What a stupid video. Just because there is some political controversy around climate science means that there is valid reason for political inquries? What if corporate interests were threated by the findings of quantum mechanics, would questioning quantum mechanics then become a patriotic duty of dilligent conservatives against an alleged liberal faith in quantum mechanics? If you want to challenge any specific point of or findings of climate science, adress it scientifically, not politically.
@shamusername There is alot of scientific research that claims climate change isn't manmade. Furthermore, there are benefits to the earth getting warmer. Don't believe everything you're told, do some research.
@shamusername Have you done the research? Ever heard of the medieval warming period? What about the fact that CO2 levels rise AFTER heat rises in the earth's temperature. But hey, if you wanna continue to believe everything you're told and swallow it hook, line, and sinker, be my guest. Don't try and act smarter when I tried to give you the facts though.
The problem is not just "Big Government", it's also "Big Politics" – the idea, that politics can solve anything, be it through empowering or dismantling government or the state. Seriously thinking you can blindly deny reality and just shove away empirical science of climate change with the bellowing calls of talk radio is utterly moronic and one of the main reasons a lot of reasonable, rational people will never join the conservative cause.
Glad you were willing to admit the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were false, SA. However, you seem to misguiding the threat here with Global warming which is a effect of Climate Change, a verifiable phenomena.
One comment on the homophobia of psychiatry: I don't think it was that the field disliked gays, but rather the behavior was understood to be outside the realm of "normal." I think the change came when Kinsey and his group actually study sexual preferences and found that there exists a continuum, rather than a mutually exclusive preference.
I have shed and renounce my conservative view, I want answers and there's nothing wrong with Questioning. Conservative views along with Liberal views are at best ANAL (or one might say tunnel vision)
I denounce the extreme opinions of both the Liberal and neocon side of things. But I will try and reason with the opinions of others. I don't believe that much with Global Warming. But I don't reject it like it is a religion like what the folks in Fox News are trying to prove.
But I read a recent NASA article on how our sun is reaching a stage where these solar storm are getting stronger and it can affect our Earth's atmosphere within two years. We do need our science, but true science.
"You're a neocon warmonger. I'm done with this pointless exchange."
That's the kind of exchange I've come to expect from the far-left who cares more about ideology than facts or people (since they don't have to bear to consequences of their emotional politics talk).
"After the events of 11 September 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.
He said the information received by Russian intelligence suggested Iraq was planning attacks in the United States, "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets".
The far-left and some of this right, such as on this board, are enablers of Islamic Jihadism, which is basically an Islamic version of Crusades.
Saddam violated the UN-cease fire agreement 17 times and refused to cooperate with weapon inspectors. There were also a lot of intelligence reports coming out, that suggested that Iraq is poised to strike (even Russian intel said that) and on top of that Saddam was killing his own people.
Saddam was killing his own people. But has it ever occured to you that interfering in the policies of other nations is potentially more destructive that allowing human rights injustices to occur?
true, he was doing the world a favor by killing his own people, let muslims kill each other off, its better than interfering and giving them a reason to unite against you.
Right, it's illogical for the reason you just outlined. Even if you're not a hopeless idealogue like me, who actually believes it wasn't even really our right to tresspass against them any more than it would be for them to tresspass against us... it defies reason to get involved because it will galvanize the muslim peoples against us. On top of that, speaking to present day, we have much more important concerns than Afghanistan. Namely this economy tanking.
i agree, it may sound "harsh" to some people, but its better to let them kill each other than to give them reason to kill americans. and if they STILL go after americans even when americans stay out of it, theyre just going to expose themselves to the world as terrorists, they certainly dont need americas help to do that
If I have to choose between a per-emptive war against a major problem that is Jihadism, and doing nothing about it, I choose the lesser of two evils, which is a pre-emptive war against Jihadism.
Look, this is triage; like Truman's decision to drop atom bombs. If he didn't do that a lot more people would have died.
It's easy to idealize about these things but in reality presidents are often between a rock and a hard place - Truman didn't decide that lightheartedly.
The fact of the matter is that it isn't that simple. Japan is a clearly definable nation-state, and fundamentalist Islam is a philosophy. You can't fight a conventional war against an idea. The reason why is that even if you can rationalize away the collateral damage being done--which in this case is much higher than it was in World War 2--that damage serves as the catalyst to perpetuate the war, not end it, as is the case with against a country that has to answer to the grief of its citizens.
Probably more than half of the civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq are Al-Qaida or Taliban's doing. So, not only do they have the "infidel" west, but they have all the other Muslims that don't think like they are, therefore they [infidels] don't deserve to live.
So the US forces and NATO forces are still there because otherwise Al-Qaida would take over, preach Jihad and slaughter anyone who disagrees.
It's not the dislike of Islam, as it is the dislike of people who blow themselfs up for Allah.
Allah that is often described as "Allah the Merciful" in the Koran.
If all Muslims would buy this Jihadist excuse for hatred, then the world, or Western civilization, would be long gone, as there is 1 Billion of Muslims in the world.
I would argue there are one billion Chinese as well. Numbers only account for so much.
Every country in the world that still legally executes people for being gay is Muslim. In several Muslim countries (not all) rape victims are punished more harshly than the men who rape them. In some Muslim nations in Africa they still- legally- burn people accused of witchcraft ALIVE.
Not all Muslims are like that. Some Christians -are- like that. But no Christian nation still legally does this.
The last "Christian" nation to behave like this was Nazi Germany- which is arguable as not all the Nazis used religion to justify their actions and many were openly non-Christian. Before that it was during the 1600s. What unnerves me, less about individual Muslims and more about the world where they are the dominating force, is that it is like they are stuck in the middle ages.
That's exactly what it is, though just from a nit pick position the Crusades were more around 1000 AD and the Inquisitions were more around 1400 AD. Not that that is terribly relevant to the point.
Islam might revolutionize themselves, they might not. Only time will tell.
And the reason Jihadism is more dangerous is technology. Technology brings a lot of good things, but it also multiplies the evil that can be done.
It used to be that Crusades had to go by foot everywhere carrying their swords and what not. Now, Jihadist get a hold of a bomb, and kill a lot of people instantaneously.
It would be a tragedy if they get a hold of a nuclear weapon..
You don't believe they have nuclear weapons? Iran got its nuclear technology from Pakistan. How many Russian, American, French, British (so on and so forth) nukes are unaccounted for and probably floating around on the black market.
I remember after 9-11 people speaking of Osama Bin Laden possibly having several small nuclear bombs, no bigger than a brief case.
Jihadists are insane. But there are limits to their insanity. Using a nuke would justify nuclear retaliation. They know that.
That said, yes. The Jihads (and Crusades) of modern era are far more dangerous than those of the middle ages. Just like all wars. One only has to cross compare the conflicts to realize that...
But really, the five most bloody conflicts (in terms of both soldier and civilian death) of all time go in this order: WWII, Taiping Rebellion (mid 19th century), Genghis Khan's conquest of Asia, WWI, and the Thirty Year War. Yeah, that blew my mind too.
Israel has guarded their status in regards to nuclear weapons very closely. I have no doubt that they HAVE them, but even that is unconfirmed. It should probably remain that way. Declaring they have no nuclear weapons or their range is very short might make them look weak to their enemies and declaring they have long range, even ICBMs, would make them look like bullies to their detractors.
That would be extremely unwise of them if they did.
Seriously throw off their diplomatic balance with other countries. Right now they need the delicate thread that allies them with Russia. Launching the first nuclear strike would universally vilify them, even amoung their own people seeing as Israel is littered with holy shrines to Islam and a nuke would probably destroy a good number. It would also most certainly justify every remotely pro-Israel nation in the world to blow them to hell.
I would call it the war on pollution. The fact is, cap and trade will allow companies to support more pollution and even if we abolished all industry, remember that 97% of carbon dioxide is natural, and therefore the environmentalists would have to destroy the environment to save it.
SA, by "Favored Races," Darwin wasn't talking about human ethnicities at all; "race" has a totally different meaning in biology. People always misconstrue what Darwin meant and if one actually reads what he wrote, he was more open to racial equality than most people of the time. "On the Origin of Species" is not racist, and even IF Darwin were an ardent racist, evolution by natural selection would still be valid science and the basis of biology.
Well science is not about expert consensus, and you are right to reject such a concept, but I understood what the greenhouse effect was way back when I was in third grade, and since then no one has offered any reason whatsoever that we should believe it actually doesn't work that way.
Hold on Jack. Darwin was not a racist. In fact, he was one of the biggest anti-slavery protestors of his time. If you want you can read the letters he sent to the British parliament stating his disdain for his governments continued support for slavery online. Even if he were racist though that woldn't dsprove evolution. That subtitle you refer to has nothing to do with the kind of "race" you're familiar with, rather the race of other species, like the human race for example.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Excuse me, southernavenger, but WMD's were not a lie - they were mistaken. And not just they, all the other intelligences that the US relied upon.
It cannot be a lie if you believe it to be true.
However, they probably could have made the case on the war in Iraq without such an emphasis on WMD's, to please you nitpickers.. like you and the far-left (e.g. Michael Moore).
Even for the global warming. I don't think it's man made, but Obama and co, does but I don't think they're lying either. I think they're just true believers, but I could be wrong.
"It cannot be a lie if you believe it to be true."
I am sorry, but I just got this mental image of you wearing a cape and jumping off a building yelling "I BELIEVE I CAN FLYYYY!!!"
That's silly. That said, rather Bush knowingly lied about things is debatable. But that didn't change the fact that what he said was untrue, which does constitute a lie rather it was intentional or not.
Hopefully it will enlightened someone and free them from conspiracy theories.
Take Bruce Lee - he was no in favor of a rigid stance because it limits your options of what you can do, of where can strike and how you can defend yourself.
Same in politics. As you take a position, you limit your perception. That's especially true in any conspiracy theory. The only debate they have is how big the conspiracy theory is and dismiss any fact that shows otherwise as a lie.
Ah, then is dismissing the conspiracy theory not just as bad? You are limiting your perception of things.
Of course, I don't believe this is a conspiracy theory. A lie, as I said, is a lie. A falsehood. Even if the person who spoke said lie did not know it was a lie at the time.
Now, as a non-mind reader I don't proclaim to know rather Bush knew this, or the CIA did. The excuse put forth is that Saddam was funding what he thought was a program to manufacture them but the funding was going
towards other things and the intelligence agencies just picked up on his intent.
That sounds reasonable to me. But are they telling the truth in that regard would be the million dollar question and we are left to speculate.
As some one that likes keeping an open mind I can see the argument for both. Maybe it is true. Maybe the CIA lied to Bush. Maybe both the CIA and Bush are liars. Who knows?
Well the reason I don't buy conspiracy theories is because there's no credible evidence to back them up. What happens is that conspiracy theorists reference other conspiracy theories..
The only thing I doubt here is Al Gore and his global warming machine.
Now I don't think CIA are liars. I think tho that the argument for the Iraq war could be made even without the WMD's, however, the CIA saw evidence to support that Saddam has them, or is developing them (and he refused to cooperate).
There's no credible evidence to deny them either. It's like the existence of God. Based more on faith than reason, and while certainly you can say I don't buy the existence of an invisible sky magician, to deny any remote possibility of its existence is a bit foolish.
I find the idea that politicians and bureaucrats are prone to lying more credible than the idea of God, for the record. And that scientists will lie and tell officials what they want to hear to get government funding.
It would be very easy to dispel the global warming via co2 gasses. Man made climate change/Weather modification/weather as a weapon has been going on for a long time via chemtrails and the use of HAARP. Either you are blind or complicate, which is it Mr Avenger?
As part of the healing process I admit my guilt for believing the Neo-Con lies. Admit the truth and advance yourselves people, or find yourself stuck and damned in a rut of your own making.
The gay/minority stuff was pseudoscience at best. Yes, science will make mistakes, but the scientific method will hopefully correct it. Politicians are often misinformed. Potholer54's vids are pretty good at pointing out how both supporters and deniers of climate change talk shit with out looking at the actual science behind it . Bush's propaganda had nothing to do with the scientific method. It is not a great analogy.
Is it true that the last decade or so has seen a tremendous shift from the 90s climate heating up by lowering temperatures, as many global warming deniers claim?? I dunno. It seems too convenient for the deniers. If it is, it's quite a coincidence.
Other places had record low temperatures in 2009. The entire planet isn't going to be the same, but people trying to prove a point will jump at anything then wag it in your face any time you try to say something otherwise.
You forgot to mention the Serbiagate lie when it comes to Hillary, BUT she became Secretary of State!
BTW, fact I just learned: The party that urged the Supreme Court not to grant the victims' appeal because the illegality of torture was not "clearly established" was the Obama Justice Department.
What mystifies me is that those who perpetuate propaganda act as though everyone believes them.
Even when we see beyond their ineptly constructed veils they go around implementing their schemes and puffing themselves up with self-importance and chastising those who criticize their claims and the actions they take based on those claims.
It's in their best interest to believe that we believe their hype, but they come across as belligerent little idiots when they do so, not "experts" or "heroes."
2: Are specie and race all that different? Let me rephrase that a few times. Are sub-specie and race all that different? Are breed and race all that different? Do you deny intrinsic differences between the races that go beyond skin pigmentation? Think carefully about that- and before responding note I am not calling any race inferior. Just making a point.
1. Yeah, so what? Jesus wasn't a racist, but some Christians are- that only proves that racist people can twist the writings of any scientist or religious leader to fit their racist dogma.
2. Yes. Species and race ARE different, not even close to the same thing. And blacks, whites, and Hispanics are not "sub-species" of Homo sapiens, they are simply different races of the same species (as opposed to Neanderthals and Cro Magnon). They are all genetically equally human in every sense.
You realize what a Darwinist is, right? Not really? Didn't think so. Darwinism = Applying survival of the fittest to human beings something Darwin himself probably wouldn't condone, however they don't need it unlike Christians who believe their religious leader does- almost HAS to.
And did I say Specie and Race were NOT different? I said are they ALL that different. Don't twist my words to favor your knee-jerk reaction.
Sub-specie gets closer to what I was implying. Breed even further.
You better believe I'm condescending, pretentious, and dismissive of racists who like to dress up their fatuous ideology in the cheap tuxedo of pseudoscience. If I thought that you were serious about having a scientific debate I would gladly entertain you. But you aren't.
As Stephen Jay Gould used about creationism, I say of racism: I will not give the oxygen of debate to this nonsense.
So I am racist because I am pointing out my cheekbones, as a Cherokee Indian, are higher than yours as a (presumably) white person? Or that Africans have higher fat deposits in their extremities? Oh yeah, that totally makes one of those races superior to the other.
Interesting denial of actual physical traits! You are a fucking idiot.
A terrible irony did just occur to me. Because Africans store more fat than other races they have better insulation and better cushioning for their skeletons and muscles, and can store more potential energy in the form of fat cells.
Despite being Cherokee/Irish I am apparently a black supremacist for pointing that out and littlebier is right! Who knew?
But to digress the differences are still as subtle as that of a German Shepard and a Siberian Husky. But differences are differences.
Racists are not racist because of any scientific support for their beliefs. I can't presume to explain where individuals latent racism comes from. What racists do is cherry-pick scientific data to support beliefs that they hold for other reasons.
I never denied that there are different traits endemic to different races. What I refuse to do is discuss them without the rigorous context of science. Give a racist an inch of science, he'll take it to a mile of extremism.
And again, I am -not- a racist. I went to PAINSTAKING degrees to make this abundantly clear to you. I simply said that different races hold different biological traits, which you apparently agree with. Taxonomic ranks would go like this, Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Infraclass, Order, Family, Genus, Specie, Sub-Specie, Race, Sub-race. There are subtle differences in lime trees, we refer to the different lime trees as different RACES of lime trees. Now, the way I see it is that you (cont
jumped to an insane, extreme hair brained conclusion based on your own presumptions and calling me a racist insults me grievously. Being racist would infer that I believe one race to be superior to another and I clearly do not. Now the question I have to ask is are you any where near moral enough to admit you were wrong and apologize?
Oh, I know, the internet is 'serious business', but hey, if you want to be an intellectual here this comes with the territory.
Both a Siberian Husky and a German Shepard are genetically equally dog in every sense. I wasn't trying to imply that other races were non-human, as I made painstakingly clear if you would bother actually reading what I am saying.
Speaking of which, try actually answering my question. Do you deny intrinsic differences between the races that go beyond skin pigmentation? The same bone structure? The same texture of hair?
The US is also responsible for the deaths of millions of Iraqi's through collateral damage and sanctions against the country. It isn't our responsibility to take on such a burden of "liberating" the world. Its very Wilsonian (Woodrow Wilson, a very liberal guy) to believe that is our job.
Furthermore, I don't know about Ron Paul's claims about Fascism in the Islamic world being caused by us, but we certainly play a strong roll in terrorist groups to recruit.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well, I don't know about the deaths of millions Iraqi's. Are you referring to what happened when we didn't finish the job after Desert Storm? I guess that kind of thing happens when one abandons their allies, much like Vietnam.
It's foolish to speak of one's burdens when it come downs to ones security. Financial security based in energy is one of them. Drill here, now, nuclear, we're behind the curve.
Ron Paul claimed we(the model of the free world) was the target, only, because we occupy.
Abandons their allies? So we abandoned Kuwait did we? I didn't know that... I mean, we abandoned South Vietnam. Look at them. Still Communist and yet we trade with them. Why not with fascist?
Ron Paul's claim is that we make it easy for the spread of terrorism by sticking our nose in the middle east. Western culture and Islamic culture is oil and water. It will never mix. Thinking we can stick our nose into their business and not be resented for it is naive.
shut up sick redneck! I am not even American and you are ridiculing your whole nation with the bullshit you say! Go hide somewhere and stop ridiculing America because uncultured sick fucks like you have brought your nation to the disgrace it is today!
Its hard to recruit people to commit suicide for Jihad. Trying to convince them that women voting and wearing jeans means you can't go to heaven? I wouldn't kill myself for that reason.
When you watch a bomb land on your house? A stray bullet hit your father? Your land being invaded by a foreign country? I would happily give up my life if it meant stopping these things.
Why kill Americans for the affairs of the mid east. I don't get it.
typical American redneck...you are so ignorant, brainwashed, uncultured and uneducated (i.e., what a real redneck is), I feel sorry for you...probably you live at Texas? Rednecks like you give America a bad name!
@incognito9887 Ever wondered why the US gets the brunt of terrorist attacks, and switzerland or New Zealand doesn't? You honestly don't think the fact the the US government has been overthrowing muslim regimes, assasination government and religious leaders, bombing and killing millions of civilians, building bases on holy land, and proping up dictitorial regimes has anything to do with these attacks against the United States and its citizens?... thats just plain ignorant.
Try saying that after WWII if America never existed. Pretty sure they wouldn't they called that, and your slave population wouldn't dare recognize them.
Switzerland and New Zealand are examples of free countries that the terrorists leave alone, might this be due to these countries not doing all the terrible thing the US government is doing to many muslim people and nations?
I don't understand your third point, please clarify.
And as many have said before, those who ignore history are bound to repeat it! Ever heard of the Shah of Iran? You pissed me off when you answered the way you did! And, how many people have to die in Iran before the covert force, we have there, leaves them alone?! We can't run the entire wold! We sure are doing a good job at messing it up, while trying to, though!
The Shah was(and), is an upgrade from Jimmy Carter's favorite abomination.
Iran was much better off. Not the best, but better than the terrorist state they're now. Hell, they were once allied with America. Way back before Obamao's biggest inspiration decided to fuck with the Middle East.
Everything we've done since then revolves around Carter's stupidity. The sickest thing is that he's still at it. Israel is the devil, jihad is our friend.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
-7 thumbs down.
You people are sad excuses for conservatives. Really, how far can we diverge from reality before you understand what reality actually is.
Read a book. Try Levin, maybe Malkin or Coulter.
Who do you read? Should I propose Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Marx!?! What team are you playing for?
This is truly sick!!! I guess 9/11 was an inside job and the Jooos are the root of all evil. I've spent far too much time defending conservatives from such retarded beliefs.
Yes, it's sad that fiscal conservatives fall for ideas of far-left guys like Noam Chomsky when it comes to Islamic Jihadism and what to do about it.
I have noticed they tended to rely on Jihadist statments , not knowing that these terrorists are only justfying it for useful idiots like Chomsky to believe.
In a recently revised and republished paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC consensus atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Its worth noting that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology thats how new this made up branch of science really is.
If consensus was science Galileo would have been burned at the stake.
of course it can be corrupted by politics the mere fact that most of the research is funded by taxation makes it corrupt by nature as a consequence, said research is likely to be swayed to benefit what ever political party is endorsing it rather than to be true to the scientific method.
The "left" trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with them, the "right" using fear tactics of some global agenda involving thousands of scientists, governments, & research organizations.
This annoys me to no end. The environment is a serious issue. I guess it's my idealism that led me to believe that the environment would be one of the few serious subjects not to be ruined by partisan hacks. *sigh*
Some one is right and some one is wrong? Look. No. That's bunk. Often times some one is right about something but wrong about something else. Global warming, as a theory, has plenty of proof to back it. That doesn't make the solutions the left presents right, or even the mass hysteria over it they are shedding to garner political power right. Sort of like gay rights. If you take a stereotypical liberal and conservative and have them say their pieces on it I will probably want to slap them both.
I was referring to global warming, not homosexual rights. You are conflating two separate and different issues. Re: global warming, either human action is causing it or it isn't. Hence, someone is
right and someone is wrong. Got it? And I think global warming is BS.
What if Global Warming is real but humanity isn't influencing it like the left claims (though I suppose in that case human action isn't causing it)? What if we are, but not as much as we think we are? Human action is only kind of causing it? If so, how much of it is being caused by human action? An insignificant amount? A lot?
Damn Jack, that was great! Although, I think Hillery was also wrong about Bill as well. I think he did play "hide-n-seek with that cigar.
The propaganda will never end as long as America is dumbed down with entertainment, and the history lessons of our founders fall on deaf ears. There was a reason they called them "Mr. President" instead of "Your Majesty." And it started with George.
What a stupid video. Just because there is some political controversy around climate science means that there is valid reason for political inquries? What if corporate interests were threated by the findings of quantum mechanics, would questioning quantum mechanics then become a patriotic duty of dilligent conservatives against an alleged liberal faith in quantum mechanics? If you want to challenge any specific point of or findings of climate science, adress it scientifically, not politically.
shamusername 9 months ago
@shamusername There is alot of scientific research that claims climate change isn't manmade. Furthermore, there are benefits to the earth getting warmer. Don't believe everything you're told, do some research.
xtremejohnny69 7 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 "There is alot of scientific research that claims climate change isn't manmade." – Uh, no there isn't.
shamusername 7 months ago
@shamusername Have you done the research? Ever heard of the medieval warming period? What about the fact that CO2 levels rise AFTER heat rises in the earth's temperature. But hey, if you wanna continue to believe everything you're told and swallow it hook, line, and sinker, be my guest. Don't try and act smarter when I tried to give you the facts though.
xtremejohnny69 7 months ago
The problem is not just "Big Government", it's also "Big Politics" – the idea, that politics can solve anything, be it through empowering or dismantling government or the state. Seriously thinking you can blindly deny reality and just shove away empirical science of climate change with the bellowing calls of talk radio is utterly moronic and one of the main reasons a lot of reasonable, rational people will never join the conservative cause.
shamusername 9 months ago
Glad you were willing to admit the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were false, SA. However, you seem to misguiding the threat here with Global warming which is a effect of Climate Change, a verifiable phenomena.
blaqb0x 11 months ago
The Star-trek federation is a perfect example of global government! But seriously, nice job, again, SA!
whiff1962 1 year ago
One comment on the homophobia of psychiatry: I don't think it was that the field disliked gays, but rather the behavior was understood to be outside the realm of "normal." I think the change came when Kinsey and his group actually study sexual preferences and found that there exists a continuum, rather than a mutually exclusive preference.
beadunkadunk 1 year ago
You are right about a lot of this but you made one mistake. Darwin's book was not racist.
Scoforever 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
recruitJackHunter dotttt Commm
LibertyPulse 2 years ago
I have shed and renounce my conservative view, I want answers and there's nothing wrong with Questioning. Conservative views along with Liberal views are at best ANAL (or one might say tunnel vision)
myitaly 2 years ago
As a moderate Mississippian, I couldn't agree more.
CeltHound 2 years ago
I denounce the extreme opinions of both the Liberal and neocon side of things. But I will try and reason with the opinions of others. I don't believe that much with Global Warming. But I don't reject it like it is a religion like what the folks in Fox News are trying to prove.
But I read a recent NASA article on how our sun is reaching a stage where these solar storm are getting stronger and it can affect our Earth's atmosphere within two years. We do need our science, but true science.
b07rivera 2 years ago
DEO VINDICE!
rebelstang 2 years ago
The accent is perfect lol
GSDebunked 2 years ago
tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
Volim1Ranga1 2 years ago
"You're a neocon warmonger. I'm done with this pointless exchange."
That's the kind of exchange I've come to expect from the far-left who cares more about ideology than facts or people (since they don't have to bear to consequences of their emotional politics talk).
Aren't you better than that? Come on.
xleax 2 years ago
BBC 18 June, 2004
Putin says Iraq planned US attack
"After the events of 11 September 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.
He said the information received by Russian intelligence suggested Iraq was planning attacks in the United States, "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets".
xleax 2 years ago
That they were going to strike the US.
What you're saying is bull - they slaughtered civilians and attacked government buildings on 9/11 before the Afghan and Iraq war.
xleax 2 years ago
The far-left and some of this right, such as on this board, are enablers of Islamic Jihadism, which is basically an Islamic version of Crusades.
Saddam violated the UN-cease fire agreement 17 times and refused to cooperate with weapon inspectors. There were also a lot of intelligence reports coming out, that suggested that Iraq is poised to strike (even Russian intel said that) and on top of that Saddam was killing his own people.
That would be justification alone, without WMD's.
xleax 2 years ago
Saddam was killing his own people. But has it ever occured to you that interfering in the policies of other nations is potentially more destructive that allowing human rights injustices to occur?
henry770 2 years ago
true, he was doing the world a favor by killing his own people, let muslims kill each other off, its better than interfering and giving them a reason to unite against you.
FreeLebanonFromIslam 2 years ago
Right, it's illogical for the reason you just outlined. Even if you're not a hopeless idealogue like me, who actually believes it wasn't even really our right to tresspass against them any more than it would be for them to tresspass against us... it defies reason to get involved because it will galvanize the muslim peoples against us. On top of that, speaking to present day, we have much more important concerns than Afghanistan. Namely this economy tanking.
henry770 2 years ago
i agree, it may sound "harsh" to some people, but its better to let them kill each other than to give them reason to kill americans. and if they STILL go after americans even when americans stay out of it, theyre just going to expose themselves to the world as terrorists, they certainly dont need americas help to do that
FreeLebanonFromIslam 2 years ago
If I have to choose between a per-emptive war against a major problem that is Jihadism, and doing nothing about it, I choose the lesser of two evils, which is a pre-emptive war against Jihadism.
Look, this is triage; like Truman's decision to drop atom bombs. If he didn't do that a lot more people would have died.
It's easy to idealize about these things but in reality presidents are often between a rock and a hard place - Truman didn't decide that lightheartedly.
xleax 2 years ago
The fact of the matter is that it isn't that simple. Japan is a clearly definable nation-state, and fundamentalist Islam is a philosophy. You can't fight a conventional war against an idea. The reason why is that even if you can rationalize away the collateral damage being done--which in this case is much higher than it was in World War 2--that damage serves as the catalyst to perpetuate the war, not end it, as is the case with against a country that has to answer to the grief of its citizens.
henry770 2 years ago
Probably more than half of the civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq are Al-Qaida or Taliban's doing. So, not only do they have the "infidel" west, but they have all the other Muslims that don't think like they are, therefore they [infidels] don't deserve to live.
So the US forces and NATO forces are still there because otherwise Al-Qaida would take over, preach Jihad and slaughter anyone who disagrees.
xleax 2 years ago
Source?
andersoncouncil1968 2 years ago
Ok, search for:
LogicTimes Civilian
and/or
markhumphrys iraq dead
xleax 2 years ago
Comment removed
0emanresu0 2 years ago
It's not the dislike of Islam, as it is the dislike of people who blow themselfs up for Allah.
Allah that is often described as "Allah the Merciful" in the Koran.
If all Muslims would buy this Jihadist excuse for hatred, then the world, or Western civilization, would be long gone, as there is 1 Billion of Muslims in the world.
xleax 2 years ago
I would argue there are one billion Chinese as well. Numbers only account for so much.
Every country in the world that still legally executes people for being gay is Muslim. In several Muslim countries (not all) rape victims are punished more harshly than the men who rape them. In some Muslim nations in Africa they still- legally- burn people accused of witchcraft ALIVE.
Not all Muslims are like that. Some Christians -are- like that. But no Christian nation still legally does this.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
The last "Christian" nation to behave like this was Nazi Germany- which is arguable as not all the Nazis used religion to justify their actions and many were openly non-Christian. Before that it was during the 1600s. What unnerves me, less about individual Muslims and more about the world where they are the dominating force, is that it is like they are stuck in the middle ages.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Yeah it's like Islam is where Christianity was with their crusades and inquisition 500 years ago.
xleax 2 years ago
That's exactly what it is, though just from a nit pick position the Crusades were more around 1000 AD and the Inquisitions were more around 1400 AD. Not that that is terribly relevant to the point.
Islam might revolutionize themselves, they might not. Only time will tell.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
And the reason Jihadism is more dangerous is technology. Technology brings a lot of good things, but it also multiplies the evil that can be done.
It used to be that Crusades had to go by foot everywhere carrying their swords and what not. Now, Jihadist get a hold of a bomb, and kill a lot of people instantaneously.
It would be a tragedy if they get a hold of a nuclear weapon..
xleax 2 years ago
You don't believe they have nuclear weapons? Iran got its nuclear technology from Pakistan. How many Russian, American, French, British (so on and so forth) nukes are unaccounted for and probably floating around on the black market.
I remember after 9-11 people speaking of Osama Bin Laden possibly having several small nuclear bombs, no bigger than a brief case.
Jihadists are insane. But there are limits to their insanity. Using a nuke would justify nuclear retaliation. They know that.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
That said, yes. The Jihads (and Crusades) of modern era are far more dangerous than those of the middle ages. Just like all wars. One only has to cross compare the conflicts to realize that...
But really, the five most bloody conflicts (in terms of both soldier and civilian death) of all time go in this order: WWII, Taiping Rebellion (mid 19th century), Genghis Khan's conquest of Asia, WWI, and the Thirty Year War. Yeah, that blew my mind too.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Iran is not capable of launching a nuclear weapon to America. I don't know about Israel though..
xleax 2 years ago
Israel has guarded their status in regards to nuclear weapons very closely. I have no doubt that they HAVE them, but even that is unconfirmed. It should probably remain that way. Declaring they have no nuclear weapons or their range is very short might make them look weak to their enemies and declaring they have long range, even ICBMs, would make them look like bullies to their detractors.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
oh, we know that Israel has the nuclear capability.. I was not sure about Iran, but maybe Iran might be able to launch something to Israel.
xleax 2 years ago
That would be extremely unwise of them if they did.
Seriously throw off their diplomatic balance with other countries. Right now they need the delicate thread that allies them with Russia. Launching the first nuclear strike would universally vilify them, even amoung their own people seeing as Israel is littered with holy shrines to Islam and a nuke would probably destroy a good number. It would also most certainly justify every remotely pro-Israel nation in the world to blow them to hell.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
I'm a scientist who used to work for a gIobaI company, deaIt with the FDA and various reguIatory groups, and heII yeah it's poIiticaI.
That's one of the main reasons I Ieft.
Amy31415 2 years ago 5
Well said sir, well said.
bighead15044 2 years ago
Thanks Jack for all that you do. You have a great perspective on things which is refreshing.
Video embedded at ron-paul . us
FatLibertarian 2 years ago
global warming is the left's war on terror
libertyplayground 2 years ago 3
I would call it the war on pollution. The fact is, cap and trade will allow companies to support more pollution and even if we abolished all industry, remember that 97% of carbon dioxide is natural, and therefore the environmentalists would have to destroy the environment to save it.
ed2point0 2 years ago
SA, by "Favored Races," Darwin wasn't talking about human ethnicities at all; "race" has a totally different meaning in biology. People always misconstrue what Darwin meant and if one actually reads what he wrote, he was more open to racial equality than most people of the time. "On the Origin of Species" is not racist, and even IF Darwin were an ardent racist, evolution by natural selection would still be valid science and the basis of biology.
MagnusIan 2 years ago
A negative rating for telling the truth? Wow, good job whatever moronic prick did that.
MagnusIan 2 years ago
Sniper6081-
Darwin was definitely a racist, as most people were ( are still are).
Jack- finally you spread the criticism around instead of blaming republicans for everything.
Global warming is bullcrap. no way around it.
gf4rce 2 years ago
Well science is not about expert consensus, and you are right to reject such a concept, but I understood what the greenhouse effect was way back when I was in third grade, and since then no one has offered any reason whatsoever that we should believe it actually doesn't work that way.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago
Hold on Jack. Darwin was not a racist. In fact, he was one of the biggest anti-slavery protestors of his time. If you want you can read the letters he sent to the British parliament stating his disdain for his governments continued support for slavery online. Even if he were racist though that woldn't dsprove evolution. That subtitle you refer to has nothing to do with the kind of "race" you're familiar with, rather the race of other species, like the human race for example.
sniper6081 2 years ago 2
Well done.
israelandersonvideo 2 years ago
Sorry but Blacks are still inferior.
decimator333 2 years ago
Keep them coming Jack
jsh78mang 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Excuse me, southernavenger, but WMD's were not a lie - they were mistaken. And not just they, all the other intelligences that the US relied upon.
It cannot be a lie if you believe it to be true.
However, they probably could have made the case on the war in Iraq without such an emphasis on WMD's, to please you nitpickers.. like you and the far-left (e.g. Michael Moore).
xleax 2 years ago
Hey xlax, call it what you want but you know they're lying to us.
dreamwhileyousleep 2 years ago
Not at all.
Even for the global warming. I don't think it's man made, but Obama and co, does but I don't think they're lying either. I think they're just true believers, but I could be wrong.
xleax 2 years ago
"It cannot be a lie if you believe it to be true."
I am sorry, but I just got this mental image of you wearing a cape and jumping off a building yelling "I BELIEVE I CAN FLYYYY!!!"
That's silly. That said, rather Bush knowingly lied about things is debatable. But that didn't change the fact that what he said was untrue, which does constitute a lie rather it was intentional or not.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
If you say Bush was a liar then Blair, Powell and all the WMD intelligences lied..
I have little time for conspiracy theories.
xleax 2 years ago
Then why are you still replying and not, you know, getting lost?
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Hopefully it will enlightened someone and free them from conspiracy theories.
Take Bruce Lee - he was no in favor of a rigid stance because it limits your options of what you can do, of where can strike and how you can defend yourself.
Same in politics. As you take a position, you limit your perception. That's especially true in any conspiracy theory. The only debate they have is how big the conspiracy theory is and dismiss any fact that shows otherwise as a lie.
xleax 2 years ago
Ah, then is dismissing the conspiracy theory not just as bad? You are limiting your perception of things.
Of course, I don't believe this is a conspiracy theory. A lie, as I said, is a lie. A falsehood. Even if the person who spoke said lie did not know it was a lie at the time.
Now, as a non-mind reader I don't proclaim to know rather Bush knew this, or the CIA did. The excuse put forth is that Saddam was funding what he thought was a program to manufacture them but the funding was going
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
towards other things and the intelligence agencies just picked up on his intent.
That sounds reasonable to me. But are they telling the truth in that regard would be the million dollar question and we are left to speculate.
As some one that likes keeping an open mind I can see the argument for both. Maybe it is true. Maybe the CIA lied to Bush. Maybe both the CIA and Bush are liars. Who knows?
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Well the reason I don't buy conspiracy theories is because there's no credible evidence to back them up. What happens is that conspiracy theorists reference other conspiracy theories..
The only thing I doubt here is Al Gore and his global warming machine.
Now I don't think CIA are liars. I think tho that the argument for the Iraq war could be made even without the WMD's, however, the CIA saw evidence to support that Saddam has them, or is developing them (and he refused to cooperate).
xleax 2 years ago
There's no credible evidence to deny them either. It's like the existence of God. Based more on faith than reason, and while certainly you can say I don't buy the existence of an invisible sky magician, to deny any remote possibility of its existence is a bit foolish.
I find the idea that politicians and bureaucrats are prone to lying more credible than the idea of God, for the record. And that scientists will lie and tell officials what they want to hear to get government funding.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
The evidence to disprove them is solid. Conspiracy theories are mostly written by outsiders wanting to cash in on a paranoia.
xleax 2 years ago
It would be very easy to dispel the global warming via co2 gasses. Man made climate change/Weather modification/weather as a weapon has been going on for a long time via chemtrails and the use of HAARP. Either you are blind or complicate, which is it Mr Avenger?
cdimmm 2 years ago
the global warming that Gore advocates IS a hoax! You are the blind one!
cat22203 2 years ago
I agree. Chemtrails and HAARP have been used by the military for decades to alter weather patterns and use co2 as a scapegoat.
cdimmm 2 years ago
Thanks SA, another great vid!
kpscully 2 years ago 2
Somebody had to say it. Thanks SA.
realrockvince 2 years ago 2
As part of the healing process I admit my guilt for believing the Neo-Con lies. Admit the truth and advance yourselves people, or find yourself stuck and damned in a rut of your own making.
Another great piece Jack.
kmg501 2 years ago 2
Time & Newsweek suck.
USA4July1776 2 years ago
AGW is a religion.
In the UK the 'Conservatives' are the worst when it comes to AGW.
Your right about conservative religiosity as well. Especially with the war in Iraq.
Scoforever 2 years ago
Very Good!
If you see this young woman please tell her she is naked on the Internet because she was duped into being full body airport scanned.
trestradapalma 2 years ago
The gay/minority stuff was pseudoscience at best. Yes, science will make mistakes, but the scientific method will hopefully correct it. Politicians are often misinformed. Potholer54's vids are pretty good at pointing out how both supporters and deniers of climate change talk shit with out looking at the actual science behind it . Bush's propaganda had nothing to do with the scientific method. It is not a great analogy.
tattypatty 2 years ago 2
Not a great one but not a poor one.
I remind you that Bush also was depending on things the CIA (snakes) told him. Facts, if you will. That turned out to be false and/or misinformed.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
climate change = the weather?
jamminjago 2 years ago
Thank you, Jack, for another well-spoken (and well-read, and well-researched... ) Op-Ed.
Where your factual, historical and logical basis for argument ends, others' excited moonbattery begins.
You're not famous, but you're right. ;)
Schmauey 2 years ago
Is it true that the last decade or so has seen a tremendous shift from the 90s climate heating up by lowering temperatures, as many global warming deniers claim?? I dunno. It seems too convenient for the deniers. If it is, it's quite a coincidence.
whoo689 2 years ago
no! 2009 was the hottest year on record in australia
Interactivesystems 2 years ago
What percentage of the globe does AU make up?
conspiracy777 2 years ago
its the 6th largest land mass, its about 7,692,024 km squared. dunno what percent that is of the globe. worst per capita carbon polluters.
Interactivesystems 2 years ago
That's sort of the catch 22.
Other places had record low temperatures in 2009. The entire planet isn't going to be the same, but people trying to prove a point will jump at anything then wag it in your face any time you try to say something otherwise.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
As always Jack your writing is superb and delivery of ideas is very clear. Great video!
ryanthomastew 2 years ago
"global" because Globalization is the most powerful force of our era, it is true and pervasive, and no one can stop it!
Hence, Obama is a globalist and not a liberal. People wake up!
cat22203 2 years ago
and yes, global warming is the BIGGEST hoax ever!
cat22203 2 years ago
You forgot to mention the Serbiagate lie when it comes to Hillary, BUT she became Secretary of State!
BTW, fact I just learned: The party that urged the Supreme Court not to grant the victims' appeal because the illegality of torture was not "clearly established" was the Obama Justice Department.
cat22203 2 years ago
So, what liberal Obama are you talking about people?
cat22203 2 years ago
What mystifies me is that those who perpetuate propaganda act as though everyone believes them.
Even when we see beyond their ineptly constructed veils they go around implementing their schemes and puffing themselves up with self-importance and chastising those who criticize their claims and the actions they take based on those claims.
It's in their best interest to believe that we believe their hype, but they come across as belligerent little idiots when they do so, not "experts" or "heroes."
continuityofliberty 2 years ago
that picture is misleading. darwin was not a racist, his book was about species, not human races.
littlebier8 2 years ago
1: Darwin wasn't but some Darwinists are?
2: Are specie and race all that different? Let me rephrase that a few times. Are sub-specie and race all that different? Are breed and race all that different? Do you deny intrinsic differences between the races that go beyond skin pigmentation? Think carefully about that- and before responding note I am not calling any race inferior. Just making a point.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
1. Yeah, so what? Jesus wasn't a racist, but some Christians are- that only proves that racist people can twist the writings of any scientist or religious leader to fit their racist dogma.
2. Yes. Species and race ARE different, not even close to the same thing. And blacks, whites, and Hispanics are not "sub-species" of Homo sapiens, they are simply different races of the same species (as opposed to Neanderthals and Cro Magnon). They are all genetically equally human in every sense.
littlebier8 2 years ago
You realize what a Darwinist is, right? Not really? Didn't think so. Darwinism = Applying survival of the fittest to human beings something Darwin himself probably wouldn't condone, however they don't need it unlike Christians who believe their religious leader does- almost HAS to.
And did I say Specie and Race were NOT different? I said are they ALL that different. Don't twist my words to favor your knee-jerk reaction.
Sub-specie gets closer to what I was implying. Breed even further.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Don't talk down to me you ignorant fool. I won't have this debate with a non-scientist.
littlebier8 2 years ago
Reading this again... A non-scientist? Really? Aren't we condescending. Pretentious and dismissive of the actual points being presented as well.
I will talk down to any one I please to. Just like you can run and hide every time and resort to petty name calling.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
You better believe I'm condescending, pretentious, and dismissive of racists who like to dress up their fatuous ideology in the cheap tuxedo of pseudoscience. If I thought that you were serious about having a scientific debate I would gladly entertain you. But you aren't.
As Stephen Jay Gould used about creationism, I say of racism: I will not give the oxygen of debate to this nonsense.
littlebier8 2 years ago
So I am racist because I am pointing out my cheekbones, as a Cherokee Indian, are higher than yours as a (presumably) white person? Or that Africans have higher fat deposits in their extremities? Oh yeah, that totally makes one of those races superior to the other.
Interesting denial of actual physical traits! You are a fucking idiot.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
A terrible irony did just occur to me. Because Africans store more fat than other races they have better insulation and better cushioning for their skeletons and muscles, and can store more potential energy in the form of fat cells.
Despite being Cherokee/Irish I am apparently a black supremacist for pointing that out and littlebier is right! Who knew?
But to digress the differences are still as subtle as that of a German Shepard and a Siberian Husky. But differences are differences.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Racists are not racist because of any scientific support for their beliefs. I can't presume to explain where individuals latent racism comes from. What racists do is cherry-pick scientific data to support beliefs that they hold for other reasons.
I never denied that there are different traits endemic to different races. What I refuse to do is discuss them without the rigorous context of science. Give a racist an inch of science, he'll take it to a mile of extremism.
"You are a fucking idiot."
littlebier8 2 years ago
And again, I am -not- a racist. I went to PAINSTAKING degrees to make this abundantly clear to you. I simply said that different races hold different biological traits, which you apparently agree with. Taxonomic ranks would go like this, Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Infraclass, Order, Family, Genus, Specie, Sub-Specie, Race, Sub-race. There are subtle differences in lime trees, we refer to the different lime trees as different RACES of lime trees. Now, the way I see it is that you (cont
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
jumped to an insane, extreme hair brained conclusion based on your own presumptions and calling me a racist insults me grievously. Being racist would infer that I believe one race to be superior to another and I clearly do not. Now the question I have to ask is are you any where near moral enough to admit you were wrong and apologize?
Oh, I know, the internet is 'serious business', but hey, if you want to be an intellectual here this comes with the territory.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Both a Siberian Husky and a German Shepard are genetically equally dog in every sense. I wasn't trying to imply that other races were non-human, as I made painstakingly clear if you would bother actually reading what I am saying.
Speaking of which, try actually answering my question. Do you deny intrinsic differences between the races that go beyond skin pigmentation? The same bone structure? The same texture of hair?
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dubya liberated millions of Iraqis and is the main reason Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah are losing their grasps on dictatorship.
Ron Paul pissed me off when he foolishly claimed Islamo-fascist terrorism only exists because we are occupiers. Wrong in so many different ways.
Aside from that, I'm in 100% agreement.
incognito9887 2 years ago
The US is also responsible for the deaths of millions of Iraqi's through collateral damage and sanctions against the country. It isn't our responsibility to take on such a burden of "liberating" the world. Its very Wilsonian (Woodrow Wilson, a very liberal guy) to believe that is our job.
Furthermore, I don't know about Ron Paul's claims about Fascism in the Islamic world being caused by us, but we certainly play a strong roll in terrorist groups to recruit.
ganondorky 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, I don't know about the deaths of millions Iraqi's. Are you referring to what happened when we didn't finish the job after Desert Storm? I guess that kind of thing happens when one abandons their allies, much like Vietnam.
It's foolish to speak of one's burdens when it come downs to ones security. Financial security based in energy is one of them. Drill here, now, nuclear, we're behind the curve.
Ron Paul claimed we(the model of the free world) was the target, only, because we occupy.
incognito9887 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
allies = those who side with us against the dictators, i.e. totalitarians.
incognito9887 2 years ago
Abandons their allies? So we abandoned Kuwait did we? I didn't know that... I mean, we abandoned South Vietnam. Look at them. Still Communist and yet we trade with them. Why not with fascist?
Ron Paul's claim is that we make it easy for the spread of terrorism by sticking our nose in the middle east. Western culture and Islamic culture is oil and water. It will never mix. Thinking we can stick our nose into their business and not be resented for it is naive.
ganondorky 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Kurds = South Vietnam
Who would they be, if?
We stick our noses in radical islam when they see a free women showing her ankles and having an opinion.
We piss them off when law means a separation of religion and morals.
Oil and water is right.
We're the water that's left when the oil finishes burning.
God Bless America.
incognito9887 2 years ago
Oops, a "free woman"
Or "see free women having opinions."
incognito9887 2 years ago
shut up sick redneck! I am not even American and you are ridiculing your whole nation with the bullshit you say! Go hide somewhere and stop ridiculing America because uncultured sick fucks like you have brought your nation to the disgrace it is today!
cat22203 2 years ago
or I should say better sik zionist prick...your parents must be really embarassed if they are Americans!
cat22203 2 years ago
We agree that our cultures don't mix.
Its hard to recruit people to commit suicide for Jihad. Trying to convince them that women voting and wearing jeans means you can't go to heaven? I wouldn't kill myself for that reason.
When you watch a bomb land on your house? A stray bullet hit your father? Your land being invaded by a foreign country? I would happily give up my life if it meant stopping these things.
Why kill Americans for the affairs of the mid east. I don't get it.
ganondorky 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I understand your point. What are we to do when terrorism against the U.S. is fostered in certain Muslim States?
Oh, and in Radical Islam, recruiting a jihadist is quite simple. Would you be opposed to 72 virgins serving your every need and desire?
incognito9887 2 years ago
typical American redneck...you are so ignorant, brainwashed, uncultured and uneducated (i.e., what a real redneck is), I feel sorry for you...probably you live at Texas? Rednecks like you give America a bad name!
cat22203 2 years ago
Cat You're racist.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
Chicago.
Thanks for checking my channel before attacking my "redneck."
I would be a hypocrite if I attacked you(I will never look at your sad profile).
I'll just say: "God Bless You"
incognito9887 2 years ago
@incognito9887 Ever wondered why the US gets the brunt of terrorist attacks, and switzerland or New Zealand doesn't? You honestly don't think the fact the the US government has been overthrowing muslim regimes, assasination government and religious leaders, bombing and killing millions of civilians, building bases on holy land, and proping up dictitorial regimes has anything to do with these attacks against the United States and its citizens?... thats just plain ignorant.
tfboyle 2 years ago 4
Ignorance is integral to your baseless claims.
Switzerland and New Zealand?
Try saying that after WWII if America never existed. Pretty sure they wouldn't they called that, and your slave population wouldn't dare recognize them.
incognito9887 2 years ago
@incognito9887 What was baseless about my claims?
Switzerland and New Zealand are examples of free countries that the terrorists leave alone, might this be due to these countries not doing all the terrible thing the US government is doing to many muslim people and nations?
I don't understand your third point, please clarify.
tfboyle 2 years ago 3
See WWII
incognito9887 2 years ago
Some might call these countries that benefited from U.S. intervention. I'm one of many.
incognito9887 2 years ago
Switzerland wasn't involved in World War II. They claimed neutrality and both the Axis and Allies respected that.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
incog,
And as many have said before, those who ignore history are bound to repeat it! Ever heard of the Shah of Iran? You pissed me off when you answered the way you did! And, how many people have to die in Iran before the covert force, we have there, leaves them alone?! We can't run the entire wold! We sure are doing a good job at messing it up, while trying to, though!
mlang52 2 years ago 2
The Shah was(and), is an upgrade from Jimmy Carter's favorite abomination.
Iran was much better off. Not the best, but better than the terrorist state they're now. Hell, they were once allied with America. Way back before Obamao's biggest inspiration decided to fuck with the Middle East.
Everything we've done since then revolves around Carter's stupidity. The sickest thing is that he's still at it. Israel is the devil, jihad is our friend.
Only if we stay out of the way. Sharia for Life.
incognito9887 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
-7 thumbs down.
You people are sad excuses for conservatives. Really, how far can we diverge from reality before you understand what reality actually is.
Read a book. Try Levin, maybe Malkin or Coulter.
Who do you read? Should I propose Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Marx!?! What team are you playing for?
This is truly sick!!! I guess 9/11 was an inside job and the Jooos are the root of all evil. I've spent far too much time defending conservatives from such retarded beliefs.
Was I wrong?
incognito9887 2 years ago
Yes, it's sad that fiscal conservatives fall for ideas of far-left guys like Noam Chomsky when it comes to Islamic Jihadism and what to do about it.
I have noticed they tended to rely on Jihadist statments , not knowing that these terrorists are only justfying it for useful idiots like Chomsky to believe.
xleax 2 years ago
In a recently revised and republished paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC consensus atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Its worth noting that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology thats how new this made up branch of science really is.
If consensus was science Galileo would have been burned at the stake.
northpal2 2 years ago 3
"A trial without a defense is a sham.
Business without competition is a monopoly.
Science without debate is propaganda."
-Joanne Nova
ganondorky 2 years ago 4
of course it can be corrupted by politics the mere fact that most of the research is funded by taxation makes it corrupt by nature as a consequence, said research is likely to be swayed to benefit what ever political party is endorsing it rather than to be true to the scientific method.
MOONDOGGIESWTF 2 years ago
BOTH sides are politicizing climate change.
The "left" trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with them, the "right" using fear tactics of some global agenda involving thousands of scientists, governments, & research organizations.
This annoys me to no end. The environment is a serious issue. I guess it's my idealism that led me to believe that the environment would be one of the few serious subjects not to be ruined by partisan hacks. *sigh*
Nawledge1 2 years ago 2
Politizing the issue or not, someone is right and someone is wrong. At some point the Left is going to have to provide proof of global warming, NOT
faith. With scientific issues faith simply doesn't cut it.
maxsnafu 2 years ago
As far as I know, there's plenty of proof. From videos online to hundreds of peer reviewed papers.
Nawledge1 2 years ago
Some one is right and some one is wrong? Look. No. That's bunk. Often times some one is right about something but wrong about something else. Global warming, as a theory, has plenty of proof to back it. That doesn't make the solutions the left presents right, or even the mass hysteria over it they are shedding to garner political power right. Sort of like gay rights. If you take a stereotypical liberal and conservative and have them say their pieces on it I will probably want to slap them both.
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
I was referring to global warming, not homosexual rights. You are conflating two separate and different issues. Re: global warming, either human action is causing it or it isn't. Hence, someone is
right and someone is wrong. Got it? And I think global warming is BS.
maxsnafu 2 years ago
What if both sides are wrong?
What if Global Warming is real but humanity isn't influencing it like the left claims (though I suppose in that case human action isn't causing it)? What if we are, but not as much as we think we are? Human action is only kind of causing it? If so, how much of it is being caused by human action? An insignificant amount? A lot?
You see what I meant now?
Silvsilvchan 2 years ago
Excellent!
I was offended by the photo of Obama and Gore together. I can barely stand looking at either one separately.
thecommaking 2 years ago 7
Ya, no kidding the "science" behind global warming is politicized.
bittergunowner12 2 years ago 2
Great job jack
blowuputube 2 years ago
The Left/Right false paradigm must continue to be dismantled.
8DoverNJ 2 years ago 10
Damn Jack, that was great! Although, I think Hillery was also wrong about Bill as well. I think he did play "hide-n-seek with that cigar.
The propaganda will never end as long as America is dumbed down with entertainment, and the history lessons of our founders fall on deaf ears. There was a reason they called them "Mr. President" instead of "Your Majesty." And it started with George.
cowboy1165 2 years ago 2
good stuff as usual
JoeyPencils 2 years ago 3