Posted by 
How is one to rationally explain the Democrats’ belief that the government taking over another one-sixth of the American economy is a good thing?
The answer is religion.
Given the huge economic failures that the left itself attributes to Medicare and Medicaid and given the economic collapse or near collapse of these systems in other countries, the left’s prescriptions can only be explained in one way: The left has made its views a form of religion.
Most individuals on the left are not religious, but virtually all people, secular and religious, liberal and conservative, yearn to believe in dogma, i.e., absolute beliefs that transcend reason. For people on the left in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, belief in the state — the notion that the state can do a better job at helping people and making a good society — is one such dogma. This applies especially to educating the young and to health care.
Examples of left-wing dogmas that transcend reason are as numerous as any religion’s catechism. One example is the belief that men and women, boys and girls, are basically the same, that the vast majority of characteristics we ascribe to male and female natures are in fact socially induced. This irrational dogma was virtually universally believed and taught by the left-wing faculty when I attended college, and remains so today.
Another is the belief that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are heating the world to the point of imminent worldwide catastrophe, including island nations disappearing underwater, mass starvation, inundation of the world’s major coastal areas and much more. The fact that the world has been getting colder for the last eight years is as irrelevant to most people on the left as the absence of archaeological evidence for the biblical exodus is irrelevant to believing Jews and Christians. That includes me; I do not believe in the Hebrew exodus from Egypt because of scientific evidence, but because of faith. But unlike the left’s belief in manmade carbon emissions leading to unprecedented and calamitous heating of the planet, I admit my belief is a leap of faith. And my belief in the exodus will not ruin Western economies. In other words, my non-scientific belief in the Jews’ exodus is innocuous while the left’s non-scientific beliefs (though shrouded in scientific jargon and promulgated by scientists who put dogma over science) are forced on societies.
One cannot understand the left if one does not appreciate the world of dogmas in which most left-wing thinkers live. What the monastery is to monks, the university and the mainstream media are to the left.
That is the only way to explain the left’s belief that government-run health care, having the government take over so much more of society, raising taxes yet again, expanding government even more and increasing the number of people employed by the government will all be good for America.
Dogma explains why it is useless to point out to the left how the left has economically crippled California, once the most prosperous, most adventurous, most successful “country” in the world (it has an economy that would make it about the seventh largest country in the world). Likewise, it does not matter to blacks what Democrats have done to their cities. As they watch their cities crumble, they will once again vote overwhelmingly for the party that oversaw this destruction.
None of these facts matters because religious-like dogmas are not derived from facts.
In addition to dogma, the left relies for its policies on “hope,” which it often substitutes for analysis. People on the left rarely vote based on reality. They vote based on “hope.” That’s why the word “hope” is so much more significant to the left than to the right. The last two Democratic presidents ran as candidates of “hope.” The right doesn’t have “hope” candidates because conservatives don’t live on hope. They live in reality, meaning that people are not born basically good; that investing men and women with great state power leads inevitably to abuse of that power; that people stop innovating if they are taxed too highly; and that a perfect health care system is understood to be impossible.
And, finally, the left dreams. Robert F. Kennedy often cited the statement first made by George Bernard Shaw: “Some men see things as they are and say ‘why?’ I dream things that never were and say ‘why not?’” The left dreams of an America in which health care will constantly improve, health insurance will be given to every American at the same price irrespective of his or her health, doctors will be fairly reimbursed, there will be no waiting lines, and there will not be a dime’s increase in the national debt for all of this.
Frankly, I don’t yearn for what is unseen. Rather, having a realistic understanding of the limitations of human beings, I am in awe of what I already see — the unique American achievement of affluence, liberty, decency, opportunity and medical innovations.
And I see this all being squandered for the sake of left-wing dogma, left-wing hopes and left-wing dreams.
And this is better than the right's “living off greed model”. Something must be done soon about healthcare because (just in case you didn't read the new Kaiser Family Health Report) the cost of healthcare is roughly increasing per year at a 10 % rate. That means in ten years healthcare will not be affordable to most American families (in ten years it is predicted to be $21000 per individual payed by the employer and $9000 payed by the individual) I don't know too many families who can afford $9000 a month. Before you say “well the cost of living will just have to go up” I can assure you that cost of living pay actually hasn't risen in years, and isn't expected to. All the while the cost of living itself is growing in abundance every year. Pretty soon we will all be serfs and then the Republicans will be happy. Please don't try to say the left has a religion either, coming from the right who argues everything with Christian viewpoints. If the right had it their way this nation would be a theocracy.
You seem to be confusing science with religion.
What Al-gore does is science however his science has been proven wrong in my opinion therefore he should quite pushing his dogma.
However, Al gore at least looks to science not a bible.
Proxywar-No Al Gore looks to his big, fat and getting fatter all the time wallet.
He also cherry picks his science and will not debate opposing viewpoints. He is a huckster.
And the left does substitute their dogma for religion, they always have.
~Joshua– The studies that come out have shown healthcare costs will actually rise faster under tax payer funded healthcare. You can not get something for nothing. Life does not work that way. Even if all profit was removed from insurance company balance sheets, do you know that woul donly lower the cost to the consumer something like $200-$300 a year? The insurance companies run on just little over a three percent profit margin.
THE MICHAEL JACKSON OF AMERICAN POLITICS
The most immature man ever to be president, the Michael Jackson of American politics, is now sitting in the White House leading the nation into peril and the world into war all in the name of equality, justice and peace.
Google ApolloSpeaks (one word) and read my piece: Barack Obama: The Post-Nation State Presidency and the End of American Exceptionalism
Claiming that more government is bad might be true but I suppose we should look at examples where less was bad as well:
Clinton reduced the amount of resources available to the CIA in the 90's thus shrinking its footprint. It is not fact but there is room for debate about whether this indirectly may have created the opportunity that arrived as 911.
Glass Steagall was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which removed the partition that seperated the Banking Institutions from the Investment Companies. It took only 8 years for the financial conglomerates to figure out how to destroy the global economy.
Reduced emphasis on education has led to our children having among the worst test scores in the western world.
All of these things had extrodinary negative long range impacts on our society, but which were conveniently overlooked or ignored at the time……
Nothing's greedier than government. Greed isn't keeping what one creates or earns, it's taking what someone else does. Health care costs aren't rising in a void, and more of what's causing them to rise isn't going to bring them down.
The left worships marx, no need to 'try' to say anything, that's just the way it is. It takes more blind faith to believe hussein, harry, nancy, and the rest of the mao-loving dp will improve quality, availability, or reduce the costs of health care, than it does to believe in an immortal omnipotent being. You seem to think it's okay to shove marxist theology down our throats, so why shouldn't you have Christian theology shoved down yours?
An insightful critique of the hidden religious impulses behind many certainities and beliefs that dominate the officially secular Democratic party. As Thomas Sowell has written, the certainity among many true “secular” believers can block feedback from the world that counters their paradigm.
Still, it's problematic to reduce the Democrats' belief in universal health care to a “single cause”, and it is worth noting that every other industrialized state provides universal healthcare. Some do it with a strictly government run program and many rely on a combination of public and private programs. Health care reform will remain popular as long as private insurance companies delay payments to the very sick, refuse care based on pre-conditions, and fail to provide minimum assistance to over 30 million American citizens. Every American gets sick and every American deserves medical insurance – whether from private or public insurance.
THe challenge, as ever, remains paying for it. Tradeoffs are essential.
Sometimes a philosophical approach clarifies an issue, but this issue requires less ideology and a more pragmatic approach.
Or so it seems to me.
Thanks cowboy. You saved me some time.
Repeal Glass-Steagall is not the problem. Return to the gold standard and privatize the dollar (less government involvement in the economy), and you eliminate economic crises such as the one we have now.
The following is taken from http://mises.org/story/3244 “Yes, Greenspan Did It” by Stefan Karlsson at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website.
One argument left-wingers in particular have advanced is that “deregulation” or “lack of regulation” is the cause of the crisis. Rarely do they specify exactly which regulations were lacking. (I suspect that many simply have such great faith in government that there must be some lack of regulation at the heart of any big problem.) But often said the claim is that securitization—and its lack of regulation after the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act—is the problem. As the argument goes, by being able to sell the mortgages, which are then transformed into mortgage-backed securities, mortgage lenders do not need to worry about the money ever getting paid back, so they loosen their lending standards and make loans that wouldn't be profitable if they were forced to keep them. But this raises the question of why investors would want to buy such dodgy debt. Or to put it another way, how could mortgage lenders fool investors into not demanding high-risk premiums to cover the likely loan losses? If investors had demanded sufficiently high risk premiums, then the initial loans wouldn't have been profitable.
There are two possible explanations for this: either (1) they rationally assume that they will be able to let others take losses, or (2) these investors are incompetent and didn't understand the nature of these securities—didn't realize, that is, that once interest rates rose again, the subprime borrowers wouldn't be able to make their payments. Explanation number one takes us back to the moral hazard created by Greenspan's previous bailouts, as well as the guarantees that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created for the various mortgages they bought and either kept or sold to others with that guarantee. Explanation number two also takes us back to Greenspan's bailouts, and the fact that incompetent financial firms weren't weeded out like incompetent companies are in other sectors. Either way, previous bailouts are the root cause of this problem.
Here is a brief history of the Greenhouse effect and how the role of CO2 may be effecting the earth temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate...
Found it interesting and worth passing onward.
The one thing that really caught my attention was this sentence in the section:
“Scientists increasingly predict warming 1970's”
'On the other hand, the 1979 World Climate Conference of the World Meteorological Organization concluded “it appears plausible that an increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can contribute to a gradual warming of the lower atmosphere, especially at higher latitudes'.
This is in fact happening now in the higher latitudes.
As a further reference check out this chart which shows the CO2 levels and how they correlate with prior periods of rising and falling Earth temperatures over the last 800,000 years. Also note that at this time there is substantially more CO2 in the athmosphere than at any other time in the study.
If this is accurate than we should anticipate that global temperatures could and probably will continue to rise for some time and may increase up to or beyond the levels predicted over a hundred years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperatu...
Taking the scientific evidence that CO2 does in fact increase the amount of radiation trapped within the atmosphere and and then showing that as the amount of CO2 has increased over the last 150 years or so, though inconclusive it would seem that we should indeed be alert to its potential impact in the future and continue to study ways in which to mitigate its influence.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand that if health insurance companies covered pre-existing conditions, people would wait until they needed medical care to buy insurance? Same if auto insurance covered pre-existing accidents.
I mean, is this rocket science?
I don't know about archaeological evidence of the Exodus, however:
In the early 1990's I saw an exhibition at the main branch of New York City's Public Library on 5th Avenue, about the stops made in the Sinai desert en route from the Exodus to the Land of Israel. I believe that evidence was archaeological. Surprise, surprise. The route found by the researchers conformed in a great way to the biblical account. We have a tradition that Jewish parents don't lie to their children. Each generation has been conveying this account going back to those who actually left Egypt.
You are just another idiot suckling at the liberal teat. Government will make health care more afforable? God are all you are liberals born that stupid or do you work at it – or do you ly so much you believe you own bullshit?
Why not Dennis….since you make up “left” and what it means you can call it whatever you want.
“left” is so vague in his mind that the other morning while driving to work, he said that zero population growth in European countries was a “leftist” plot because “the left” doesn't like children. Yeah that helps understand politics….yikes.
Why didn't he use the example of Noah's Arc…was that a little too crazy for him to admit to believing?
Yeah, the poor insurance companies….they produce nothing, don't innovate, don't treat patients, don't make things work better….and they have to make due will millions and millions of profits….WHAAAAA
If you want a study breaking down the numbers in favor or insurance companies, then the insurance companies have a study you should see.
Here's what “left” means: State control of the individual; his/her property earned through his labor, and if necessary, his/her liberty and life.
“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property…You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.” Karl Marx
“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time…” Karl Marx
“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.” Karl Marx
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/mani...
Oh yea; I left one out:
“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain….The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.” Karl Marx
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/mani...
Animal Farm is a great metaphor for understanding European “Right” and “Left” – Fascism and Marxism. When the oppressive humans (Rightist Monarchy or Fascism) are overthrown in (Marxist) revolution, the animals become free at last. The clever pigs (Intellectuals) end up creating an oligarchy (without the informed consent of the animals) which eventually begins enacting self-serving (greedy) arbitrary pig law – no longer law from “We the Animals.” Later one very clever and strong pig (Napoleon) becomes a (Marxist) Dictator in the name of Pig equality (Social Justice) and becomes indistinguishable from the original (Rightist/Fascist) human oppressor when it turns out that some animals (pigs) are more equal (greedy) than the others.
The pigs of Animal Farm represent greedy Marxist/Socialist government. Such government is greedy for the property of those who actually labor for it; then they “redistribute” the property to the greedy non-productive proletariat class (after first feathering their own nest) in return for votes. And the leftists call those who labor creatively for their own property “greedy.”
You greedy, self-serving Marxist/Socialists (pigs) are no different in the end from the greedy, self-serving Fascists (humans) of Animal Farm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_farm
http://www.amazon.com/George-Orwell-Animal-Farm...
Hugo Chavez said it, “Socialism is the Kingdom of God on earth.” Utopian schemes are the godless' answer to Judeo-Christian faith in Heilsgeshichte or Salvation History recorded in the Holy Scriptures. They rant, “God we don't want you; we don't need you; we can do it without you.” Then when chaos and catastrophe strikes because of our foolishness and wickedness, the liberal accuses, “How can a good God allow this to happen?” I love God's rejoinder, “Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The rulers of the earth take their stand and gather together against the LORD and against His Christ. Let us break their chains, they say, and throw off their shackles. The One enthroned in Heaven laughts; The Lord scoffs at them. Then He rebukes them in His anger and terrifies them in His wrath, saying I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill. I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of Me and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; You will dash them to pieces like pottery.” Therefore, you rulers, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for His wrath can flare up in a monent. Blessed are all who take refuge in Him. (Psalm 2)
Right on! It can only be explained in one way, insanity.
Do we see some Democrats leaning back to their 19th century founders, like Jefferson to Jackson, instead of following Rousseau and Marx, as we see with Obama and Pelosi? This is cited in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS on Amazon and http://www.claysamerica.com. Is it too much to hope?
Joshua, you have been terribly fooled if you believe only what you have been taught by the left over the past 40 years. The right does not want to enslave the people. If you look at the left's policies, you will see that they are the ones who have been enslaving people to the State for decades by keeping them dependent. Look at every big city and the poverty levels. The right believes in FREEDOM. Freedom to succeed as well as freedom to fail. Freedom to be responsible for the outcome of our own lives–not to be dependent on some handouts from a politician who confiscated property from others who worked hard for it. Only in freedom can one improve one's lot in life.
The truth is that the government will only make things worse with more layers of bureaucracy and inefficiencies. Yes, the insurance companies have been getting away with murder because of twisted regulations that allowed them to become monopolies in their respective areas–but that is government's fault (not free enterprise). The right wants to OPEN up competition and force the marketplace to create efficiencies that will lower costs while expanding choice. We want competition across state lines, we want lawsuit reform (not to get rid of lawsuits–but to weed out frivolous ones and make the losers responsible for bringing them if they are obviously fraudulent), we want lower barriers to new business so there can be more competition.
The Democrat's bill will cost ALL of us (including those close to poverty like myself) thousands of dollars a year more and it won't even start to cover half of those who are not insured now. Please do some extensive research and open your mind to other possibilities. The truth is out there and it isn't what Congress has been telling us. I beg you to open your mind and seek the truth beyond what you see on MSNBC, CBS, ABC and Huffington Post. They will not give you all the facts…you need to find that out on your own by searching deeper.
You can't believe everything you read in Wikipedia. There are some folks who have a personal investment in the “Global Warming” theory who keep posting on that site — even though others who have actual scientific evidence that we are in a cooling phase keep getting their comments removed. There is NO scientific proof that mankind has contributed at all to “climate change”. Actually, one volcanic eruption causes more CO2 to be created than 100 years of man-made industrial fuel usage.
But, I suggest you do your own research (with an open mind) among MANY different sources and look at all sides–including their backup evidence before making your mind up.
I have actually searched other sites, the wiki just happened to collapse the others into a coherent and linear account of what other sites and research suggested.
That said, I suppose that we should probably also note that there are those who just as well have an investment in discrediting the theory of global warming. If I recall correctly many of the scientists who have come forward with counter evidence, (less than 5% of all polled), are in fact connected to big energy companies so I guess we should blindly listen to them?
Here is something to consider:
The Conservative view (which I will call the Religious Right because it is so often how it identifies itself), of the world always seems to lag the scientific view:
500 years ago you could have been burned at the stake for claiming the world was not the center of the universe.
Claiming the world was round instead of flat would have had you in chains.
Less than a hundred years ago you would have been bounced from the congregation if you suggested that there was merit to evolutionary theory.
Less than 50 years ago many churches wouldnt allow a minority to attend service because I guess they were inferior or something,
At this very moment over half the Christian church still believes that the Earth was literally created in six days and is approximately 6000 years old.
Lets face it, this is a really sorry track record. I think until this group gets just one thing right, it would seem the best bet will always be agin rather than fir.
You might want to check out “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court” by Mark Twain for a scathing critique of the self appointed elite and the gulf that seperates them as the “has” from the poor rabble of “have nots” they rule over and rob from time to time (with the church blessing as long as it gets its cut).
Wow, you are wrong on almost everything.
Copernicus, who put the sun at the center of the solar system, was a Catholic monk.
The knowledge that the Earth was round predates Christianity. Earths circumference was calculated by the Greeks well over 2000 years ago. it was a well known fact at that time. Please cite for me even one example of someone being put in chains for believing this.
I will grant you the evolution one, It was looked down on by religious people 100 years ago. But you are wrong about more then half of the christian church believes that the earth was created in 6 days. The Catholic church does not believe this.
The not allowing minorities to attend thing as just a slander. How many is “many”? It was mainstream churches that fought to end slavery and segregation.
Lets face it, you are the one with the sorry track record.
Every American gets sick and every American deserves medical insurance – whether from private or public insurance.
I disagree with that. Not every American deserves health insurance. Some people have the lot in life they've earned.
Zero population growth certainly helps their causes. It's much easier to get people to pay $15 for a hamburger when they only have to buy for themselves. When people have children their priorities change, their perspective changes, everything for them changes. They are less apt to buy into these pollyannic schemes of the left that really only degrade the quality of life, especially for families.
When I was in grade school I was taught that many believed the earth was flat right up to Columbus, so I always believed it was true, but I admit after looking it up that it is in fact a myth.
Otherwise, I believe the remainder of my comments are in true:
Though Copernicus published his work on the heliocentric model back in the 1543 and though there interest in his ideas it was never accepted or endorsed throughout the remainder of his life,
Galileo continued to work on the model and began to butt heads with the church around 1610 and in 1633 was forced to recant his work before the church, with the presumed alternative of being sent to prison.
It wasnt until Newton introduced his theory of gravitation late in the 1600's before evidence overwhelmed the opposition.
Ironic though isn't it? Copernicus first introduced the idea but it took about 150 years before it was accepted. This just furthers my point about how the conservative view lags the scientific view, sometimes for hundreds of years, or in fact thousands of years when it comes to the age of creation.
As far as the segregation of the church it was systemic throughout the south from the abolition until the civil rights act was passed in 1964.
South Africa was the same way until Aparthied was abolished, so I guess there you go.
No comment on the age of creation then?
It really is the most important one, as it shows how a literal interpretation of Genesis can exist and dominate the religious right's perspective for thousands of years and shows how entrenched a persons beliefs can be in the face of enormous evidence that contradicts.
Segregation of churches was
I should have added that if you are interested, I would recommend reading “The Language of God” by Francis Collins. The author was an MD and an athiest who converted to Christianity after talking with dying patients and noting the difference in comfort felt by those who were believers over those who were not.
He became the head of the Human Genome project and the book discusses his views on how genetic makeup causes evolution and why this does not conflict with church beliefs but rather offers a fantastic opportunity to see and understand an aspect of God's work.
Your biggest error is equating conservatism with the “religious right”. I may believe in God, but I am not religious. Regardless, most scientists do believe in a higher power or divine intervention. That doesn't mean that their scientific research is any less valid. The point is, there is no evidence at all that mankind has made any significant impact on the world's climate. And just as they tried to say we were in a stage of “global warming” that was going to boil all the oceans and cause horrific heatwaves, the global temperatures have been dropping the past 10 years. Climate is cyclical. Always has been. There have been periods where it was MUCH hotter in the world where there is now permafrost. And there have been ice ages. None of it was caused by people. And just for the records, CO2 is a trailing indicator–not a leading indicator when it comes to temperature rises. But I guess facts don't matter when you have an agenda and are pushing for one world socialist government… That is why you “climate change” folks call CO2 a “pollutant” and keep forgetting that plants and trees LOVE CO2 and thrive when it is abundant.
Wow you are making one hell of a lot of assumptions about me based on my position here.
I am not a liberal, but in fact a conservative who has moderated largely out of discust for what appears to be the new attitude best exemplified by the spirit of Rush Limbaugh, the man with the audacity to refer to himself as “On loan from God” (like he was a prophet or something).
Also I am not one of “you people” who is pushing a one world socialist government. I think you need to turn it around and think of what triggered you to make such broad assumptions than go back and read Pregers article, than think about it again. You will see my point shortly.
In my post above to which you replied, I had chosen to frame the Conservative viewpoint here as it relates to the Religious Right for three reasons:
One is tit for tat – Preger uses it in his article to collect the liberal view into a single virulent figure to which he can then attack. And so it goes. This is why it was so easy for you to dump me into the convenient funnel that Preger created for you based on one hot button issue. Dont you think that is worth some reflection?
Personally I think people who consume this rhetoric, on both sides, need to grabbed by the scruff of their necks and forced to see how manipulative it can be and then go on a quest to rediscover independant objective thought.
Don't believe it? In addition to your own example think of this: Rush has an entire army of self described “ditto heads”. Thats what they call themselves, and if someone really considered the expression then they will understand what that implies.
Secondly – Because I get upset when people claim the religious high ground on issues but go on to ration their actions and then only selectively.
To paraphrase: Jesus did not say: “when you see a poor person determine wether they believe or not, are deserving of their condition, or judge whether they are lazy”. He simply said “feed the poor”.
When I listen to the conservative voice these days I hear the former and not the latter and I think this needs to change.
Third – Because the Conservative base so often defines itself this way. If you don't agree then explain why every election the Republican base tries to make mileage out of the Democrats typical support for abortion by appealing to the Christian church but then quickly tucks it away until the next election.
Oh btw the Ice core samples do show that CO2 levels lag warming periods. The explanation for this is that the Earth has an eccentricity in its orbit that repeats about every 100 thousand years which matches up very well with the historical records of ice ages and warming periods. The belief is that when the warming part of the cycle begins, the resulting depletion of permafrost releases CO2 and Methane which creates a positive feedback loop that accelerates the heating of the planet until the orbital wobble brings the planet to a point where the cooling process begins.
The reason this is so important is that it is still early in the heating part of the cycle so you would think that the CO2 level would not yet be that noticable but as the chart I linked earlier shows, CO2 levels are over fifty percent higher than they were at all of the prior peaks of the last 800 thousand years. The only thing that can account for the difference is man made output.
helps who's causes? What are you talking about?
“left” is just some vague boogeyman.
I hate to break it to ya, but Karl Marx is dead. You guys act like a secret cabal that stretches across the globe is on the verge of closing the most elaborate trap in history.
All to get you and your precious freedom.
I know what FPM says “left” is and it's a monsterous composite of everything bad….it doesn't really help you understand politics or what is going on.
sure man…”competition” over state lines and tort reform….riiiiiight…that will fix everything.
I like how even what the insurance companies do is the government's fault….you have such an even handed grasp of reality.
Anyone who falls under what I would term the “world wide communist movement”, which has really become more of a third way/communist/facist/soft totalitarian type of system.
Environmentalists, crony capitalists, full out socialists, etc. All in bed together.
What I say is true. I live in Sweden. I have to pay $15 for a hamburger. I know first hand what life in their societies is like.
Copernicus' work “De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium” was published as a theory as there was not sufficient proof to be called established truth. That is why it was not accepted by everyone. However it was well received by the church and was even dedicated to Pope Paul III. What got Galileo into trouble was he insisted on publishing his works as established truth instead of as a theory. Even many contemporaries of Galileo did not believe he had sufficient proof. Because Galileo would not back down the church forced him to recant and even then he was not imprisoned. He was sentenced to house arrest and lived the rest of his days in luxury. The Heliocentric model was finally accepted when there was sufficient proof, which took , oh , about 150 years.
As far as segregation of the church, sure it was common in the south, but it was also common for churches, both black and white to be at the front of the fight for desegregation. And do you honestly believe that Church policies were responsible for Apartheid? Talk about slander!
Oh and I did comment on the age of creation. I clearly wrote that most churches do not believe that the earth is 6000 years old. I totally believe that science and religion do not conflict, and in fact they need each other, today more then ever.