Say Anything Blog

The debate over what?

You’re not trying to tie in the question of whether or not the Earth is getting warmer (it is and has been for awhile now) with the question of whether or not the warming is anthropological, are you?

It sure seems like it.

To echo Likwidshoe a bit, there really isn’t any debate that the Earth is getting warmer.  After all there aren’t any ice sheets out there where Chicago is now.

The question is whether all or most of the recent global warming is anthropogenic in nature.  This connection is made more tenuous, for example, when we note that the temperature increase in the first half of the 20th century was almost equal to that from the second half, yet most of the CO2 emissions occurred post 1950.

Mike,

What a stretch.  Regional climates vary year to year, decade to decade, and often quite dramatically.
Comparing one regions climate variations to global climate change is ridiculous.

You’re not trying to tie in the question of whether or not the Earth is getting warmer (it is and has been for awhile now) with the question of whether or not the warming is anthropological, are you?

Nope...just linking an interesting story.

Comparing one regions climate variations to global climate change is ridiculous.

Lots of things are ridiculous but that doesn’t make them uninteresting.

The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps.
Benjamin Disraeli

Rex Grossman sucks.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Lots of things are ridiculous but that doesn’t make them uninteresting.

This is true.  Interest in the ridiculous abounds.  Global warming, Darwinism, Michael Jackson… just to name a few.

I sure would appreciate it if those who are interested in the ridiculous would just go out and buy a tabloid paper or a political work by a liberal author.  This way the individual pays for their own interests and it doesn’t cost the rest of us libety and money.

HG...I’d love to respond to that but I haven’t got a clue what you mean so I’ll just wish you a Merry Christmas instead.

The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps.
Benjamin Disraeli

MikeA: As you well know, local weather and world climate are two different things.  Nice try, though.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

r108...I understand that. I don’t understand the bit about buying a tabloid or a liberal tract so that HG doesn’t lose his liberty...I’m sure there is a connection but perhaps I have to read Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson or some similar intellectual heavyweight to see it. Merry Christmas to you BTW.

The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps.
Benjamin Disraeli

MikeA: I didn’t understand that part, either.  Merry Christmas to you, as well.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Mike & R108,

The left’s interest in the ridiculous (global warming for instance) is costing citizens in taxes and liberty. The left can’t keep their interest in the ridiculous to themselves, they want everyone to suffer their plight.

Mike & R108, a very Merry Christmas to you both as well, and thank you for the same.

HG: Merry Christmas to you!

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

HG...thanks for the explanation. At the expense of appearing unfestive, I’m not so crazy about the right’s insistence on imposing its more ridiculous interests on the world but I’m hopeful that the worst excesses will end in 2009.

The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps.
Benjamin Disraeli

...the right’s insistence on imposing its more ridiculous interests on the world…

Do you mean the real right, like the neonazis and the jihadists, or do you mean the MSM “right”, which refers to anyone who doesn’t buy into the far-left agenda?
As far as I know, the only places where the real right is imposing its interests(ridiculous or otherwise) on the world is in the ME.
If you are referring to the MSM “right”, then you must really hate the founding principles of the USA.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

r108...a fair question as the right/left labels don’t really describe much anymore. In this case, I’m referring to the folks whose reaction to the 911 attack was an attempt to remake the ME in America’s image through military means rather than holding the perps to account and addressing the causes of anti-American behaviour.

The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps.
Benjamin Disraeli

and quit trying to hijack a thread about bears.

The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps.
Benjamin Disraeli

MikeA: My profoundest apologies to the bears.  The “perps” were all killed in the attack, so we went to the deeper levels, which is a radical version of a religion that has been imperialist since its inception in medieval times.  The effort to transform the ME into a place that is in step with this century is the real solution, since those radicals are actually not only anti-American, they are anti-Canadian, anti-British, anti-Balian, anti-Thai, anti-Swedish, anti-Spanish, etc, etc.  You get the idea.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

anti-Belgian too?

The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps.
Benjamin Disraeli

robert108 says, Do you mean the real right, like the neonazis and the jihadists, or do you mean the MSM “right”, which refers to anyone who doesn’t buy into the far-left agenda?

Oh, good grief. When will you get off of the idea that “the real right” is Neonazis or Jihadists? It doesn’t make sense using today’s definitions and it didn’t make any sense using yesterday’s definitions either.

MikeAdamson said, In this case, I’m referring to the folks whose reaction to the 911 attack was an attempt to remake the ME in America’s image through military means rather than holding the perps to account and addressing the causes of anti-American behaviour.

Remake it in whose image? Get real. There is only one America and we’re not trying to spread it to the Middle East. It wouldn’t work there anyways. Hell, it wouldn’t even work in your utopia countries of Canada or France Mike.

Root cause: practitioners of Islam who take the Koran literally.

Holding the perps to account and addressing the causes of anti-American “behaviour”: killing many of the Muslims who take the Koran as literal truth while also taking out the dictators who run the place so that people can be free, chose their own destiny, and get wealthy.

This is not rocket science Mike.

I’m not so crazy about the right’s insistence on imposing its more ridiculous interests

Mike,

Here in America, most understand the cost of living in freedom.  We understand the priority of government so that the right’s ("ridiculous") interests in Iraq are necessary to secure liberty.  Other nations have enjoyed the liberty and relative peace America’s strength affords simply because of their geographical location (Canada for instance), and not because they have fought and died for it.  If America goes weak, God forbid, and peace is replaced with terrorist threats and attacks in the US, Canada will feel the threat as well.  After all, the terrorists have plainly declared their intention to convert the whole world at the end of a gun barrel.

MikeA: Anyone who isn’t in the “right” religion, i.e., Islam.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Oh, good grief. When will you get off of the idea that “the real right” is Neonazis or Jihadists? It doesn’t make sense using today’s definitions and it didn’t make any sense using yesterday’s definitions either.

likwid: Notice I asked Mike which definition he was using.  Having said that, I have to ask you what definition are you using?
It is my contention that this whole “right-wing” being used to describe folks who believe in and support the concepts of individual independence and personal freedom, economic freedom, political and religious freedom is pure propaganda.  The lefties have gone so far left, they want to define anyone who doesn’t buy into their far-left totalitarian agenda as “right-wing”.  If words are to mean anything at all(instead of what the propagandists want them to mean), it seems to me that we have to stick with definitions that have some basis in history and reality.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

R108,

Personally, I like being “right”. //pun intended//

I’ve always looked at being “right” as a good thing.  I’ve always looked the “left” as being backwards.

r108...good one.

The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps.
Benjamin Disraeli

robert108 says, It is my contention that this whole “right-wing” being used to describe folks who believe in and support the concepts of individual independence and personal freedom, economic freedom, political and religious freedom is pure propaganda.

Yes, the political center in America used to be what is considered “the right” nowadays. Sadly, “the center” is now pretty socialist. Whether this is the work of the propagandists or whether this is the real political center, I’m not sure. I believe that it is a bit of both.

I won’t argue that the American socialists of the left have redefined the political center, so that everything to the right of them is “far right” and “radical”. They have been doing that since FDR’s days and they’ve really gained traction since the 1960’s.

But to that I say - so what? Minus the “radical” slur, I don’t take too much issue with it. The American left of today has tilted so far to the left that we are “far right wing” to them. Go ahead and call me right wing. It’s a label I’ll wear proudly. It stands for everything I whole-heartedly believe in.

Look at everything you named. Individual independence. Personal freedom. Economic freedom. Political freedom. Religious freedom. The right wing, in this day and age, stands for exactly those things. The left wing, by and large, is against those things. They argue to the contrary of course, but they’re the anti-Christian nanny-staters who want a big government that eats up a large portion of our working life, so their claims of standing for freedom ring a bit hollow.

Sometimes the left/right definitions become an issue when you have some fool who comes along and asserts that he or she is in “the center” and that it is the best place to be because it is “balanced”. When you ask that fool why, he or she is often left scrambling for an answer. But you have to remember that they’re fools and you can’t reason with a fool.

If words are to mean anything at all(instead of what the propagandists want them to mean), it seems to me that we have to stick with definitions that have some basis in history and reality.

No matter how many times it is explained, I still can’t wrap my mind around the notion that Neonazis and libertarians sit side by side or are anywhere close to each other. It makes no sense. You go from freedom and small government and place it right beside the totalitarian governments espoused by Neonazis and Jihadists? That’s not a reality that I inhibit. Those two belief systems are not even in the same plane, much less side by side.

Consider that the Jihadists often sound like our modern day socialist left. They advocate for so many of the same things and they all too often share a common enemy (us) for the same reasons. I hope that you’re not about to tell me that the American left is “the real right” now.

You play right into their propaganda when you assert the neonazi claim. You go on and on about “the left” and “lefties” and then you say that “the real right” is Neonazis and Jihadists? Way to shoot yourself in the foot robert.

In my opinion, you should just keep your mouth shut and let the left define the right as for personal and economic freedom, small government, etc. The way you’re going on, the left will tie low taxes in with religious intolerance and racial neonazi crap and you’ll be right there handing them ammo.

I don’t mean that above paragraph to sound harsh or anything. It’s just that you really are your own worse enemy at times and this is one of those times.

If you want to fight a battle over the meaning of words, fight the left when they redefine the words and terms of “tolerance”, “pro-choice”, “equality”, “greed”, “compassion”, “equal opportunity”, and “affirmative action”.

MikeAdamson said, r108...good one.

What are you? A ‘me-too’ lapdog of robert108’s now? That’s a laugh.

You see that robert108? The socialist is happy that you describe “the real right” as being Neonazis and Jihadists. You’re giving him ammo and he, for once, agrees with you. Mark it down and take note of it because you know as well as I do that Mike almost never agrees with you.

No matter how many times it is explained, I still can’t wrap my mind around the notion that Neonazis and libertarians sit side by side or are anywhere close to each other.I don’t either, which is why I never said any such thing.  I regard libertarians as “liberaltarians”, personally. It makes no sense. You go from freedom and small government and place it right beside the totalitarian governments espoused by Neonazis and Jihadists? That’s not a reality that I inhibit. Those two belief systems are not even in the same plane, much less side by side. I don’t know who you are addresing here, but it certainly isn’t me.

I do agree with you on one thing: Those who claim to be “moderate” are simply socialists who don’t want to deal with the inevitably violent totalitarianism of the Left.  They are the “nice guy” lefties, or at least so they think.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

likwid: Some further points: I consider today’s conservatives to be the real moderates, which is why I don’t like the “definitional pollution” from the propagandists.  If you don’t use “right-wing” correctly, where do you put the neonazis and military dictators, then?
I’m not a partisan thinker, so Mike agreeing with me doesn’t seem all that bothersome; I assumed he was referring to my heartfelt apology to the bears, but you may think what you like.  In any case, I’m here for the ideas, and who types them is not that important to me.  Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then, you know.
The truth is the truth, no matter who says it.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Personally, I like being “right”.

HG,

I have never considered being on the Right to be any different from being in the Right.  And both are immensely satisfactory.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat: We do have the right take on things, I will admit.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

R108,

There is nothing like being Right!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat: True that!

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

lik said

MikeAdamson said, r108...good one.

What are you? A ‘me-too’ lapdog of robert108’s now? That’s a laugh.

Hardly...just appreciating r108’s good humour. I wouldn’t worry too much about us agreeing on many topics.

The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps.
Benjamin Disraeli

If you want to fight a battle over the meaning of words, fight the left when they redefine the words and terms of “tolerance”, “pro-choice”, “equality”, “greed”, “compassion”, “equal opportunity”, and “affirmative action”.

Actually, likwid, I already do that. Don’t forget “warrentless wiretapping”, btw.