The latter has a D in front of his name and believes in Keynesian economics and man-made global warming (this, despite the fact that temperatures have actually been going down while CO2 emissions have risen by 28%).
Lots of folks believe the global warming science, besides Obama- "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy" -Jon Huntsman
Just for the record, guys, I don't believe that either one of them is a war-criminal. I'm just looking for intellectual honesty and moral consistency, that's it.
I'm thinking just about every war had 'war criminals' on both sides; because war is violent, the enemy is hated, non-combatants become casualties, etc. Bedford Forrest's troops killing black US soldier prisoners, SS gunning down US troops at Malmedy, both sides using gas in WWI, Bataan death march, Auschwitz, fire bombing Dresden..there are numerous examples. The definition is somewhat nebulous 'crimes against humanity, mistreatment of prisoners', the winning side decides who fits the crime. Heads of state are typically immune, although clearly Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot etc. meet the criteria. Sometimes the legalities are informal- Mussolini/Gadhaffi/Lumumba. IMO, any actions by US presidents pale in comparison..some people just like to throw the word (and the concept) around. Such is my attempt at "intellectual honesty and moral consistency"...
I agree. And you also have to look at intent. Yes, a lot of what Bush did was clumsy, naive, and questionable but he didn't intend to start a civil war and kill civilians (a la, Pol Pot, Leopold, Pinochet, Amin, Milosevic, Hussein, D'aubuisson, bin Laden, Stalin, Hitler, Cortez, etc., etc.).
Oh, and on the Huntsman - global-warming thing, I would strongly advise the guy to a) listen to all the scientists (people such as Judith Curry, William Happer, Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, etc.) and b) go to the science himself and not be so reliant upon authority for his views.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100424234232AAkOr1G - How pitiful the global warming liars are. They cannot debate the science and so they engage in rabid character assassinations. The U.S. government has funneled $79 BILLION into global warming research, virtually ALL OF IT in an effort to substantiate the now thoroughly discredited notion that CO2 pushes global temperatures. AND the world carbon trading market is several multiples of that. Yeah, there is a stiff conflict of interest in this debate and it is predominantly on the alarmist side.
Yeah, as doltish as the creationists and young-earthers are, at least they aren't trying to wreck the world economy and keep the developing world in destitution.......And I just love this whole thing on Lidzen. 15 years ago the guy gave expert testimony and he may or may not have been given $2,500 for it (he's since made in excess of a million as the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at M.I.T.) and because of THIS he has decided to put his whole career on the line to help the oil companies. This is what we are led to believe.
11 comments:
Will, I guess whether one loves one faith-based President over the other all depends on the party they are in...
Lots of folks believe the global warming science, besides Obama-
"To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy"
-Jon Huntsman
Just for the record, guys, I don't believe that either one of them is a war-criminal. I'm just looking for intellectual honesty and moral consistency, that's it.
I'm thinking just about every war had 'war criminals' on both sides;
because war is violent, the enemy is hated, non-combatants become casualties, etc. Bedford Forrest's
troops killing black US soldier prisoners, SS gunning down US troops at Malmedy, both sides using gas in WWI, Bataan death march, Auschwitz, fire bombing Dresden..there are numerous examples. The definition is somewhat nebulous 'crimes against humanity, mistreatment of prisoners', the winning side decides who fits the crime. Heads of state are typically immune, although clearly Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot etc. meet the criteria. Sometimes the legalities are informal- Mussolini/Gadhaffi/Lumumba. IMO,
any actions by US presidents pale in comparison..some people just like to throw the word (and the concept) around. Such is my attempt at "intellectual honesty and moral consistency"...
Well put BB....well put...
I agree. And you also have to look at intent. Yes, a lot of what Bush did was clumsy, naive, and questionable but he didn't intend to start a civil war and kill civilians (a la, Pol Pot, Leopold, Pinochet, Amin, Milosevic, Hussein, D'aubuisson, bin Laden, Stalin, Hitler, Cortez, etc., etc.).
Oh, and on the Huntsman - global-warming thing, I would strongly advise the guy to a) listen to all the scientists (people such as Judith Curry, William Happer, Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, etc.) and b) go to the science himself and not be so reliant upon authority for his views.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100424234232AAkOr1G - How pitiful the global warming liars are. They cannot debate the science and so they engage in rabid character assassinations. The U.S. government has funneled $79 BILLION into global warming research, virtually ALL OF IT in an effort to substantiate the now thoroughly discredited notion that CO2 pushes global temperatures. AND the world carbon trading market is several multiples of that. Yeah, there is a stiff conflict of interest in this debate and it is predominantly on the alarmist side.
Will said: "The U.S. government has funneled $79 BILLION into global warming research"
How much US government money has been funded into "creation science" research, in comparison?
Yeah, as doltish as the creationists and young-earthers are, at least they aren't trying to wreck the world economy and keep the developing world in destitution.......And I just love this whole thing on Lidzen. 15 years ago the guy gave expert testimony and he may or may not have been given $2,500 for it (he's since made in excess of a million as the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at M.I.T.) and because of THIS he has decided to put his whole career on the line to help the oil companies. This is what we are led to believe.
You did indeed get my point that some harmful, unscientific policies are much much more harmful than others.
Post a Comment