people who feed the machine. 

During the rise of any despotic governmental structure, there is always a section of the population that is given special treatment, and made to feel as though they are “on the winning team”.  For now, it would appear that the “Left” side of the political spectrum has been chosen by the establishment as the favored sons and daughters of the restructured centralized U.S.  However, before those of you on the Left get too comfortable in your new position as the hand of globalization, I would like to appeal to you for a moment of unbiased consideration.  I know from personal experience that there are Democrats out there who are actually far more like we constitutionalists and “right wing extremists” than they may realize.  I ask that you take the following points into account, regardless of what the system decides to label us...

We Are Being Divided By False Party Paradigms

Many Democrats and Republicans are not stupid, and want above all else to see the tenets of freedom respected and protected.  Unfortunately, they also tend to believe that only their particular political party is the true defender of liberty.  The bottom line is, at the top of each party there is very little if any discernible difference between the two.   If you ignore all the rhetoric and only look at action, the Republican and Democratic leadership are essentially the same animal working for the same special interests.  There is no left and right; only those who wish to be free, and those who wish to control.

Last year, the “Left and the “Right” experienced an incredible moment of unity after the introduction of the NDAA.  People on both sides were able to see the terrifying implications of a law that allows the government to treat any American civilian as an enemy of war without right to trial.  In 2013, the establishment is attempting to divide us once again with the issue of gun disarmament.  I have already presented my position on gun rights in numerous other articles and I believe my stance is unshakeable.  But, what I will ask anti-gun proponents and on-the-fence Democrats is this:  How do you think legislation like the NDAA will be enforced in the future?  Is it not far easier to threaten Americans with rendition, torture, and assassination when they are completely unarmed?  If you oppose the NDAA, you should also oppose any measure which gives teeth to the NDAA, including the debasement of the 2nd Amendment.

Democrats Are Looking For Help In The Wrong Place

Strangely, Democrats very often search for redress within the very system they know is criminal.  For some reason, they think that if they bash their heads into the wall long enough, a door will suddenly appear.  I’m here to tell you, there is no door. 

The biggest difference between progressives and conservatives is that progressives consistently look to government to solve all the troubles of the world, when government is usually the CAUSE of all the troubles in the world.  The most common Democratic argument is that in America the government “is what we make it”, and we can change it anytime we like through the election process.  Maybe this was true at one time, but not anymore.  Just look at Barack Obama!  I would ask all those on the Left to take an honest look at the policies of Obama compared to the policies of most Neo-Cons, especially when it comes to constitutional liberties.  Where is the end to Middle Eastern war?  Where is the end to domestic spy programs?  Where is the end to incessant and dictatorial executive orders?  Where is the conflict between the Neo-Cons and the Neo-Liberals?  And, before you point at the gun control debate, I suggest you look at Obama’s gun policies compared to Mitt Romney’s and John McCain’s – there is almost no difference whatsoever…

If the two party system becomes a one party system, then elections are meaningless, and electing a new set of corrupt politicians will not help us.

Democrats Value Social Units When They Should Value Individuals Instead

Democrats tend to see everything in terms of groups.  Victim status groups, religious groups, racial groups, special interest groups, etc.  They want to focus on the health of the whole world as if it is a single entity.  It is not.  Without individuals, there is no such thing as “groups”, and what we might categorize as groups change and disperse without notice.  Groups do not exist beyond shared values, and even then, the individual is still more important in the grand scheme of things. 

As a former Democrat, I know that the obsession with group status makes it easy to fall into the trap of collectivism.  It is easy to think that what is best for you must be best for everybody.  This Utopian idealism is incredibly fallible.  Wanting the best for everyone is a noble sentiment, but using government as a weapon to force your particular vision of the “greater good” on others leads to nothing but disaster.  The only safe and reasonable course is to allow individuals to choose for themselves how they will function in society IF they choose to participate at all.  Government must be left out of the equation as much as possible.  Its primary job should be to safeguard the individual’s right to choose how he will live.  You have to get over the fact that there is no such thing as a perfect social order, and even if there was, no government is capable of making it happen for you.   

Democrats Can Become As Power-Mad As Any Neo-Con

I think it is important to point out how quickly most Democratic values went out the door as soon as Barack Obama was placed in the White House.  Let’s be clear; you cannot claim to be anti-war, anti-torture, anti-assassination, anti-surveillance, anti-corporate, anti-bank, anti-rendition, etc. while defending the policies of Obama at the same time.  This is hypocrisy. 

I have heard some insane arguments from left leaning proponents lately.  Some admit that Obama does indeed murder and torture, but “at least he is pushing for universal health care…”.  Even if it did work (which it won’t), is Obamacare really worth having a president who is willing to murder children on the other side of the world and black-bag citizens here at home?  Do not forget your moral compass just because you think the system is now your personal playground.  If you do, you are no better than all the angry bloodcrazed Republicans that bumbled into the Iraq War while blindly following George W. Bush. 

There Is A Difference Between Traditional Conservatives And Neo-Cons

Neo-Cons are not conservative.  They are in fact socialist in their methods, and they always expand government spending and power while reducing constitutional protections.  The “Liberty Movement”, of which I am proudly a part, is traditional conservative.  We believe that government, especially as corrupt as it is today, cannot be trusted to administrate and nursemaid over every individual in our nation.  It has proven time after time that it caters only to criminally inclined circles of elites.  Therefore, we seek to reduce the size and influence of government so that we can minimize the damage that it is doing.  For this, we are called “extremists”. 

Governments are not omnipotent.  They are not above criticism, or even punishment.  They are merely a collection of individuals who act either with honor or dishonor.  In the Liberty Movement, we treat a corrupt government just as we would treat a corrupt individual.  We do not worship the image of the state, nor should any Democrat.

Liberty Minded Conservatives Are Not “Terrorists”

There will come a time, very soon I believe, when people like me are officially labeled “terrorists”.  Perhaps because we refuse gun registration or confiscation.  Perhaps because we develop alternative trade markets outside the system.  Maybe because some of us are targeted by federal raids, and we fight back instead of submitting.  Maybe because we speak out against the establishment during a time of “declared crisis”, and speech critical of the government is labeled “harmful to the public good”.  One way or another, whether you want to believe me now or not, the day is coming. 

Before this occurs, and the mainstream media attacks us viciously as “conspiracy theorists” and traitors, I want the Left to understand that no matter what you may hear about us, our only purpose is to ensure that our natural rights are not violated, our country is not decimated, and our republic is governed with full transparency.  We are not the dumb redneck racist hillbilly gun nuts you see in every primetime TV show, and anyone who acts out of personal bias and disdain for their fellow man is not someone we seek to associate with.  We fight because we have no other choice.  Our conscience demands that we oppose centralized tyranny.  We do what we do because the only other option is subservience and slavery.   

Many of the people I have dealt with in the Liberty Movement are the most intelligent, well-informed, principled and dedicated men and women I have ever met.  They want, basically, what most of us want:

  • to be free to determine their own destinies.
  • To be free to speak their minds without threat of state retribution.
  • To be free to defend themselves from any enemy that would seek to oppress them.
  • To live within an economic environment that is not rigged in favor of elitist minorities and on the verge of engineered collapse.
  • To live in a system that respects justice and legitimate law instead of using the law as a sword against the public.
  • To wake up each day with solace in the knowledge that while life in many regards will always be a difficult thing, we still have the means to make it better for ourselves and for the next generation.
  • To wake up knowing that those inner elements of the human heart which make us most unique and most endearing are no longer considered “aberrant”, and are no longer under threat.
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/16/2013 - 20:13 | 3160365 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

"One Party to rule them all, One Party to find them,

One Party to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 20:44 | 3160486 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  Obama is like Bush X 3.  For all of the carping the democrats did about Bush when he was in office, Obama has taken the Bush baton and run full speed with it.  And all you hear now are crickets from the left.....

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 20:51 | 3160511 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Your comment sounds kind of Terroristy and a bit off kilter mentally...........

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 21:04 | 3160543 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Sometimes the truth sounds that way...

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 21:13 | 3160571 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

The truth is always treason in the empire of lies.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 21:38 | 3160598 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

A message to the Far Right from the left:

We're not all a bunch of commies.  I live in NYC and these new gun rules are nuts.  I have to keep my gun half loaded now? WTF?  Also, we hate the Fed as much as you do, and many of us favor Austrian Economics over anything ever proposed by Keynes.  The reason we get stuck on the "left" is because the "right" is now characterized by an absolute rejection of science, a woman's right to choose, environment stewardship, and the ability for immigrants and minorities to have the same opportunities of advancement as Americans have had over the last generation.  Similarly, a lot of my Republican friends actually believe in evolution, global warming, and a woman's right to govern her own body, but they are no longer represented by their party.  Divide and Conquer, unfortunately, has worked.   

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 21:38 | 3160656 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

I don't believe ya BK ... commie/leftie my buttox ...

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 21:56 | 3160737 ratso
ratso's picture

Here it is so even you can understand it.  Brandon Smith is writing crap.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:29 | 3161007 strannick
strannick's picture

Anyone who'd spent any time in a University over the last 30 years would not be surprized by any of this. The so-called Progressives are bigoted, prejudiced ideologues who rely on slogans and despise reason and debate.

They revel in political dichotomies, pompous sloganeering, revere government, despise economic liberty and couldnt exist without their cynical caricatures of the right. Ironically, despite their self perception of being tolerant, enlightened, ect., they have adopted the exclusionary us/them mindset of the Ku Klux Klan. ''The Closing of the American Mind'' by Professor Allan Bloom is a great work on how this came to be.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 07:08 | 3161590 negative rates
negative rates's picture

I came to same conclusion as the author, in the 80's.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:46 | 3162092 Ayn NY
Ayn NY's picture

Try going back as an adult, it's quite eye opening to realize that the average professor isn't any more emotionally mature as the 18-22 year olds they teach.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:04 | 3162183 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

Yep,

And when you present a logical argument for debate they (liberals/progressives) resort to personal attacks like poster Mayhem_korner did to me. Never actually respond to the post in substance.

 

Then you also get those liberal progressives that just give you down arrows, but can't respond because they have nothing of substance to respond with.

 

I go after liberals/progressives with a passion. I love kicking their ass and I've been doing it for some time on ZH. I say bring it!

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:24 | 3162278 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Ever thought of applying to be a poster boy for D-K? You'd be a natural...

You and MK are like watching rats eating their own young when their habitat becomes overcrowded...

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:40 | 3162356 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

He seems to have implied that mayhem korner is a progressive/liberal.

I was gonna say "it'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic," but actually, it is funny.

AND pathetic.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:09 | 3162482 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep... hence my oft-used comment here for those types "You wouldn't know a Marxist if he pissed in your face..."

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 13:50 | 3162956 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

I'm struck by the frequency of the use of die-hard liberals in avatar pics and account names.

Frank Zappa's one of the more common avatars.  There's something really disturbing to me about the fact that so few fans here remember anything about the guy's values.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 15:37 | 3163466 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Good observation...

Then again Ted Nugent is one ugly mofo...

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:15 | 3162226 drchris
drchris's picture

While I was in grad school at Cornell, occasionally I would have dinner at my thesis advisor's home.  In attendance were other faculty and some select grad students.  Some of the things that I heard at the dinner table bother me to this day.  My favorite was from another professor: "I hate Christians!"  I'm not religious, but to hear that from a person in that position shocked me.  Of course, nothing can be worse than the lying, cheating, and stealing that goes on in academia.  They make Wall Street look like amateurs.  One of the key skills you learn in grad school, after reading hundreds of academic papers, is how to completely dismantle a (published peer-reviewed) paper in minutes.  But I digress...

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 01:22 | 3161291 roadlust
roadlust's picture

What do you mean?  He makes perfect sense to a high school sophmore who "used to be left wing" until he turned 13, and got all sophisticated and shit.  

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:20 | 3161019 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

  

Everyone please note that BOTH left and right may embrace totalitarianism.

It would seem that those of the left who oppose totalitarianism, and those of the right who oppose also COULD and SHOULD find enough common ground to agree on a mutually satisfactory political program.

The so-called left/right debate within the US is mostly confined to neoliberals vs. neoconservatives.

----------------------------------

The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the

French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly

divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.

There is general consensus that the Left includes

progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, civil-libertarians (as in "social-libertarians"; not to be confused with the right's "economic-libertarians"), secularists, communists, and anarchists

,

and that the Right includes

conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, capitalists, neoliberals, economic-libertarians (not to be confused with the left's "civil-libertarians"), social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, Nazis (including neo-Nazis) and fascists

.

- Wikipedia

 

 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 00:13 | 3161162 flacon
flacon's picture

Wikipedia has it wrong, Nazi and Fascist is hard left. 

 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 00:54 | 3161233 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

I would say that fascists are cultural descendants of the pharaonic culture. They had a better concept of property, although the ruler and state were really the owners of property. Just like now.

The left-progressives came earlier,  basically having little in the way of property, and lived in a small communal society.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:10 | 3162488 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

This is truly bizarre bullshit, even for you...

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 03:44 | 3161452 lewy14
lewy14's picture

That's where they started, not where they ended up.

Fascism started as a left wing movement - Mussolini was a communist, Hitler was sent to the NSDAP to inflitrate it, because it was socialist, etc...

...but in contrast to (internationalist) socialism, fascism was always nationalist (traditionally associated with the right)...

...and finally they became co-opted by traditional right wing elements.

In particular, the German industrialists/crony capitalist types and the Junker aristocrats who controlled the German military gave Hitler an ultimatum: purge the SA (the brownshirts, the millions of street thugs who were the original muscle behind the Nazi party and the die-hard leftist revolutionary element within the Party) or be removed as Chancellor. This was 1934, before Hindenburg died and well before Hitler had consolidated a dictatorship.

Hitler complied, and the result was the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler betrayed a number of his old colleagues. Many went before the firing squad swearing their allegiance to Hitler. Again, these were people who were true revolutionaries and leftists.

The Right thought they'd won, and that Hitler was "their man". Didn't work out so well for them of course...

So while I'm sympathetic that fascism is "hard left" in origin, the Right embraced it wholeheartedly.

Pox on both.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 05:20 | 3161514 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' Party (I looked it up).

Fascist = National socialist

Communist = International socialist.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 06:34 | 3161564 lewy14
Thu, 01/17/2013 - 07:13 | 3161592 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

I have never read such nonesense in my life - the right like to MASUERADE as the left you dumb shit - to get the proles to support them.

 

America has named it's new fighte aircraft the 'Hawk' - does this mean it has wings and eats small mammals?

 

You're a credit to the failed education system of America - and who do you embrace? - the very people who took your education from you.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:11 | 3161937 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 Apparently, all Obama need do to win the support of some commentators at ZH is to change the name of his party,

perhaps to  

"Democratic Libertarians" ?

Of course then the other party would have to rename itself also,

"Republican Constitutionalists" ?

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:09 | 3162204 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

Until you read your own thoughts, right?

 

Facts are facts. It's not just about the name used, but the ideology those parties expressed and history says you are nonsense.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:55 | 3162412 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Wow, now that was a deep analysis...

Would you like to discuss the lefttist credentials of guys like Gregor Strasser and Drexler and the orginal NSDAP platform?

And you do know that the "Night of the Long Knives" dealt with the original leftist core of the party... Don't you?

 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:28 | 3162013 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

flacon

you fail to understand

why there is a dictionary---

so people can communicate using words with the same meaning.

Look up the definitions for the various political creeds

then, if you want to introduce your own personal definitions,

introduce them with your newly invented words also

don't try to hijack words with accepted usage to sow confusion.

we'll see if your new words with new definitions catch on.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 01:57 | 3161341 Uchtdorf
Uchtdorf's picture

Seriously, how can a Nazi (or a fascist) be on the right? Draw a horizontal line. The left end you label as Absolute Tyranny. The right end is labelled as Complete Anarchy. Now mark the exact mid-point of the line. Are you going to tell me that Naziism goes to the right of that line? The government that controlled almost every aspect of the German citizens' lives...? Your momma didn't do a good job teaching you the difference between left and right.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:18 | 3162453 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Another bit of shockingly naive fluff...

Anarchy is the center, the state plays an increasing role as you migrate left or right.... As a *simple* rule of thumb, you are on the right if banks control the state, on the left if the state controls the banks... 

For example the US is clearly to right of center, Canada to the left....

Obviously things are more complex and pigeon-holing political economies is a pointless exercise, but you clearly needed a very simple explanation of things...

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:30 | 3162576 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

   The left end you label as Absolute Tyranny. The right end is labelled as Complete Anarchy.

No, wrong, that's the authoritarian scale you're talking about.  Authoritarianism is NOT part of the left/right spectrum.

I always assume people would realize (it just seems incredibly obvious) that you can't really encompass all shades of political opinion on a single dimensional scale.  It's as stupid an idea as if you could rate every pro athlete from top to bottom in direct order of "talent."

There's not really a good way to rank the relative skills of a guy like Peyton Manning to LeBron James, is there?  I mean, can you easily say which one is a better athlete?

If you think you can, more power to you, but I think most folks understand that such a comparison just CANNOT WORK.

It's the same with the left/right concept.  There are left-oriented thinkers who are ANARCHISTS and there are right-oriented thinkers who are big-gummit Statists.

Anyone who hasn't looked at the http://www.politicalcompass.org/ yet should take a few minutes and try the test to see where they end up.  (Personally I don't think a 2-dimensional map is adequate either, but it's a major improvement, at least.)

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 07:11 | 3161591 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

+1 well said. though I have one comment: is this not all related to one little point everybody is missing here?

your long list of ideological positions is typical of existing parties wherever there is a representational democracy based on "multiple-winner" voting systems - for example in continental europe. another word for it is proportional representation

in the UK and the US you'll find "single-winner" voting systems, and they famously favour two major parties

so imho all those labels don't make sense, in your system. they can't be applied

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 21:53 | 3160707 Yes We Can. But...
Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

Message to the Far Left from the Right: science is great, global warming is a hoax based on junk science/propaganda...women who in governing their bodies get pregnant and then kill, govern poorly

The King of Divide presently lives in the White House...divide on race, ethnicity, culture, gender, class....it is what the guy does for a living

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 22:16 | 3160742 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

    A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
       ..or in 3 syllables or less:
    Science advances one funeral at a time.  -- Max Planck

Substitute the word "science" with many others and we still get a valid argument.

 

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:24 | 3161030 strannick
strannick's picture

Progressive science advances one (100,000) abortion funerals at a time (per day -including Obamas macabre partial birth abortions).

Progressive scientists like these are the best friends gendercide ever had.

The inexorable march of Science, advancing one black booted goose step at a time.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 00:11 | 3161153 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

Self-proclaimed "progressive" science progresses right to the abolition of man. 

Make no mistake - socialism, marxism, liberalism, communism - whatever you want to call it - is simply organized evil. A macro manifestation of a primitive suicidal instinct.

The acceptance of today's liberalism ushers in the complete destruction of any organization so foolish to embrace it.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:04 | 3160978 hankwil74
hankwil74's picture

global warming is a hoax?  Gotta love these people... 99% of climate scientists agree, but it's a hoax

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:20 | 3161020 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

And the only thing that will save us from the ravages of said global warming is the purchase of these here carbon credits which I just magically pulled out of the thin air of my vacuous ass............It's no wonder they want us disarmed........

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:52 | 3161103 knukles
knukles's picture

Fiat carbon credits.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 00:09 | 3161145 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Get em while they're hot.........

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 00:11 | 3161154 knukles
knukles's picture

LOL
Now that's funny....

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 07:23 | 3161600 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

A room of clowns that agree with themselves is still a room of clowns.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:13 | 3162501 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Referring to the libtards here? Hey, if the shoe fits...

I mean if people are so fucking stupid to confuse bogus Carbon Credits with the science of AGW then anything is possible...

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 00:05 | 3161137 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

You don't have to bury your head in the sand with respect to a problem just to recognize one faulty solution, do ya?

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:14 | 3162505 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Nice... I might use that some time...

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 02:16 | 3161371 redpill
redpill's picture

You mean 99% of the guys who make a living off of grants based on the notion that the warming is continuing and man made?  Could you ask for more of a conflict of interest?

Regardless, the human race will be eliminating itself with machetes long before our fossil fuel burning does us in.  And frankly, I wouldn't mind it being a few degrees warmer, beats the hell out of the humanitarian nightmare that would result from another ice age.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 07:45 | 3161614 Withdrawn Sanction
Withdrawn Sanction's picture

global warming is a hoax? Gotta love these people... 99% of climate scientists agree, but it's a hoax

So science advances by agreement, does it?  Get a grip and try to think for yourself. Practically every major innovation, scientific or otherwise, arises b/c some iconoclast, some lone dissenter goes his/her own way often in the face of unrelenting criticism for being "outside the mainstream."  That 99% argument is really nothing more than an attempt to bully and itimidate.  It is, in fact, a variant of argumentum ad vericundiem (or the illegitimate appeal to authority).

There may indeed be global warming (or is it "climate change" this month?).  But you wont win any arguments let alone converts w/a specious argument like that.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 01:46 | 3161325 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

The moral issue of abortion can be explained.

A mother of a newborn in a hunter-gatherer tribe would take the baby away from the others, examine it, determine if it were defective, and kill it if it were. This was a survival strategy - the tribe and the mother wouldn't have resources for it. In the tribal society, the alpha-males, and wannabes, would sometimes kill lower males' children to ensure the survival of their own, or to make a female receptive. Killing infants was moral, it was a survival strategy. The liberals are their cultural descendants.

When settlements, domestication of plants and animals, and hierarchical power structures occurred, people were able to vastly increase the size of their communities. So much so, that the emphasis changed to growing ever larger communities (still present today as the NWO push) as a survival strategy. There is strength in numbers. The morality became that newborn lives were necessary for survival, not a detriment to it - for both men and women. The conservatives are cultural descendants of this phaoronic culture.

So for the left, abortions tend to be moral, and for the right, abortions tend to be immoral.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 03:03 | 3161416 Raymond Reason
Raymond Reason's picture

From the Christian perspective, abortion is a mortal sin.  But the Christian is given free-will, to sin or not to sin.  That is essential to the faith.   Legislating morality is a Hebrew tradition, which for political purposes has infected  the western church.  Government is charged with protecting citizens, but the unborn child is not a citizen, so govt should not be meddling here. 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:07 | 3161917 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Huh. So, let's say a British tourist comes to our country. He's not a citizen, so we can murder him or her, right?

A human being is a human being, whether it is inside the womb or outside it. Murder is sick and evil, but murdering the unborn is the sickest, evilest, most vile act imaginable. To kill an entirely helpless human--and there is nothing more helpless than a fetus-- whose "crime" was simply to be conceived, is just shockingly evil.

There really isn't a way around it. 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:07 | 3162198 Parabox
Parabox's picture

You describe a principled position BB.  Principled positions are black and white/ absolute.  He uses moral relativitiy, which says anything is ok as long as you have a good enough spin/excuse.  It's all grey.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:49 | 3162668 Raymond Reason
Raymond Reason's picture

I'm in no way giving credence to moral relativism, although you would like to interpret it that way.   Legislating morality is a political tool, used by people bereft of morals, to divide and conquer. 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:16 | 3162232 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

The fallacy in your post BB is this. A citizen has certain rights, supposedly protected by the Government.

In the situation you presented, a foriegnor visiting also has rights even though they are not a "citizen" of this nation.

If you, an American, were to visit Britain, you would have to follow their laws and if you were arrested, you would be subject to their laws (including such protections), until you get the American Embassy involved to help you out (if they even will help).

 

I agree with you humans are humans and I am pro life. But if you are going to make an argument, examine the flaws in your argument.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:34 | 3162590 Raymond Reason
Raymond Reason's picture

What sessinpo says above is correct.  In the same way, the Christian should not expect the govt to outlaw homosexuality,  only the promotion of said sin toward children in schools, in which we are forced to send them.  If we continue down the road of legislating morality, rather than protecting the rights of citizens,  we might as well outlaw atheism.  Obviously this flies n the face of free will to accept or deny Christ. 

There is no question in the Christian's mind, that an unborn child is a human, and to murder a human is possibly the worst sin.  But the unborn state should be soley God's jurisdiction, not the govt's. 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:40 | 3162623 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

     From the Christian perspective, abortion is a mortal sin.

Since when?  Is that something you're familiar with?

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:03 | 3162181 Gavrikon
Gavrikon's picture

Seems to me that if people who believe that abortion is permissable (and in some cases desirable) abort their children, and those who are against it do not, then the issue should resolve itself over time. 

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 21:55 | 3160731 Freddie
Freddie's picture

GW is not science. Another nWO scam.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 22:09 | 3160770 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

That is why the GOP is failing.  The absolute dumbest people in the country have now coalesced into one faction.  Whether it's man made or not, the climate is getting warmer and producing massive storms and droughts.  I've been on this site long enough to know how truly brainwashed you are, so I'm not gonna pursue this but goddamn, boy.  Use your head.  Look at data.  THINK.  This isn't about right or left, it's common sense.

 

And to "Yes We Can, but"... nice avatar, I wonder what you believe in.  How does a party that believes that government should stay out of their lives justify letting the government tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body?  Doesn't that seem ironic to you?  

Junk away, most of you are dumb as a pile of rocks, save RockyRacoon and a couple others.  

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 22:20 | 3160841 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Why do you think ZH has lost so many comment veterans?   They have moved on to other sources, or they just read the articles, like myself.   I find myself lost in comments now and then when the article is cogent or to my interest (not the advertisement-style "articles").   There are some single-issue commenters who tend to twist any topic to their pet peeve, but they can be skipped when scanning the comments.   Not letting the twerps get ya down is a learned skill.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 22:25 | 3160857 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

Still learning that one, thanks Rocky. 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 00:17 | 3161150 derek_vineyard
derek_vineyard's picture

rocky---  i agree that many commenters here have an agenda and are seeking to validate their beliefs and seem to get a portion of their identity from this forum.

if tyler says jump, they ask 'how high?'.

i know what i know, learn what i can and always call it as i see it.  my motives are self preservation, security and the quest for knowledge. i, too, miss the comments from the veteran posters we have lost.

 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 02:01 | 3161345 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

The phrase, "Get a life!" certainly hits home when it's as you say about certain folks getting their life essence from ZH.  

It'll be nice when the nega-bots leave the site.  Just rolling through the comments and giving negatives to certain personalities gets old.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 09:08 | 3161711 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Isn't that what the FORUM function that the Tylers inserted awhile back was for?

~~~

You know ~ so the 'smart' people on ZH could go off into their own little cozy space & jack each other off inbetween bouts of stumbling over themselves agreeing with each other... To my knowledge, that function still exists...

I'm going to have to go watch FIGHT CLUB again... I must have missed the part where there was a little 'off-room' in the basement where the dudes went to drink tea... The world is a fucked up place... Deal with it... It doesn't mean it has to be 'FUCKED UP' for you (as long as you have the freedom to speak your mind)... It's incumbent on others to tune out 'white noise' if they deem it irritable... & in the end...

"On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero'...

[but that doesn't seem to dissuade anyone's efforts to manipulate the [same] timeline]

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:31 | 3162579 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Ooooh.  Musta hit a few nerves.  Good.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 13:56 | 3162734 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Has nothing to do with "nerves"... I just thought is was a STUPID ASS comment... Leave it at that...

~~~

I get a kick out of all these people who sit there & pine about the 'good ol days' as some kind of make believe way of justifying their own intelligence...

- Oh! baseball was so much more PURE in the Dizzy Dean Era

- That band was GREAT when they were a garage band, now they went mainstream & now they suck

- Bring back 8 Track tapes

Pfft! 

Get over it bitchez!

Want my opinion [you're gonna get it whether you like it or not]... Sure ~ a couple of years ago there were some interesting posters on ZH... Why? Because a couple of years ago there were people [including myself], who actually believed that the MARKETS WORK... So ~ those interesting commentators tended, by & large, to be ones who seemed like they were 'closer to the WIZARD' than the rest of anybody...

Guess what?... Markets have been exposed... The curtain has been pulled back... THERE IS NO FUCKING WIZARD... [Just a bunch of idiots running around wishing & hoping the Wizard is actually there & thinking they just need a sight adjustment to their glasses to see him]...

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 22:34 | 3160887 lewy14
lewy14's picture

The "dumb as a pile of rocks" slander is complete propaganda. You are repeating talking points from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the Democratic Party media complex. 

Stop it. Just stop it if you profess to stand with the people and not the parties.

If there is a message here it is to reflect deeply on just how much party propaganda permiates and distorts the discussions between average people.

This goes for the right as well as the left.

The propaganda appeals to self image... it flatters and elevates the believers. Don't fall for it.

If you really need to believe you are that much smarter and that we're as dumb as a pile of rocks, then your own self image is pretty fragile and your own ego must need a bunch of stroking.

Stand with the people and not the parties. Get to know the people and forget what you've been told about them. It's eye opening.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 22:48 | 3160922 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

There are many very smart republicans.  I have friends on Wall Street who are very Republican, very rich, and very smart.   But let me say the following:

If you don't believe in evolution, you're stupid.

If you don't believe that the planet is getting warmer, whether naturally or man-made, you're stupid.

If you believe a woman can "shut down a pregnancy", you're stupid.

If you believe that trickle down economics actually works, you're stupid.

There are lots of idiot, commie, bleeding heart liberal pansies who can't handle a gun so they think no one else should have one.  I separate myself from that crowd the way that every self respecting republican should seperate themselves from the creationist Tea Party nutjobs.  We have common ground, there are just enough retards on each side to make it difficult to reach it.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:23 | 3161031 lewy14
lewy14's picture

That's your brain-stem talking, not your cortex. Jonesin' after it's next little self-agrandizing dopamine hit. You have no idea how the brain works. Sad for a self-professed scientific smart guy.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:39 | 3161071 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

You see eager to impress someone with your basic knowledge of brain function.  Best of luck with that.  In the meantime, make your point. "You have no idea how the brain works" lol, send me your dissertation and I'll check the grammar.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 00:00 | 3161126 S5936
S5936's picture

2 words for you ... FUCK OFF !! Go hang yourself with a dog leash ...jackass

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 00:07 | 3161141 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Ah...look who sister-momma let out the pen a'gin!

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:56 | 3161113 mofreedom
mofreedom's picture

Stress on a woman can kill the child like stress can kill any of us or make us more susceptible to illness all without a beautiful leeching cherub sucking the nutfients from our very selves.  I quit!

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 01:09 | 3161266 Axenolith
Axenolith's picture

If you don't believe that the planet is getting warmer, whether naturally or man-made, you're stupid.

 Dude, I'm a Geologist, IN the environmental/geotechnical industry (20+ years).   That statement is just stupid, It makes as much sense to say it with respect to the time period from January to June (mid-latitude) as it does from 1900 to 2000.

The planet has been MUCH warmer in the past (and it was a riot of biodiversity) and MUCH cooler.  Anthropogenic contributions are negligable.  CO2 levels have been nearly 7 times current levels in the past.  If there's "anything to be done about it" with respect to the miniscule [if any] changes in the last generation or so being extrapolated into the future, it would be to raise flood insurance rates a few percent and quit subsidizing people without it who build where it can potentially flood,  Otherwise, who gives a rats ass?  It's freakin' EARTH, things CHANGE...

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 05:54 | 3161547 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

+1 because i couldn't click the green arrow.  i hope these bastids choke on their climate models.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:25 | 3162280 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

"Dude, I'm a geologist"

That is the funniest shit I've ever read.  Congratulations on your degree, burnout. And no, you're not.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:49 | 3162107 Sparkey
Sparkey's picture

Axenolith, observing the World warming changes we can precieve in our life time, is not insanity any more than, looking out the window and remarking, "It is raining", the madness is thinking there is something we can do about it, Carbon Credits = a nice payday for `Someone`.

It must be obvious to many that there is simply no escape, we all must die, individually and collectively, there is no return to some bucolic past from which we may try again, and do it better next time using the knowledge living has imparted upon us!

"OH, if I could only start over", (Knowing what I know now), you can't and as an individual you have less real influence than any individual ever had, "The public media frames the discourse, it is a near impossibility to discuss any subject that hasn't first been introduced, with boundraries of political Correctness drawn, by the corporate Media, the problem with this is, the `Gene pool` of ideas, is too small and inflexible to create the ideas we need to overcome our challenges and continue forward, indeed, the structures which control us are leading us to our demise, just as that which controls the Lemming leads it to it's death in the Sea.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 02:08 | 3161359 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

.

If you believe in government, you're stupid.

If you don't understand that that the planet has been much warmer and much colder in the past, that that pattern will repeat in the future, and that correlation is not causation, you're stupid.

If you believe women should have children at someone other than the father's expense, you're stupid.

It you believe that any government intervention in the economy is good, you're stupid.

I don't think you are stupid, I'm trying to make a point. Your morality is different.

A question for you: why did the concept of a personal god occur in society?

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 05:28 | 3161523 Tegrat
Tegrat's picture

I recently saw as special on evolution. Bottom line is that evolution is pure faith, even the top "believers" admit there's too many flaws in it to accept  scientifically.  It's actually a joke to think that a rock, lighting, water, and a few other assorted elements could create a working cell. With the protective wall, flagellen for movement, the proper suspension fluid for the mitochondria and or chloroplasts and nebulic (sp?) region amino acids and their rna producers, dna chains necessary to replicate itself,  all completely ready for it's first mitosis.  Anyone with a working ticker who has truely thought about it knows the first cell randomly created is a leap of FAITH, not science - a *giant* leap actually that would lead anyone to believe there must be Intelligent Design.  I'm not even going to touch all the other scientific fallacies associated - the history of it is another angle to cast more doubt.

 

 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 05:43 | 3161541 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Good point. Something as complex as a single living cell is very unlikely to come together on its own, even over billions of years of accidents.

So there must have been an intelligent designer, infinitely more advanced than a single living cell, to breathe life into all creation.

And he came from where, again? Oh, yeah, he am that he am, forever and ever.

So maybe some even more infinitely advance being breathed life into him?

Sure, sounds entirely plausible.

I'll buy it all if you throw in a couple of lottery tickets too.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 06:55 | 3161579 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

 

 

There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on earth.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:15 | 3161952 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

What I find hilarious is the argument that, because the human mind cannot fully grasp the idea of God, that therefore He doesn't exist.

Your dog doesn't know the first thing about how a car works, but it is not so stupid to think that because of that, the car doesn't exist.

 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 13:52 | 3162774 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

     What I find hilarious is the argument that, because the human mind cannot fully grasp the idea of God, that therefore He doesn't exist.

Where'd you encounter that argument?

Personally, I'm an atheist.  I don't assert that God exists.  Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but it's silly to make any kind of strong claim one way or the other without any evidence for anything.

Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, which is pretty close to Atheism.  The Deist view is that *something* created the universe, and we can agree to call that something "God," but there's no reason to let anyone's thinking about the word "God" interfere with running a free and fair society. 

That was a pretty mature and sophisticated view of religion and its role in government at the time.  Amazingly, we've gone downhill since then.

To boil it down, it's very simple: the concept that God *must* exist because there are things humans don't understand is just as weak as the view that he *cannot* exist.  Neither assertion is justifiable in any way.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 22:22 | 3164961 Sparkey
Sparkey's picture

It isn't that God doesn't exist Buckaroo it is that people are incapable of understanding the force they name God, we are like the Dog looking at the car, we know something is there, and we know we like to ride in it, yet our explainations reflect our incompetence to comprehend what we see, so we make up comforting myths to console our selves in our loneliness.

Fri, 01/18/2013 - 10:56 | 3166042 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

The above view is called "agnostic."

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:50 | 3162121 acetinker
acetinker's picture

Try this Doc:  And I'm not trying to be an ass, but someone shared this with me;  Completely dissassemble your wristwatch, place the parts into a Mason jar and commence shaking it.  How long do you think it will take until the wristwatch is re-assembled and in working order?  Not very likely to ever happen, is it?

Now consider, that all the steps required to make the constituent parts of the watch were already accomplished before you began.  Kinda complex ain't it?  Which is more difficult to produce, a wristwatch or one-celled living organism?

Hope you don't take this wrong, I'm just asking :)

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:15 | 3162514 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Or a god that can make wristwatches and universes?

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 13:54 | 3162976 acetinker
acetinker's picture

Touche`

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:58 | 3162161 Sparkey
Sparkey's picture

What difference does it make what anyone "Believes", expound a bit on the "Power of Belief", and what it can do for us, and it's effects on that reality which exists outside our own thoughts.

Will I win the Lotto if I believe, with sufficient power, that I will! Should our slogan be; I think I will, therefore I shall!

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:19 | 3162520 psychobilly
psychobilly's picture

"Bottom line is that evolution is pure faith, even the top 'believers' admit there's too many flaws in it to accept scientifically."

This is a bald-faced lie.  Pathetic.

"It's actually a joke to think that a rock, lighting, water, and a few other assorted elements could create a working cell blah, blah, blah, blah"

You ignoramus, evolution makes no claims regarding abiogenesis.  This is a non sequitur.  The joke is that you are ignorant of even the most basic definitions.  You literally have no idea what you're babbling about.

Mon, 02/11/2013 - 00:18 | 3232235 LongBallsShortBrains
LongBallsShortBrains's picture

You sure have a lot of beliefs about what makes people stupid.

Can you answer some for me?

Are you stupid because you haven't made fifty million in the markets?

Are you stupid because you are not in your private jet, hobnobbing with bigwigs?

I'm not very smart, as my handle implies, but I'll try one:

If you think you know what beliefs make somebody smart or stupid, you are a liberal.

You voted for D'won... Right?

I guess you aren't as stupid as your post implies.

Bye the way, there are a lot more people out there who have been taxed enough already. We don't need to be called nut jobs, and have no intention on finding common ground with statist pricks who degrade people's religion, beliefs, and culture to score points with their liberal retard gang of thieves. Fuck off. And spend your own money. You obviously all don't believe in the things that you profess to make one stupid, so why do you need to tax all the stupid people to pay for your enlightened ass???????

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 22:41 | 3160904 ok
ok's picture

Brandon Smith supports Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not the GOP.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:08 | 3160983 Proofreder
Proofreder's picture

So ????  WTF, just tell us what you really mean - don't be shy, ok.  OK?

You're not.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:06 | 3160980 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"Junk away, most of you are dumb as a pile of rocks, save RockyRacoon and a couple others."

You can't be too bright to say that while spending your time reading and commenting here?  Common sense? Not.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:14 | 3161005 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

look at the archives.  Take a look at the blogspot years on this site and the people who used to comment.  

The intelligent commenters have mostly departed, and I guess since I'm still here arguing with you monkeys, you might as well hand me a banana.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:20 | 3161022 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

No they havent, what you're seeing is more people becoming awake everyday.  Those who are too stuck in their predetermined beliefs and can't see the truth past the msm propaganda machine, fall by the wayside.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:32 | 3161051 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

no, no, no.  What you're seeing is the polarization of the right.  All the smart, reasonable, educated republicans are being crowded out by the fruit loops.  and look where it's gotten you.  You guys friggin nominated Mitt Romney?  Really?  Even I thnk Obama is smug prick, but that's the alternative we're stuck with.  

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:38 | 3161065 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"You guys friggin nominated Mitt Romney?"

Whose you guys?  I voted for RP.  FYI- Less republicans voted for Romney than McCain, read into that fact genius.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:45 | 3161082 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

If RP had a shot in hell I would have voted for him.  All you purists can argue your point all you want, but voting for someone who has absolutely no shot in winning to satisfy your own ego is stupid (add to above list).  You bet on the first horse or the second, not the lame horse at the end, no matter how much he means to you.  Obama sucks but he sucks a little less than Romney would have and that's why he's president.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:58 | 3161116 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

So you admit voting for Obama?  and you're smart?  You won, enjoy your prize.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 00:51 | 3161228 Zap Powerz
Zap Powerz's picture

Mr. BK

You seem pretty intelligent.  Sometimes intelligent people get frustrated with people less knowledgeable than they are and when they get frustrated they (you) can become condesending and sound like a dick.

We face a monumental challenge as lovers of freedom.  We need to bring as many people to the freedom movement as we can.  If we alienate them by being dicks we defeat our own objective.

So, exercise some patience.  Educate instead of insult.  We need bright guys like you to NOT offend those that are just waking up.  Even if they believe Adam rode diosaurs.  Build on common ground and forget the stupid stuff.  Think strategic.  Resist the tempation to ridicule even when youre surrounded by morons.

:)

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 02:06 | 3161355 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Just count the red arrows.  That should tell you all you need to know.

It has come to pass that ZH is not as reasonable a place as it was.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 02:14 | 3161367 strannick
strannick's picture

Articles are top notch, as always. You dont like the comments, then stop at the end. Maybe RocRac doesnt like the fascist left getting called fascist. Too used to the pandering it gets from the MSM I guess. 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 06:58 | 3161584 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

 

 

I agree. Not the same as it use to be.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:17 | 3161964 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Libtards are getting smacked down here at ZH. You want validation for stupid libtard ideas? Go to Daily-Mark-of-The-Beast, or HuffPuff, or FailyKos.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:35 | 3162589 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

You know better than that.  It's not about "libtards", validation, or anything else.  It's about reason and common courtesy.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 13:28 | 3162821 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

There are a LOT of readers these days who have nothing to offer to the discussion other than an arrow.  For whatever reason, they mostly fling shit at the self-described "liberals."

I've drawn the OBVIOUS conclusion, and that was even before Tyler started pulling headlines from the NY Post.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:35 | 3162322 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

To Zap Powerz  

This site needs more people like you.  You're right, I get pissed at people a bit prematurely.  In my defense, I'm having to argue the merits of science and the idea that the earth wasn't created 7000 years ago by an invisible man who doesn't like gays or minorities.  We are getting laughed at by the whole world because of a small group of brainwashed hicks.  If they are the liberty movement, then fuck the liberty movement.  No amount of ideology is going to make me reject basic science, or common sense and decency.  The real liberty movement lives in the universities these people so dispise.  That is where Ron Paul focused his efforts and it was a smart decision.  They are the future, they belive in both science and liberty, and that's my team.  

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 12:11 | 3162489 viahj
viahj's picture

i disagree.  Mr BK is still fighting the Democrat vs Republican false dichotomy.  doesn't sound very enlightened or intelligent to me.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 02:56 | 3161409 UGrev
UGrev's picture

RP would have won if everyone just put up their WTF signs and wrote off both candidates and put RP's name on the line.  I did that.. and everyone else who didn't HAS NO FUCKING BALLS WHAT-SO-EVER and I'm call you all out. 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:45 | 3162082 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

LOL,

Get your own banana. We don't owe you one.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 16:56 | 3163787 Sparkey
Sparkey's picture

Here is your Banana BK, still your observation is correct, the high level commentators have (largely) left the site,,,Why? Because there is too much noise here now,, or,,, because it possibly is no longer (intelligent) to show how smart you really are? What do you think? 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 01:14 | 3161276 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

awww damn, I really wasn't going to get into this again, but so many of the replies to your posts BKbroiler are devoid of any intelligent arguments, I've decided to add some support to what you're saying, specifically this,

 How does a party that believes that government should stay out of their lives justify letting the government tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body?  Doesn't that seem ironic to you? 

"ironic"?  idiotic, disingenuous too.  look guys, you've yet to make ANY decent argument as to why you'd vote for a government to have a say in a woman's body sovereignty, none.  I don't include "religious beliefs" as an argument, because those have ZERO place in LAW - you want to go to a church and worship your particular god - and there are MANY different denominations even here in amrka, so there's no ONE god we're talking about, just lots of folks preferences - then fine, you have the right to your beliefs,

just stop believing you deserve to make them into LAWS than penalise others who don't believe as you do.

there has been quite the hue 'n' cry about your RIGHT to bear arms/guns - I wonder if any of you can dredge up any amount of intellect/empathy to apply this to how a woman might feel about making choices as to what happens to her own body?  that you would, in ANGER, choose to let LAW ENFORCEMENT have their say over a woman's body is sheer lunacy, and shows the sociopathic hatred for what it is - do not give me the "she got herself pregnant" suffer the consequences bullshit - because unless we're talking immaculate conception, sperm was involved, and that came from a man, one you've yet to show any interest in legally.

blah blah blah - I've said it all before, and more eloquently - but let me sum this rant up with,

do not be talking about "LIBERTY" or "LIBERTY MOVEMENTS" if you want to include Sanctity of Life amendment laws, because you're fakes, hypocrites if "liberty" comes with a tag "for men & guns only"

either it's liberty, or it's something else, figure out your labels.

 

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 02:36 | 3161397 newdoobie
newdoobie's picture

I probably shouldn't reply cause you wont listen but...

If you believe the "fetus" is alive and has rights, then no one (even the mom) should be able to take those rights away.

I understand you dont believe the "fetus" is a child, but many people do.

You believe a person should not be allowed to kill someone else and so do we.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 02:55 | 3161407 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

BZZZZZTT !!

we're talking about zygotes here, not foetus nor baby nor child.

but that's okay, at least I can see ZH hasn't moved on in the thinking of this subject.

guns are rights, bodies, if they have wombs, subject to government control.

gotcha, thanks for sharing.

moar junks plz.

 

oh, and definitions of "liberty"

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 06:18 | 3161555 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

i'm not going to junk you since it's apparently what you want and/or expect but you could probably take a lesson from zap and tone down the condescension just a bit there, cap'n.  you're not going to win any hearts and minds when it is so obvious that you have zero respect for the religious beliefs that lead to people taking such positions.  and this is coming from someone who has more than serious reservations about the existence of a higher power, or any afterlife whatsoever for that matter.

personally when it comes right down to it i don't give much of a shit about whether or not somebody aborts their child, in many cases it spares both the parent and the offspring great grief and suffering in the long run.  suffice to say my situation has led to to give a lot of thought to the issue.  maybe it's a bit too much "sharing" but the only reason i am sitting at this keyboard right now is because some woman who i'll never know, and don't really even care to know, thought enough of my worthless unborn ass to spit me out and give me to some very sweet and caring people who were more than capable and willing to share their lives with an unwanted zygote.

the only reasonable and rational conclusion, to my mind, is allowing states to decide what is ultimately just a wedge issue on the national level used to "divide and conquer."  does that phrase sound familiar?  you're not going to convince the hardcore right to lifers, and they're not going to convince you, either.  they should go to their corner, and you should go to yours, because frankly i'm kinda fuckin sick of hearing about something that will never, ever be resolved to either side's satisfaction.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 13:39 | 3162898 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

What kind of power and authority do you want to grant to any state government that determines abortion is a crime?

Do they have the authority to demand all medical records for all female patients?  Should they place armed men in doctor's offices to ensure that the doctors can't just give women a PILL? 

There's a big problem with creating laws that can't be enforced, and if you give some thought to what criminalizing abortion would require to enforce it, you start to recognize some of the reasons that SOME folks oppose the idea.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 14:13 | 3163058 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

frankly what i want personally is immaterial, and the suggestion that i haven't completely thought through both sides is either a tad insulting or perhaps a testament to my inability to express myself succinctly.  in fact if pressed i tend to come down on the side of the mother's right to choose, certainly up to the point that an abortion pill would be effective (7-9 weeks in?)

the "big problems" you reference are precisely the reason i think smaller polities should have to hash it out for themselves, and not be forced to endure some arbitrary decision handed down from on high by a monolithic central government.  both sides are wrong in attempting to force their belief systems upon each other in such a manner. 

i also advocate this approach for virtually any "hot button social issue" of the day, whether it is gay marriage, gun control, what have you.  at least if done on a state by state basis if a person feels strongly enough about any given issue they can vote with their feet, as it were.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 18:41 | 3164202 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

"smaller polities" != Constitutional Amendments.

if the reference is to "States" then perhaps "medical marijuana" being "legalised" in some States, yet still subject to Fed raids/interventions/Rules might be a useful comparision.

of course, folks will have to confront just how firmly they believe in their national state-hoods, etc.

"monolithic central government" = Constitutional Amendment, yes?

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 18:54 | 3164249 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

(To begin, I should mention that in this environment, you'll encounter far more insulting commentary than the possible implication that you haven't thought over the issue.  "Fuckhead" is how many commenters here say "old chap.")

       the "big problems" you reference are precisely the reason i think smaller polities should have to hash it out for themselves, and not be forced to endure some arbitrary decision handed down from on high by a monolithic central government.

While I am in general agreement in principle that virtually all government should only exist as "locally" as possible, I think that there are still plenty of overarching ideals which are recognized NEARLY UNIVERSALLY, and *no* governmental authority can ever legitimately claim the power to violate them.  Which principles those are is a matter of personal preference, but the simplest demonstration of the test that I think must always be overcome is a "negativist" restatement of the Golden Rule.

   Do not do unto others anything you would not have them do unto you.

As this applies to abortion, you have real people (in the philosophic sense--autonomous agents who can reason and communicate about their interpretation of the world) in conflict.  One such person is the pregnant woman carrying an embryo or a fetus who, for whatever reason, has decided she does not wish to go through the birthing process.

The other person in direct conflict here is NOT the embryo or fetus--that being cannot be qualified as a "person" due to the lack of ability to separate its interests from the potential mother, lack of personal autonomy, and lack of ability to communicate and understand legal relationships.  The other person is some third party, who MAY OR MAY NOT have any involvement in either the conception or the life of the pregnant woman--this is the State, or the "anti-abortion" activist, or the neighbor, or the potential father.

IF that third party cannot come up with a very compelling argument for why it should be granted the authority to (effectively) strap the woman to a table until the birthing process starts, there should be NO negotiation whatsoever to prevent the potential mother from taking actions which result in termination of the pregnancy.

The big flaw in the "unborn babies are people" argument (which is really what the entire anti-abortion argument hinges on) is that some unborn babies never make it through the birthing process.

This means that a pregnant woman is NOT the unborn being's "future mother."  She can only ever be, at BEST, the POTENTIAL future mother.  Criminalizing any act on the basis solely of that POTENTIAL is a very dangerous precedent to set and/or reinforce. 

Just as I'd say we'd never want government preventing people from purchasing cars or guns because they might POTENTIALLY harm someone with them, I'd say we should never permit government to imprison a woman because she could POTENTIALLY have given birth to a child.

Now there's at least one other legal approach which might work....the State COULD assert that it has a clear interest in the welfare of any *potential* person.  The simplest way to construct that argument would be to say that an unborn child is a future taxpayer, and thus depriving the State of that future revenue is something the potential mother should be accountable for.

The implications from that line of reasoning seem far worse to me than the simple "it's a baby" assertion, but I suppose if someone were really motivated they could try to make it work.  It might even be arguable beyond that point then that male masturbation could be criminalized, or that female menstruation could represent a similar "crime."

At the end of the day, we just personally decide which world we think would be "better." 

One in which women who end up pregnant and don't wish to carry their pregnancies to term end up in cells like pigs or brood-mares, or one in which these women occasionally do something which is morally repugnant to millions of people who are completely uninvolved in the decision?

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 17:43 | 3163971 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

well Fedaykinx, this is a topic I've kept in thread for well over a year, waaaay back when the "good doctor" was mentioned in virtually every thread, and no dissension was allowed.  a whole year of ZH electioneering - something that still raises my eyebrows, as it seemed so odd to be promoting teh voting??  but promote it did, and the bait was swallowed, and the threads were full, thus saith. . .

so, going with the flow of "who shall we vote for?" (and let me say, in case you've missed the many times I've stated this: I don't vote, never have and never will, mainly because it's obvious to me that "voting" is something only people who believe in the system that occupies them do, so they also believe they have a "say" in it, and can "change" it with something as simple as their opinion - I have never believed that, guess the skoolin' didn't take for me, sigh) - "who shall we vote for?" gets debated around. . . and I did some research on the characters proffered, and all the group love kept refusing to acknowledge what was out there on the interwebs for all to see. . . so I brought the subject up. . . to massive denial with the usual anonymous junks.

see, all I was asking to be acknowledged is this:  IF you've got these guys using the "liberty" word over and over and over, yet at the SAME time advocating for Constitutional Amendments that would allow the GOVERNMENT enForcement of a woman's fertility cycle, how is that "liberty"?  unless, oh wait, it's like the original Founding FATHER'S liberty, ie, it comes with a genetic requirement - male, white - and the rest can GTFO and spend centuries fighting for the right to be considered human, a full human, which is automatically accorded the "white male" by virtue of. . . laws.

how can anyone say with a straight face that making a LAW that gives "personhood" to a zygote - not a foetus, not a baby, not a child, but a mass of cells that are fully dependent on the body of the woman for survival - how can anyone SAY they are for "liberty" and then support a position that can only be enForced by the State through monitoring a woman's fertility cycle???  because that's it, that's the only way to make absolutely sure you have control over woman's fertility, by monitoring it.

so, now that you all are beginning to see the coalescing of the State via "health care" - ie, the white coat holy doctors of pharma will be monitoring your body for compliance - can you perhaps see the direction I've been pointing out for over a year?  I tried the careful, talk-around-the-subject route, I've been very polite at times, and I've had some in depth and valuable (to me) discussions when the replies were also respectful - but the majority of "opinions" here range from "fuck the bitches, the baby mammas, let them pay for their spawn, and they shouldn't be getting pregnant anyhow, the sluts!!! and what about teh baybeez??"  and when asked, indeed, what about the babies?  those babies you want to FORCE a mother to carry, then birth - what happens NEXT?? - because we all know what happens to children who are not wanted, and few here give a damn.

no, there has been zero thought given to anything beyond the enForcement issue, none whatsoever to the end results, how that might affect the culture (such as it is now), how the forced pregnancies might play out, who pays to support them, etc. etc. - just the promotion of the Laws.

which leads me to believe this is just plain old hatred of women, played out naturally in a country that believes itself to be "godly" and doing what "god" tells them to, control the fertility - it's a time honoured concept, I know, I've studied it.  the return of midwifery & doulas in some areas of the country is a direct challenge to the white coat priests of Medicine, and we will see the backlash on that too, as "HealthCare" gets the LawGivers treatment and becomes enForced.

THIS is where I come from, this is the argument that never gets much attention here, because the majority cannot approach the subject without their big ole hate shields, be they religious or otherwise. 

I have no disrespect for any believers who keep their faith near and dear - it's the ones who desire to put their beliefs into LAWS that might apply to ME, that might remove my LIBERTY - those are the torch carrying mobs I will continue to point at, point out.

if you'd like to take on the definition of "liberty" as it applies to this subject, I would gladly discuss this topic with you.

Fri, 01/18/2013 - 12:07 | 3166336 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

you both gave me quite a lot to address and honestly i don't have the desire, much less the time, to really get into the minutiae.  i understand that previous discussions with different people can color fresh interactions with new folks in that you feel as though you're banging your head on a wall treading the same ground over and over.  i also feel that i've heard all the arguments and don't see much of anything new here either.  "hate shield" might be a novel term for me though.  as far as defining liberty, each state should have more leeway to differentiate itself.  you'd have 50 different flavors to choose from, i think that's about the best we can hope for at this point.  thanks for the discussion.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 13:16 | 3162754 Omen IV
Omen IV's picture

a womans body and all its "parts" are her's to do as she pleases beginning to end - everything else is control not freedom - this will never be settled - that is why we all need to go to a corner - which means SECESSION

you go south along with the rest of what you call "your people" and we go north and we end this thing on so many issues

NYC for one - has a number of other geographic areas  that do not need the south or what is there at any level - we can get  those resources from Canada or other places - we will do fine without the insanity of this discussion any longer

we should all propose a national referendum on a breakup and have a border just like Mexico

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 01:15 | 3161280 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

Brainwashed?!  Indeed you are.   The data?  You mean the data that says the climate has NEVER been consistant or stable?  Maybe your talking about the data that says the last 20 years have shown a cooling trend?   Ha!  Whatever.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 01:31 | 3161296 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Yah think?  There are millions of variables and the left idiots never take into account the biggest one because it is impossible to accurately measure.  Solar radiation.  Until you can accurately measure that including flares, distance and other factors you have no clue what you are talking about.   You cannot measure it because it is pretty much impossible to measure.   Your models are totally flawed because you leave out solar radioation and other variables. This means your models are worthless and junk science.

Oh and guess what - there is nothing you or I or anyone can due to control the sun.  One day it may flare up and cook the earth or it could put out less radiation and we would freeze to death.  Stop trying to play God because you are not that powerful. Stop thinking man has that power. You don't.  It is incredibly egocentric of you to think you have ANY control over the earth or global temperatures.  You don't.   The earth is far more powerful than anything you can conceive.  You can't control the sun, volcanoes, earthquakes, storms, etc. 

You might be able to use satellites to reduce the sun's radiation but the fix could be worse than the faux  problem.

You are the people who deny science because your models are so childishly simple with endless numbers of missing variables.   You are like idiot hedge fund managers who ignore long tails and black swans because it does not fit your model.   Their portfolio blows up and they say "oh we forgot to take that into account."

You are the first people to say the other side is stupid even though you never think of even 70% of the variables.  FAIL.   Go away.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 05:25 | 3161520 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

"Whether it's man made or not, the climate is getting warmer"

Well I live in Canada and the weather sure isn't getting warmer around here. I've been waiting for this much advertized Global Warming for 20 years and I'm still waiting. James Lovelock admitted he was wrong, a lot of other people have noticed the same thing.Global Warming is a bust.

And where's my damn check? I've been calling bullshit for years, when do I get my check?

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 08:56 | 3161685 gatorengineer
gatorengineer's picture

Time in the earth is measured in Millions of years, Man has reasonable scientific data for a hundred or so years.... Get a grip.

 

All that coal we used to burn in our clean efficient plants, is now put on a boat and shipped to China and burned in efficiently in plants with no emmisions controls.....  Does the CO2 become a non issue because its burned in China?

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 10:01 | 3161879 MajorWoody
MajorWoody's picture

clean efficient plants?  any fisherman out there eating a fish a day? why not? unless you're in Alaska perhaps

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 18:30 | 3164149 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

We have high quality data going back 800,000 years....

Google Vostok Ice Core

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:00 | 3162168 FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

You're as dumb as the sandwich you've named yourself after. Apparently you are unaware that until Sandy happened - and that was a freak confluence of storm systems that simple probability would predict will happen every so often (and has happened long before CO2 emissions were anywhere near present levels) - 2012 was shaping up to be one of the LOWEST years of insurance losses due to storms, hurricanes, etc.

Apparently you're unaware that on Christmas Eve, when they thought no one was looking, the UK Met snuck out a new graph of temperature predictions which shows 1) a substantial decline in their predicted future temperatures, and 2) an absolute drop in average temperature over the next five years.

I'm an engineer, not a fast food flipper. WHEN YOUR PREDICTIONS DON'T MATCH THE FACTS, THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR THEORY. The entire AGW thesis is flawed, based as it is on cherry-picked and massaged data. NOT ONE OF THE PREDICTIONS OF Mann, et al, HAS COME TRUE. Sea levels are not rising. Arctic ice is not decreasing. There has not been an increase in catastrophic weather storms. When one single prediction of the AGW alarmists comes to pass, I might give them another look, but since they have never been right, I and millions of others dismiss them as fools.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:21 | 3162257 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

BKbroiler:  " How does a party that believes that government should stay out of their lives justify letting the government tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body?  Doesn't that seem ironic to you?"

 

So, you are saying that government shouldn't tell a woman what do to with her body, but the living entity in the womb shouldn't also get the same courtesy?  And you say Ironic?

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 17:57 | 3164019 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

is the "living entity" in your womb?

if so, your call, if not, get a another hobby.

preferably one that caretakes all the babies born into poverty, ill-health, bad parenting, etc.

start there, maybe you can branch out into other areas.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 22:51 | 3160931 miro1a
miro1a's picture

GW is science.  It is observed through measurement.  That being said, the cause of it is a scam.  Some parts of our galaxy are dustier than others.  When our solar system orbits through these areas less light reaches our planet and we have ice ages.  When we get to an especially clear part of our galaxy we have warming.  These trends last millenia.  I remember reading about a volcano erupting that put more shit into the sky than all of man kinds activities combined.  TPTB are exploiting this natural phenomenon for their own NWO purposes.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 22:52 | 3160932 miro1a
miro1a's picture

GW is science.  It is observed through measurement.  That being said, the cause of it is a scam.  Some parts of our galaxy are dustier than others.  When our solar system orbits through these areas less light reaches our planet and we have ice ages.  When we get to an especially clear part of our galaxy we have warming.  These trends last millenia.  I remember reading about a volcano erupting that put more shit into the sky than all of man kinds activities combined.  TPTB are exploiting this natural phenomenon for their own NWO purposes.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 05:33 | 3161528 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

Except that the measurements used by the University of East Anglia were revealed to be bogus in 2009. Also Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania. And most of the climate journals. And the IPCC. All these organizations being made up of the same individuals.

James Lovelock, one of the first Global Warming advocates and the inventor of the Gaia hypothesis, admitted last year that none of the predictions he made 20 years ago have come true and therefore the theories he made up at that time are falsified.

Yet Al Gore says "the science is settled". That is an interesting statement all by itself.

Einstein is still open to question. So is Darwin. So is Isaac Newton. So is all science.

When he says "the science is settled", that isn't a scientist talking. That's a pope.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 17:03 | 3163816 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Really? That dog don't hunt anymore and as if it ever did...

You have to come up with something better than it is all made up...

Oh the science *is* setttled, up to about 15 years ago you could quibble about the data..... (there is a diffrence)

Putz....

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 22:39 | 3160900 Blano
Blano's picture

I've been hoping there was still a few of you left, pardon the pun.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 22:53 | 3160939 Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

Libertarian or Independent the new center left/right. Either way both are not what the Republicans and Democrats have become which is flip sides of the same control freak coin.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 22:54 | 3160944 Groundhog Day
Groundhog Day's picture

Divide and conquer, red team - blue team, NFC - AFC, east coast - west coast, blacks - whites, etc etc etc.  it's as plain as day and night what they are doing.  Why can't most people see it.  What is this obsession with dems and reb, they are all the same

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:02 | 3160970 hankwil74
hankwil74's picture

The reason we get stuck on the "left" is because the "right" is now characterized by an absolute rejection of science, a woman's right to choose, environment stewardship, and the ability for immigrants and minorities to have the same opportunities of advancement as Americans have had over the last generation.

That about sums up while most of the Democrats I know are Democrats.  The Republican Party has truly become the anti-science party and the "you have to have that baby even if you're 14 and your father knocked you up" party.  They've truly gone off the deep end.  The sick thing is that they still get 48% of the popular vote.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:59 | 3161120 knukles
knukles's picture

Take your pick and stop with the minutiae.
Essentially one either believes in Natural Law (in a sort of Edmund Burke-ian manner) or one is a statist regardless of what one calls themselves.

Argue away and miss the whole point of the ...
Oh neverthefuck mind..

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 03:55 | 3161462 Freddie
Freddie's picture

The Mockingbird Obamo-troll shows up.

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:04 | 3160975 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

The solution is INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. Individual Liberty can only be had in an environment of ones own choosing. You 'on the left', and far to many on the false right, attempt to dominate and force your own CHOSEN values onto society as a whole.

If you are over the age of 30 and even remotely honest, you realize your mistakes and have the humility to begin recognizing that your only domain is within yourself. Free will and INDIVIDUAL choice.

Forcing others to accept your myths and other transient stories fails...Always.

True Conservatives have it correct because it is a fact that reality does not change, only our chosen perception of it.

Forcing me or anyone else to accept your CHOICE to devalue personal responsibility and acceptance of the consequences attached to the exercise of your own free will is tyranny just as surely as for me to inflict that violation upon you.

FUCK THE LEFT!

And rejecting science...THAT IS SCIENCE YOU GENIUS. Skepticism is to science what Liberty is to free will.

YOU CANNOT HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.

And so why dearest would anyone be even remotely 'skeptical'???

:)

Wed, 01/16/2013 - 23:38 | 3161064 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

"a woman's right to govern her own body"

Alright, I'll bite, how about her right to pay for it, eh big-shot? Because, as you say, it's her choice, right, tough-guy?

I'll ignore, for your sake, the infinite hypocrisy of such a statement coming from a proponent of positive rights - i.e. powerthirsty control-freaks with communitarian god complexes - as all leftists always are, have been, and will be.

"environment stewardship"

Like carbon credits? Like the EPA? Solyndra? Like the oil industry your party has failed (gee I wonder why...) to do anything about for 100 ****ing years? Like a military that burns as much fossil fuel as a small country, each and every day?

You can't hide behind "divide and conquer" after saying that the Republicans have been betrayed by their party (as if you haven't been by yours?). You are both in the same ideological camp. Left or right, you are shills for more, more, more government, more, more, more control, less, less, less liberty, more, more, more guilt.

***infinite hypocrisy is real***

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 09:44 | 3161805 gaoptimize
gaoptimize's picture

I'd like to add that there was ~$1T in means-tested bennefits provided by Government in 2012 (not including SS and Medicare).  I'll suggest that the epidemic in out-of-wedlock births has doubled this cost.

It is simply unfair to people like me who would VERY MUCH like to have more (awesome, joyous, top 5%) children that I have to pay for someone else to breed leaches that will almost certainly grow up with no respect for Western Civilization or the ability to contribute to its advancement.  I am outraged that the state has been organized to subsidize the devolution of our society.

Thu, 01/17/2013 - 18:02 | 3164043 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

if someone wants Laws to enForce births, then I guess they're ready to be taxed to pay for the Gov't. workerbees to carry out the Laws, hmm?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!