 |
Why are you so determined to not allow healthy people some not-so-healthy food at times? The Obamas have always maintained a balance is necessary. You can't eat broccoli 24/7.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If they looked like Chris Christy even after he had stomach stapling and who gets driven 100 yards in a limo to watch a kid's game, then, yes, I would agree with you.
I give up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You don't see the poor pr going on here ? Michelle was talking healthy food to the kids in South Africa ,and when asked what foods she liked best she said "frys" .Quote:
Why are you so determined to not allow healthy people some not-so-healthy food at times?
What's wrong with broccoli? I would rather eat broccoli than that garbage that comproses the average hamburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I had to smile at this. Obviously the Obamas eat healthy - just look at them.
Now look at Christie. This morbidly obese man reflects his political philosophy - the fat get fatter and the poor get poorer. Redistribute the wealth - take from the poor and give to the rich.
Which is precisely what he did in New Jersey by supporting the rich at the expense of the elderly poor.
Like so many of his ilk, his sense of privilege is so great that he was clueless about using the state helicopter to go to his kid's little league game. Only after the public uproar, did he deign to agree to reimburse the taxpayers. HEY, you can't make this stuff up!
You are speaking of the Chris Christie that was born and raised in Newark NJ of Irish and Italian parents . Who went to the University of Delaware and Seton Hall eventually getting a law degree . He eventually became a US District Att. For NJ and then Governor.Quote:
Like so many of his ilk, his sense of privilege is so great...
That "privileged " "ilk".
For a minute I thought you were speaking of John Kerry who parks his yacht in another state to avoid paying Mass. Rates... or Claire McCaskill who bills the US taxpayers $76000 for her private plane use.Or Democratic Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri who has come under attack recently because he billed the State $400,000 for the cost of his junkets.
This essay speaks of Gore ,but could just as easily make the Obamas it's subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The Failure of Al Gore: Part One | Via MeadiaQuote:
But you cannot be a leading environmentalist who hopes to lead the general public into a long and difficult struggle for sacrifice and fundamental change if your own conduct is so flagrantly inconsistent with the green gospel you profess. If the heart of your message is that the peril of climate change is so imminent and so overwhelming that the entire political and social system of the world must change, now, you cannot fly on private jets. You cannot own multiple mansions. You cannot even become enormously rich investing in companies that will profit if the policies you advocate are put into place.
It is not enough to buy carbon offsets (aka “indulgences”) with your vast wealth, not enough to power your luxurious mansions with exotic low impact energy sources the average person could not afford, not enough to argue that you only needed the jet so that you could promote your earth-saving film.
You are asking billions of people, the overwhelming majority of whom lack many of the basic life amenities you take for granted, people who can’t afford Whole Foods environmentalism, to slash their meager living standards. You may well be right, and those changes may be necessary — the more shame on you that with your superior insight and knowledge you refuse to live a modest life. There’s a gospel hymn some people in Tennessee still sing that makes the point: “You can’t be a beacon if your light don’t shine.”...
You can sit on ivory chairs with kings in their halls of gold, participating in the world of politics as usual, or you can live with the prophets and visionaries in the wilderness, voices of a greater truth and higher meaning that challenge the smug certainties and false assumptions of the comfortable, business as usual elites. You cannot do both...
A fawning establishment press spares the former vice president the vitriol and schadenfreude it pours over the preachers and priests whose personal conduct compromised the core tenets of their mission; Gore is not mocked as others have been. This gentle treatment hurts both Gore and the greens; he does not know just how disabling, how crippling the gap between conduct and message truly is. The greens do not know that his presence as the visible head of the movement helps ensure its political failure.
Consider how Gore looks to the skeptics. The peril is imminent, he says. It is desperate. The hands of the clock point to twelve. The seas rise, the coral dies, the fires burn and the great droughts have already begun. The hounds of Hell have slipped the huntsman’s leash and even now they rush upon us, mouths agape and fangs afoam.
But grave as that danger is, Al Gore can consume more carbon than whole villages in the developing world. He can consume more electricity than most African schools, incur more carbon debt with one trip in a private plane than most of the earth’s toiling billions will pile up in a lifetime — and he doesn’t worry. A father of four, he can lecture the world on the perils of overpopulation. Surely, skeptics reason, if the peril were as great as he says and he cares about it as much as he claims, Gore’s sense of civic duty would call him to set an example of conspicuous non-consumption. This general sleeps in a mansion, and lectures the soldiers because they want tents.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
You are asking billions of people, the overwhelming majority of whom lack many of the basic life amenities you take for granted, people who can't afford Whole Foods environmentalism, to slash their meager living standards.
I've been asking for a long time WHAT your reason is to deny climate change... I've thought it was because you owned stock... Now, I see that you believe that an admission of climate change would mean you would have to adopt the "end of American prosperity as we know it" scenario...
Well, of course, if that's true, I'd deny it too... But, you'll have to show me where Al Gore said that in order to FIX it, we have to SLASH our meager living standards.
Could you show me where they say that?? Oh, I don't mean your right wing scare merchants... I'm interested in a plan, or a proposal, or a solution, or a paper, or a notion, that says we must SLASH our living standards to FIX the problem...
I'm not saying that it's not out there.. I'm just saying I haven't read anything that says that... And, I read a LOT!
Excon
Don't eat average hamburgers, eat good hamburgers.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I don't "deny " climate change. Climate change occures all the time . It occurred before the industrial revolution .It occurred before humans walked upright.Quote:
I've been asking for a long time WHAT your reason is to deny climate change
If you ask me if I think the hypothesis of AGW is due to human activity then I say that there is not enough evidence to support that ;and the evidence I've seen has been tainted and distorted by unscientific practices of the lead researchers of the hypothesis.
Nope. What I have said is that unless you can provide the technology to replace the use of carbon based energy then you will cause massive world wide economic disruption. Beyond that I am not opposed to research in alternative energy sources .Quote:
Now, I see that you believe that an admission of climate change would mean you would have to adopt the "end of American prosperity as we know it" scenario...
I'll go further than that . Just this month the Goracle who has a brood of 4 told us his "final [Malthusian] solution" .The rest of us should have less kids. (another example of the libs wanting to get in your bedroom).Since most Western nations have negative populations or stable population growth he must be targeting 3rd world and minority populations . Kill the poor and the non-white is the Gore final solution... he is in league with the eugenist Margaret Sanger .Quote:
But, you'll have to show me where Al Gore said that in order to FIX it, we have to SLASH our meager living standards.
Then you haven't read : Our Common Future - Brundtland Report ~ From One Earth to One World: An overview by the World Commission on Environment and Development written by United Nations World Commission on Environment and DevelopmentQuote:
I'm interested in a plan, or a proposal, or a solution, or a paper, or a notion, that says we must SLASH our living standards to FIX the problem...
I'm not saying that it's not out there.. I'm just saying I haven't read anything that says that... And, I read a LOT!
This from the summary :
http://www.wikilivres.info/wiki/Our_...h_to_One_WorldQuote:
29. Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt life-styles within the planet's ecological means - in their use of energy, for example. Further, rapidly growing populations can increase the pressure on resources and slow any rise in living standards; thus sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.
They hit on their 2 main themes in a single point... The affluent nations need to learn to live on less... and the overpopulated minorities need to be pruned .
Hello again, tom:
I asked the wrong question... Just as you can't be linked to others in your political spectrum, I can't be linked to mine. Of course, there ARE people on the left who call for a return to yurts... But, not me.
You will recall, that, as a businessman, MY solution will, not only allow us to KEEP our standards of living but it will allow us to expand upon them, just like progress has ALWAYS done.
Although I read a LOT, I DON'T read silly stuff, and announcing the end of the world is silly stuff.
excon
Agreed . However ,as the UN wastes resources publishing toilet paper ;the world governments adopt policies based on their recommendations (see Kyoto).
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Somebody has to fill the vacuum. If we don't LEAD, then we'll be stuck with what OTHERS think our fate should be...
In my view, LEADING is investing HEAVILY in new energy technology (yes, investing involves spending). You'd rather sit back and wait..
Speaking as a businessman, new technology doesn't happen if we SIT BACK.
excon
I am not opposed to spending on research .I thought I made that point already. What I am opposed to is policies like taxing the poor because they need to drive to work . I am opposed to government demand and control . If alternatives are viable then private industry will invest heavily in them .
Note all those evil major energy companies do indeed invest in R & D on alt energy because of the potential.
The U.S. oil and natural gas industry invested over $121 billion between 2000 and 2007 in emerging energy technologies, including $12 billion in non-hydrocarbons and $42 billion in greenhouse gas emission mitigation technologies. This investment represents 65% of the estimated total of $188 billion spent by U.S. based companies and the Federal government on emerging energy technologies http://illinoisenergyforum.com/myth/...-technologies-.
Chevron (CVX): $2.5 billion (2007-2009) on various projects, including algae biofuel.
ConocoPhillips (COP): Claims to be searching for wind and solar power investments.
Royal Dutch Shell (RDS-B): Focusing on thin-film solar. Joint ventures opening solar plants in Japan and Germany.
BP (BP): Plans to invest $8 billion over a decade on various initiatives from solar to wind to biofuel.
ExxonMobile (XOM): Is investing in the hybrid car market.
What Would Big Oil Invest In?
Oil Companies Invest In Biofuels - Business News - Portfolio.com
Exxon to Invest Millions to Make Fuel From Algae - NYTimes.com
Oil Companies Promote Alternative Energy
Some need to lead, some need to get the out of the way so we can take advantage of what we have instead of say, telling Brazil to drill, baby drill so we can remain dependent on foreign oil.
"What the frack is going on?"
Would that be the same UN that appointed the Norks to head a conference on disarmament?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Reason TV's Nanny of the Month isn't the FDA for their horror pictures or San Francisco for wanting to ban the sale of pets, it's Montgomery County, Maryland’s Department of Permitting Services for fining some kids $500 for not having a permit for their lemonade stand. They were trying to raise money for pediatric cancer research.
Hello again, Steve:
When I was a kid, having received my third ticket in a year, I was forced to take a defensive driving course... The FIRST thing the instructor did, was pass around a few photos...
These were REAL photos of the mayhem steel and concrete does to a human body.. I was grossed out... But, I remember those pictures. They WORKED...
You'd only be AGAINST ugly pictures on cigarette packs if you didn't care about the health of the smoker or you owned stock in Phillip Morris...
Let me ask you this... If you saw a pedestrian about to J-walk into a 10 ton truck, would you stop him?
excon
Third choice, I'm against the ugly pictures because I find it offensive that the government thinks we're stupid. But in answer to your question, of course I would. I also want ugly pictures on packs of weed once it's legalized. And why not those pics of bodies and mangled steel on beer, wine and alocohol bottles... or on wine glasses in restaurants?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Why not? We'd have MORE success curbing drug abuse by doing THAT, than we have by locking people up.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 PM. |