Wednesday, September 17, 2014

The Roosevelts


"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
 
Theodore Roosevelt

There are political dynasties, and then there are the Roosevelts of Hyde Park and Oyster Bay. All others are cheap imitations. The Bushes and the Roosevelts? It's like comparing apples and rotten mangoes. The Kennedy family, God bless 'em, doesn't even come close. The Roosevelts are the standard against which everyone who has come since are measured. The wannabes usually end up falling quite short. 

Chillin' with the Roosevelts
The Roosevelts are the Beatles of American political families. That may sound like a trivialization of the most important and influential clan in the history of this country but, as anyone who knows me will tell you, that's about as high a compliment as I am able to make. It's next-to-impossible for me to describe my admiration for these people. No matter how hard I try, I still end up understating how great a debt we owe to these decent, troubled, great and greatly  flawed  human beings. The scope of their mountaintop highs and deep-valley lows is a human drama that leaves even the most casual observer of history utterly mesmerized. This is a story wrought with tragedy - and enough screwball comedy to keep the laughs flowing. I've been reminded of this for the last three evenings watching Ken Burns' new documentary series, "The Roosevelts: An Intimate History". I'll be reminded again tonight, and every night till Saturday when the series concludes. 

For twenty-five years Ken Burns has been cranking out one historical series after another, and every one of them have been brilliant. He is in the process of working on several yet-to-be-released projects. One of them, a two-part documentary on Ernest Hemingway, won't be ready until the year 2020. I'm now at a point in my life where I can say, without a trace of self-consciousness, that I really do hope I live to see it. I'm definitely glad I lived to see The Roosevelts. It's the best one he's done thus far - and that's saying a lot!


I can't tell you who won the 1932 world series for the simple reason that, eighty-two years later, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference to our lives who won it. I can tell you who won the presidential election that year, though. Four score and two years after the fact that does make a difference. Think about this: On the evening of February 15, 1933, less than a month before entering the White House, a would-be assassin named Giuseppe Zangara attempted to murder Franklin D. Roosevelt in Miami, Florida. The bullet, instead, hit Chicago mayor, Anton Cermak, who died nineteen days later. Had FDR been assassinated on the eve of his inauguration, the presidency would have gone to his running mate, a not-too-visionary bigot from Texas named John Nance Garner. If Zangara's bullet had not missed its mark on that night, the entire history of the world - not merely the United States - would have been much different. "What if...." It makes the imagination tremble.

 "I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it, the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it, these forces met their master."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

To his own kind, FDR was a traitor to his class, or, "That man in the White House". He was not merely the most liberal president in the history of the republic, he was a radical - at a perilous moment when radical change was needed; not unlike it's needed at present.

If you appreciate the millions of acres of national parkland and animal sanctuaries set aside for posterity; if you're grateful for the Social Security check that you or a loved one receives each month; if you've benefited from one the of thousands of high schools, post offices, tunnels or bridges built in the nineteen thirties; if you have ever fallen on hard times and were forced to receive much-needed cash from the feds because you became unemployed; if you were a vet and the GI Bill of Rights afforded you a college education - in short, if during the years after the Second World War, you were able to live comfortably as a member of the middle class - thank a Roosevelt. What I just rattled off for you was the (very) short list. I have neither the time nor space to mention them all. This country owes so much to this family that it's impossible to catalog the debt. Sadly, most American are oblivious to it all. 

Lovely Eleanor
The series begins at Theodore's birth on October 27, 1858 and fades to black with the death of Eleanor on November 6, 1962. The 104 years and 10 days between those two dates comprise a saga that could only have happened in this country. Of particular note is the gut-wrenching story of Eleanor's upbringing. Abandoned by her adored father, scorned by her mother who was ashamed of the child's rather plain looks, she was an orphan by the age of ten; raised in a house run by a cheerless grandmother and two mentally unbalanced uncles. Anyone else might have succumbed to fate's cruelties at so young an age. Her already fragile emotional constitution would be shattered further in 1918, thirteen years into their marriage, when she discovered that Franklin was having an affair. That she was able to overcome so much and become one of the most significant persons of the American Century is as much a testament to her inner fortitude as anything. 

While still young men, Theodore and Franklin were dealt incapacitating, personal blows that forever changed them. For Theodore it was Valentine's Day 1884 when his wife and mother died on the same day in the same house. In Franklin's case it was in the late summer of 1921 when he was stricken with infantile paralysis, never to walk again. Both men thought that their lives were over. The trumpets were yet to summon them to greatness.

"Black care", wrote Theodore Roosevelt, "rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."

It's fifty-two years since the last survivor breathed her final breath. We are greatly diminished as a nation because they no longer walk among us. It almost takes away the fear of dying, you know?

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

SUGGESTED VIEWING: 

The Roosevelts: An Intimate History
A film by Ken Burns

This excellent, seven part series is available on DVD as of today. If you're unable to catch it on PBS, for whatever reason, pick it up today. Here's a link to order it off of Amazon.com:

 The Roosevlts: An Intimate History
 
As I mentioned before, it's the best thing that Ken Burns has ever done. There is a companion book available as well.

Here are some links to a few other pieces I've written over the years about this extraordinary family:

April 12, 1945-April 12, 2012:
 http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2012/04/april-12-1945-april-12-1012.html

Theodore Roosevelt: The People's President:
http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2008/01/theodore-roosevelt-1858-1919.html

First Lady of the World:
http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2012/11/first-lady-of-world.html

New Deal at 80 - Nixon at 100
http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-deal-at-80-nixon-at-100.html

I've Been Consulted by Franklin D:
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com/2013/07/fdr.html

His Tragic Valentine:
http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2014/08/trs-dark-valentine.html

Obama Could Learn from FDR:
http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-can-learn-from-fdr.html

The FDR Library Revisited:
http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2012/02/fdr-library-revisited.html 
 
Snoozin' with the Frankster - Hyde Park, 12 February 2012

161 Comments:

At 11:26 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

We've degenerated from a nation of Roosevelts to the nation of Bush/Clintons.

How's those tax cuts for the rich and deregulation workin' out for us?

 
At 12:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's always a matter of taking the good with the bad. TR was a blood thirsty imperialist, but also fought for the people against the deprivations of capitalists gone wild. I'm sure TR would be railing against the monopolistic practices of today's corporations.

 
At 12:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe that Reagan was the President when Ma Bell was broken up in 1984. The end of a monopoly.

The airline deregulation act went into effect in 1978, under Carter.

Motor carrier deregulation started under Nixon and continued under Ford and Carter. This act broke up the monopoly in the motor carrier industry with the hope of expending the number of carriers in the market place to the benefit of the customer.

In both examples the result has been fewer carriers, reduced Union membership, higher costs to the customer, but, the monopolistic practices, such as rate fixing, service coverage monopoly's were ended.

 
At 1:12 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous I think you'd argue against your own stay of execution if a Liberal were trying to save your life.

Ma Bell WORKED, unlike the "trusts" TR and FDR fought against. In fact, too much money in the hands of too few people is the main cause of the Great Depression.

Teddy Roosevelt gave us several National Parks, and FDR gave us the Tennessee Valley Authority and Hoover Dam. He rescued us from the Depression caused by greedy barons and put millions to work building America into a Superpower.

Eisenhower built the interstate highway system (which can serve as emergency runways in times of natural disaster or enemy attack) and warned against the "military industrial complex" which means, that if war becomes big business, we are screwed. It has, and we are.

Reagan flushed the Family farmer in favor of corporate farms and fired air traffic controllers (a horrible job) looking for a fair deal.

Ever wonder why you never hear conservatives claiming ownership of Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower?

NIxon gave us the Clean Water act and the EPA. He also presided over giving 18 year olds,already eligable to die in a foreign land at the whim of the government the right to vote. He was a paranoid, corrupt shithead, but he did do SOME good things.

 
At 1:13 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

BTW, what "good" came from the Bush/Cheney administration?

 
At 4:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mozart,
My post was nothing more than a historical overview of recent actions.
It was not critical one way or the other of anyone.

You have again proven my belief about you.

 
At 4:27 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

What? That I can see through you like a clean glass window? You tried to make Reagan the "Hero of the working man" like TR. Not even close.

BTW, if ANYONE will go down in history as the "Greatest American President" it will without question be FDR.

I noticed you never answered my question about Bush/CHeney. Go figure.

Do you know who your congressmen are yet? I answered you quickly and honestly when you asked me that question. Why are you avoiding answering when I asked you?

 
At 6:34 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Historians can never be totally unbiased in their craft. To do so would be to lose part of their humanity. But, this seems to be as fair and unbiased a documentary as I've seen in a while. Refreshing to see someone try to bring the history to us without a covert (or even overt) political agenda. An uncommon and dying art in today's politicized sound-bite culture.

 
At 6:59 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,
Burns is an excellent historical filmmaker. Of his features on Roosevelts, the Civil War, Baseball and Jazz, it would be the latter that elicited the greatest protests. "Too much Ellington" and not enough other favorites and greats. Go figure.

Music is up there with religion and politics when it comes to varied and conflicting opinions. At least the divided opinions on music haven't led to war.

 
At 8:41 PM, Anonymous Mo Rage said...


You think you know plenty about Teddy and Franklin and then you see this. Wow.

And Teddy. A "progressive Republican."

Unthinkable today.

Things I was amazed about:

--That FDR betrayed Eleanor so young, so early in their marriage;

--the egotist Franklin was, as a young man;

--the holy hell Eleanor's nearly entire life was.

So many things.

 
At 11:36 PM, Anonymous The Rest of Us said...

Obama ISIS Coalition Details Revealed

Australia - Sunglasses, sunscreen, beach towels, 2 kangaroos.

Great Britain - 3 Small blimps, crumpets, socks, musical instruments.

France - Cheese, berets, white flags, poodles.

Germany - Bayonets, mustard, stylish uniforms.

Netherlands - Dikes, chocolates.

Canada - Snow shoes, plaid shirts, cookies, toboggans, clock radios.

Saudi Arabia - $300 billion, scarves.

Iraqi Kurdistan - Soldiers, weapons, 18 dilapidated Toyota pickups.

Vanuatu - Spears, axes, sticks.

If economic ups & downs are natural cycles, why is the downturn always blamed on unbridled capitalism, but the upturn is the result of government spending and policy's?

 
At 3:52 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

THe rest of us...

You really need to sober up before posting. I think your glue is melting.

 
At 11:07 AM, Anonymous The Rest of Us said...


If economic ups & downs are natural cycles, why is the downturn always blamed on unbridled capitalism, but the upturn is the result of government spending and policy's?

The question over your head Mozart?

 
At 11:11 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

No, it's because the answer is obvious, but I'll enlighten you as soon as Anonymous tells us who his congressmen are. Do you know who YOUR congressmen are?

I'm done answering questions from conservatives until they stop avoiding answering mine.

 
At 11:11 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

BTW, the word is "policies".

 
At 12:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


"I'm done answering questions from conservatives until they stop avoiding answering mine."

I'm using the Dave Duyba approved answer, I refuse to answer inane, leading questions from Liberal Moon Bats.
If it's good enough for the Internets' official liberal hall monitor, Dave Dubya, it's good enough for me!

Plus I know it really gets under your skin.

 
At 2:43 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Plus I know it really gets under your skin.

Said the asshole troll, proving he's an asshole troll.

 
At 6:14 PM, Anonymous William Wallace said...

FREEDOM!!!!!!

 
At 7:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The U.S. is letting terrorists in “right through our front door,” Kenneth Palinkas, president of the 12,000-member union of government immigration caseworkers and adjudicators warned today.

In a statement concerning the planned administrative amnesty, ISIS, and the threat of terrorism, National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council (NCISC) Pres. Palinkas warns also warns that “ISIS will exploit our loose and lax visa policies to gain entry into United States”

Can we blame the black guy for this or will get under your skin Dave"clean up on tier 2" Dubya?

 
At 7:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neither of the Roosevelt's would recognize the things today's liberals are doing as being good for American.

A showdown over the passports of so called ‘foreign fighters’ – Americans and other westerners who have joined the ISIS terror army in Iraq and Syria – came to a head on Thursday when a U.S. senator killed legislation aiming to strip them of their citizenship.

Democrat Mazie Hirono, a freshman senator from Hawaii, objected on the Senate floor when Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas tried to fast-track his ‘Expatriate Terrorists Act.’

Cruz bypassed the Senate’s committee process in order to rush the legislation to a vote, meaning that any single senator could block it.

Since the Senate is sprinting through its final days in session this year, he said, putting the bill through committee ‘would mean that it could not pass in time to prevent Americans fighting right now with ISIS from coming back and murdering other Americans.’

‘There is an urgency and an exigency to this situation,’ Cruz said on the Senate floor.
Hirono said she chose to throw up a road block because ‘legislation that grants the government the ability to strip citizenship from Americans is a serious matter raising significant constitutional issues.’

She also cited letters of objection from the Constitution Project and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Why do liberals hate America so much?

 
At 7:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,

Will you get to vote for this lovely liberal democrat funinf for NY Assembly?

Charles Barron has long expressed admiration for other Third World military dictators, such as late Libyan leader Muammar el-Quaddafi and former Cuban President Fidel Castro.

“All my heroes were America’s enemies,” Mr. Barron said.

 
At 7:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama To Micromanage War Against ISIS, Military Can’t Attack Until He Signs Off On Every Strike…

So the results will be his 100%, or can we still blame Bush?

 
At 7:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More of liberalism loving America.


The 9th circuit court has decreed that you cannot exercise your 1st amendment right to wear an American flag in front of a Mexican on Quatro de Cinco (©Obama) because this might offend them and cause them to hit you, disturbing the peace. You’re baiting them with your inflammatory speech.

Leftist American courts have deemed the American flag as reactionary and inflammatory speech.

This is unfathomable.

The left needs to be eradicated.

Read more at http://iowntheworld.com/blog/#krkg3YJjgliTdKZL.99

 
At 8:14 PM, Anonymous Al Gore said...

I predicted in 2008 that the Northern Polar Cap would be completely ice free in five years.

Satellite images show the Northern summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7 million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago.

Clearly it is an "Inconvenient Truth" that my computer model was wrong.

I just want to thank my religious followers of global warming, uh I mean climate change to keep the faith.

I am not a scientist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

 
At 9:10 PM, Anonymous Laura Enright said...

This is a great read, Tom. I've been enjoying the documentary also (I missed a good portion of it though so I'll have to try to catch it when it's released on DVD unless they replay it).

 
At 9:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see in today's paper a story reporting that only 36% of Americans can name the three branches of government.

Gee whiz I wonder who the people who don't know vote for? My guess is the guy with the free stuff. Just Say'n.

 
At 9:59 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

'I refuse to answer inane, leading questions from Liberal Moon Bats." --- Anonymous

In interesting statement given that I'm asking him to answer the same question he asked me.

LOL, Anonymous, do you even think before posting?

Do you really think we can't debunk your Fox news nonsense in 5 minutes? but then, when we do you will just change the subject.

FDR would be proud that modern Liberals are fighting to protect Social Security and to protect and defend the middle class he created. Don't presume to tell Tom what FDR would think. I believe he's more of an authority on the man.

And "Al Gore", the REAL Gore didn't say "WOULD" be gone, he said they "COULD" ne gone.

Of course, this was already explained as well. One more BS accusation from the conservative bubble debunked.

 
At 11:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My Muslim faith" B.H. Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

 
At 3:49 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Wow Anonymous. You've convinced me. No one ever slips up while speaking. My Grandparents used to mix up the names of the grandkids all the time. I guess I better check MY birth certificate to make sure I'm not one of my cousins.

 
At 3:55 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” ---George W. Bush


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at56A5eg3vs

 
At 5:29 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

My only question about this otherwise excellent series is why they didn't interview Edmund Morris. I'm at the end of volume two of his three-part biography of Theodore Roosevelt and plan on reading Volume 3 as soon as I'm finished. Best book on TR ever written.

 
At 7:14 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

I'll watch anything Ken Burns produces. But I'll defer to you Tom as to it's accuracy or credibility because you clearly have made a personal study of FDR.

 
At 11:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I guess I better check MY birth certificate to make sure I'm not one of my cousins."
Mozart.

While you're checking, find out if your parents were siblings, that could explain a lot of the moronic statements and positions you take.

All in the family!

 
At 11:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

57 states

 
At 3:00 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Everytime Anonymous posts you just have to shake your head. Just when you think he can't possibly be any more stupid, he shows his potential for growth.

Everyone makes "gaffs" during campaigns because the constant travel and lack of sleep is exausting. Therefore I give candidates from both parties a lot of room. Obama obviously meant "47 states". The trouble with Bush is, 90% of his malypropisms were made while he was already President.

So let me ask you Anonymous, "Is your children learning" the same way you are? ;)

You don't REALLY want to get started in a "Gaff war" between Obama and Bush do you?

 
At 5:14 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous said to me, "...find out if your parents were siblings, that could explain a lot of the moronic statements and positions you take."


And that after making THIS classic statement

"Ahh Mozart, Mitch McConnell is in the Senate, not the Congress."

The definition of "irony".

 
At 5:55 PM, Anonymous The Rest of Us said...

FDR wouldn't do this!


8 ways the Obama administration is blocking information
Posted on 09/19/2014 by Erin Madigan White

The fight for access to public information has never been harder, Associated Press Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee said recently at a joint meeting of the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press Media Editors and the Associated Press Photo Managers. The problem extends across the entire federal government and is now trickling down to state and local governments.
AP Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee (AP Photo).

AP Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee (AP Photo).

Here is Buzbee’s list of eight ways the Obama administration is making it hard for journalists to find information and cover the news:

1) As the United States ramps up its fight against Islamic militants, the public can’t see any of it. News organizations can’t shoot photos or video of bombers as they take off — there are no embeds. In fact, the administration won’t even say what country the S. bombers fly from.

2) The White House once fought to get cameramen, photographers and reporters into meetings the president had with foreign leaders overseas. That access has become much rarer. Think about the message that sends other nations about how the world’s leading democracy deals with the media: Keep them out and let them use handout photos.

3) Guantanamo: The big important 9/11 trial is finally coming up. But we aren’t allowed to see most court filings in real time — even of nonclassified material. So at hearings, we can’t follow what’s happening. We don’t know what prosecutors are asking for, or what defense attorneys are arguing.

4) Information about Guantanamo that was routinely released under President George W. Bush is now kept secret. The military won’t release the number of prisoners on hunger strike or the number of assaults on guards. Photo and video coverage is virtually nonexistent.

5) Day-to-day intimidation of sources is chilling. AP’s transportation reporter’s sources say that if they are caught talking to her, they will be fired. Even if they just give her facts, about safety, for example. Government press officials say their orders are to squelch anything controversial or that makes the administration look bad.

6) One of the media — and public’s — most important legal tools, the Freedom of Information Act, is under siege. Requests for information under FOIA have become slow and expensive. Many federal agencies simply don’t respond at all in a timely manner, forcing news organizations to sue each time to force action.

7) The administration uses FOIAs as a tip service to uncover what news organizations are pursuing. Requests are now routinely forwarded to political appointees. At the agency that oversees the new health care law, for example, political appointees now handle the FOIA requests.

8) The administration is trying to control the information that state and local officials can give out. The FBI has directed local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology the police departments use to sweep up cellphone data. In some cases, federal officials have formally intervened in state open records cases, arguing for secrecy.

 
At 5:56 PM, Anonymous The Rest of Us said...

NEW YORK (AP) — Al Jazeera America is suing former Vice President Al Gore and Joel Hyatt, the former owners of the TV network that became Al Jazeera America.

Tee-he

 
At 6:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama obviously meant "47 states""

And you know that to be a fact because?

Yet when someone misspeaks about Congress/Senate, you blow a major head gasket. Double standard.

You know what the best pick up line in Iowa is?

"Hey there babe, that's a nice tooth you got.'

 
At 7:02 PM, Anonymous Charles said...

Say Mozart, when isn't Obama campaigning?

Your friend,
Charles

 
At 7:08 PM, Anonymous Chucky said...

OK Mozart,

You win.

I am going to let you know that my Senators are Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren from the Cherokee Nation.

Now tell me how many seats in the Senate the GOP needs to override an Obama veto you dumb shit!

 
At 7:29 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Thank you for that info. Are you Anonymous?

If not I'm still waiting.

BTW, I DO know, but if I didn't don't you think I could look it up in two minutes?

And you are lucky to have Elizebeth Warren. I'd like to see her leave the Senate and be Speaker of the House under a Corey Booker Presidency, or vice versa would be just as good.

 
At 9:41 AM, Anonymous Harry said...

Could we have a moment of silence for the 180,000 Americans who died because of a lack of health insurance?

Remember Obama, Reid, and Pelosi saying 45,000 Americans die each year for a lack of health insurance?

So 180,000 Americans died because of a lack of health insurance, as described by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi who decided to delay coverage for those uninsured of Obamacare for an additional four years.

Yes, instead of coverage in 2010, coverage was intentionally delayed to influence the CBO scoring of Obamacare. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt are rolling over in their graves at what assholes today's progressives have become.

Can we call Obama, Pelosi and Reid terrorists or just plain dangerously evil?

 
At 10:28 AM, Anonymous Lou Holtz said...

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works, and the America that doesn't. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn't.

Its not the have’s and the have not's, it's the do’s and the don'ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don't. That's the divide in America!

It's not about income inequality, it's about civic irresponsibility. It's about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It's about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country! That is not invective, that is truth, and it is about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a few weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting "income inequality." He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that is not just. That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat! That's the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The presidents' premise; that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful, seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.

 
At 12:13 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

"Harry" Chuckie is so full of shit and hate. The classic con-servative without a conscience.

Exhibit A:

"Chuckie Holtz" is angry.

“It's not about income inequality, it's about civic irresponsibility”. Just ask former Burger King USA, now Burger King of Canada. Use America’s legal system, highways, infrastructure and American’s money to grow, and then dodge all civic responsibility.

Taxes are a civic responsibility that greed is always at war with.

“It's about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It's about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country! That is not invective, that is truth, and it is about time someone said it”…about the Republican Party. The projection fits it perfectly. It loves power so much it launched a war based on lies for political gain and crony profit, forced the reduced the credit rating of the US because they hate Obama, and deregulated Wall Street and cut taxes on the rich so much we have greater debt and a collapsed economy. It loves power so much it suppresses democracy. Nowhere is hatred and greed more expressed and supported than by FOX (R), the Koch Tea Party, and Limbaugh, all voices of the GOP.

And, yes, let’s look at that “victimization” for the poor, oppressed, downtrodden wealthy white males of America. Yes they are the true victims. They whine, complain, and cry like spoiled brats more than any group of Americans. We see Harry Chuckie whine constantly. He is their shill and cheerleader for Mammon.

And finally, let’s not forget the Party of Mammon for their constant need to LIE.

Right, “Lou Holtz”?, I mean Chuckie?

Yeah, we can be certain that Lou didn’t write this hate filled GOP propaganda.

Just more con-servative LIES. And they want a one-party dictatorship again. Still not paying enough for the last one are we?

Theirs is the hate that fuels fascism. Period.

 
At 2:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Love Dave Dubya's conditioned pathetic need to demonize others to deflect from what a failure AmeriKa's smartest President ever and his administration are.

That's all progressivism has, failure and insults.

 
At 2:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the past 100 years, the progressives have ridden roughshod over the Constitution and the Federal system established therein.

But now their Big all-powerful government is nothing so much as a dinosaur lumbering toward extinction.

Obama promised to make Big government 'smart,' but that has proven to be an oxymoron.

Yet we cannot depend upon the monster to reform itself, so some form of 'divorce' is the only realistic road to the future.

 
At 3:19 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Love Dave Dubya's conditioned pathetic need to demonize others to deflect...

In other words, call out the extremist liars and their hate that fuels fascism.

Right, "Lou"?

Lou? Lou? Where are you, Lou?

Chuckie got your tongue, Lou?

LOL!!


 
At 3:31 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

so some form of 'divorce' is the only realistic road to the future.

Good, maybe he'll leave. Glad he sees it that way.

So when is he leaving? More bullshit, of course. His rich masters are raking it in.

He's not going to leave the US in the clutches of democracy when there's the work of his masters to be done. Demonize liberals, spread hate and lies, etc.

He'd be lost without his mission to shill for the GOP and the rich servants of mammon.

Thanks to the "trickle up economy" the rich are richer than ever. The rest of us can go to hell. The Pope and even the IMF see severe income inequality as a detriment to all and a drag on growth.

Chuckie's solution? Greater income inequality, of course. Cut those inheritance taxes for the new aristocracy, cut taxes for the billionaires... and CUT food stamps.

"Con-servative" compassion is for the rich only. Merely stating the obvious draws out their deep hate

Theirs is the hate that fuels fascism.






 
At 8:52 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous, please explain how liberals have "run roughshod over the constitution"?

Was it their support of "Citizens United" or did it go back even further when they suspended a legal election so the Supreme Court could choose the President?

As long as we are ont ehsubject of how the government works, WHO ARE YOUR CONGRESSMEN?

Don't forget to include your senators.

 
At 10:20 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous tried to make a joke.

"You know what the best pick up line in Iowa is?

"Hey there babe, that's a nice tooth you got.'"

It's obvious that Anonymous hasn't had a blowjob for so long he's forgotten what it tastes like. (wait for it...)

And he still doesn't know who his congressmen are, or even that the Senate is part of congress.


 
At 10:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know how Iowans practice safe sex?
The put an X on the side of their livestock that doesn't kick.

 
At 11:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Multiculturalism is a failure.

Multiculturalism was a product of the sixties radicals, rooted in Marxism and anti-ameriKan anti-colonialism. It worked just fine, as it's purpose was to destroy western values and our culture. It is nihilism writ large and it has spread like the Bubonic Plague that it is.

Bloom wrote about what it was doing to our kids minds in "The closing of Amercan minds" 40 years ago. It remains a book we should all read.

We can stamp it out if we take our schools back but it won't be easy because the cultural have embraced nihiilism in all its predictable destructivness.

 
At 11:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one) has worked so well for so long. Although we came from different countries and cultures, we melted together and Americans came forth from the furnace. People came here with the thought of being an American. We now seem to be reversing that idea; in that we are becoming many out of one. This country through its people overcame many obstacles by being united; the United States of America.

Multiculturism us just another P.C. ugliness that is generating division and suspicion amongst our citizens. If you wish to be an AMERICAN, then we welcome you with open arms..if not then please stay where you are and embrace your "culture" where you are. We have no room for nor desire for competing cultures.

As Theodore Roosevelt once astutely observed, "any person who says he is an American and something else isn't an American at all."

 
At 11:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Multiculturalism and diversity programs are designed to divide us.

We are told we should celebrate and accentuate our differences, instead of assimilating into American culture.

If progressives worked on anything but emotions, I'd think they were intentionally trying to destroy our country.

To them multiculturalism feels like the right thing and they don't consider thinking about the negative consequences and they attempt to destroy anybody who disagrees.

 
At 11:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently declared that in Germany, multiculturalism has "utterly failed."

Both Australia's ex-prime minister John Howard and Spain's ex-prime minister Jose Maria Aznar reached the same conclusion about multiculturalism in their countries.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has warned that multiculturalism is fostering extremist ideology and directly contributing to homegrown Islamic terrorism.

UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said the United Kingdom's push for multiculturalism has not united Britons but pushed them apart.

It has allowed for Islam to emerge despite Britain's Judeo-Christian culture.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the roots of violent Islamism are not "superficial but deep" and can be found "in the extremist minority that now, in every European city, preach hatred of the West and our way of life."

Multiculturalism is Islamists' foot in the door. At the heart of multiculturalism is an attack on Western and Christian values.

Much of that attack has its roots on college campuses among the intellectual elite who see their mission as indoctrinating our youth. A UCLA economics professor's tells his class, "The United States of America, backed by facts, is the greediest and most selfish country in the world." A history professor told her class: "Capitalism isn't a lie on purpose. It's just a lie." She also said: "(Capitalists) are swine. ... They're bastard people." Students sit through lectures listening to delusional professorial rants about topics such as globalism and Western exploitation of the Middle East and Third World peoples.

 
At 12:19 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Students sit through lectures listening to delusional professorial rants about topics such as globalism and Western exploitation of the Middle East and Third World peoples.

No such things as “globalism and Western exploitation of the Middle East and Third World peoples”? I’d hide behind “anonymous” too if I were as stupid as he is.

As Theodore Roosevelt once astutely observed, "any person who says he is an American and something else isn't an American at all."

Speaking of "multi-culturalism"...

Could he possibly mean these neocons, many with American/Israeli dual citizenship? Any war the Israeli political far right desires is the goal of these “Americans”. Correction, not accurately Americans, perhaps far Right Israeli Likud/Republicans would better describe them.

Michael Mukasey
Michael Chertoff
Richard Perle
Paul Wolfowitz
Douglas Feith
Henry Kissinger
Kenneth Adelman
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Elliott Abrams
Ari Fleischer
David Frum
John Bolton

Well, Chuckie, aren’t you going to clear this up for us?

Right. He’ll call me an Alinsky-loving “anti-semite” for mentioning the truth. Yeah, Alinsky was an American Jew, but we can’t expect Chuckie to be rational, can we?

LOL!

 
At 12:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave Dubya,

Let's go back to that good-old oft-used historic term for Multiculturalism that you so passionately espouse.... Cultural Marxism.

It was much more accurate.

Can we agree on this?

Mozart, even though you are not the sharpest tool in the shed, let us know your thoughts.

 
At 12:52 PM, Anonymous Just The Facts said...

Obama The Clown is down to 34% who trust him on foreign policy and 54% who don't trust him.

Those 34% are hard core entitlement recipients. They would be happy if they got their check even if they lived in the Soviet Union.

Lib media turning on him more every day.

Finally because he has no clue.

Even Jimmy Carter says we need to attack ISIS!

 
At 1:26 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Can we agree on this?

What, BS that he makes up? LOL!

Chuckie forgot to explain dual citizens and their "multi cultural" far Right.

Run, Chuckie, run, run, run.

Lib media turning on him more every day.

So either Obama, or the corporate media, or both, are not so liberal. Right, Chuckie?

The cult of hate's brainwashed shills will ignore all my points here, of course.

Speaking of fascism, Chuckie's fellow brown shirt, white militia racists are planning on bringing weapons to intimidate black voters at the polls in Wisconsin.

Armed Militia Announces Plans To Intimidate African-American Democrats At Wisconsin Polls

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/21/armed-militia-announces-plans-to-intimidate-african-american-democrats-at-wisconsin-polls/

For theirs is truly the hate, and racist hate, that fuels fascism.



 
At 1:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Speaking of "multi-culturalism"...

Could he possibly mean these neocons, many with American/Israeli dual citizenship?"

Whats your point besides showing you are Anti-semitic?

 
At 2:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Armed Militia Announces Plans To Intimidate African-American Democrats At Wisconsin Polls

Somebody has to keep an eye on the New Black Panthers at the polls.

 
At 2:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maine Democrat Promotes Video With Lewd References To GOP Sen. Susan Collins Performing Sex Act…

War On Women?

Dave Dubya, the same guy who said he knew because of a man's name, that he was a conservative.
Dave Dubya, the same guy who cant name one thing he disagrees with socialism.
Dave Dubya, the same guy who claims the Supreme Court decisions are caused by the right wing if he doesn't like them and the Constitution if he does.
Dave Duyba, the same guy who claims morality is not from God, but holds others to his interpretation of Christian standards.
Dave Dubya, the same man who supports more gun laws. as long as they ignore the gun violence in the "community".
Dave Dubya, the man who can give Consumer Reports reviews on the best mops to use in a prison.
Dave Dubya, the Bloggosphere's hall monitor and custodian.
Trust him, he's a liberal!

 
At 3:04 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Whats your point besides showing you are Anti-semitic?

This is the point. I called out his dishonest and contradictory accusation before it happened; and then he proved me correct.

What’s HIS point, besides hate-spewing troll behavior?

Now about this:

As Theodore Roosevelt once astutely observed, "any person who says he is an American and something else isn't an American at all."

Speaking of "multi-culturalism"...

Could he possibly mean these neocons, many with American/Israeli dual citizenship? Any war the Israeli political far right desires is the goal of these “Americans”. Correction, not accurately Americans, perhaps far Right Israeli Likud/Republicans would better describe them.

Michael Mukasey
Michael Chertoff
Richard Perle
Paul Wolfowitz
Douglas Feith
Henry Kissinger
Kenneth Adelman
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Elliott Abrams
Ari Fleischer
David Frum
John Bolton

Well, Chuckie, aren’t you going to clear this up for us?


Right. He’ll call me an Alinsky-loving “anti-semite” for mentioning the truth. Yeah, Alinsky was an American Jew, but we can’t expect Chuckie to be rational, can we?

LOL!

Run, Chuckie, run away, and call me a commie Alinsky-loving “anti-semite”..

It’s the cowardly and fascistic thing to do. In Chuckie’s Cult of Hate, being critical of Israeli Republicans is “anti-Semitic”.

Chuckie’s hate is the hate that fuels fascism. THAT is the primary point, repeatedly proven by Chuckie’s highly predictable hate and shown by his false and senseless accusation.

 
At 3:06 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Somebody has to keep an eye on the New Black Panthers at the polls.

Fear mongering FOX(R) has it covered, doncha know?

 
At 4:43 PM, Anonymous The Rest of Us said...

The man who jumped the White House railing Sept. 19 deserves the right to live in President Barack Obama’s home, just as the president is allowing hundreds of thousands of border-jumping Central Americans to live in Americans’ homeland.

“We urge President Obama to immediately and publicly recognize that Mr. Omar J. Gonzalez, an oppressed migrant, was merely looking for a better life when he entered the White House after going over the classist, divisive and needless fence,” says the petition, which was authored by D.A. King, founder of the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society, which advocates for actual enforcement of immigration law.

 
At 4:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ISIS seized a third of Iraq that the U.S. secured with ten years of sacrifice. In an interview for 60 Minutes, Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said ISIS flourished because the U.S. got involved in Syria too late and left Iraq too soon. On the 47th season premiere Sunday, "60 Minutes" will report from Iraq and Syria on ISIS -- what it is, what it wants, and how to defeat it.

OMG, this is on CBS News!!

Blame Bush or somebody.

 
At 4:58 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Here's a question for the warmongers. Tjhousands of American troops killed in the Iraq/Afghan wars, and who knows their names other than family and friends?

Dozens of reporters killed in those wars from bombs or bulletts. two from "Friendly fire" Who cares?

A couple people beheaded and we FREAK OUT!

Don't you think ISIS knows that and does it to goad us into overreacting?

Warmongers fall right into thier "trap". They can't beat us militarily, and they can't do enough damage "coming here" to make a difference.

But they can cripple our economy, which was bin Laden's plan. (And it worked, unless you were an executive of a defense contractor like Haliburton)

 
At 5:00 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Oh, and yes, I'll blame Bush/Cheney, because their wars for profit destablized an already fragile region.

Ironically, my Number code" to verify my post is "911".

 
At 5:20 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

ISIS seized a third of Iraq that the U.S. secured with ten years of sacrifice.

Yeah, except, no.

Facts:

Iraq was never "secured" after BUSH sowed the seeds of civil/religious war. Religious/ethnic violence has been ongoing since BUSH invaded and occupied what was once Iraq.

BUSH broke it. BUSH's toady disbanded the Iraqi army.

The Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq.

BUSH signed on to the US withdrawal in the Status of Forces Agreement.

Now the fetid fruits of BUSH's war of choice for crony profit and political gain have arrived. War with IS now supports the interests of the Iranians and Assad. Thanks a lot, George W.

So "blame the black guy". It's all the RRBC can do.

Well, and spew hate for all who accept reality instead of extreme Right cult dogma.





 
At 5:40 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

"THe rest of us"

Don't you ever get tired of carrying the water for Rush Limbaugh?

You are SUCH a good little "dittohead" though.

 
At 7:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee Mr. Bloggosphere Hall monitor and Custodian, you better take that up with Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and tell him how wrong he is and doesn't have a clue to the REAL facts and how you would be glad to share them with him the next time you go to a convention in L.A. of the Suppliers of Custodial Suppliers of America. I'm sure you have much smarter informants where you work on what's really going on than anyone who was a Secretary of Defense would have.

It's amazing how someone like Mr. Panetta could be so wrong and yet go so far. He must listen to Limbaugh all the time!
And to think that our first black President hired him. Can we blame the black guy for his hiring? Or should we blame Bush for that as well?

And to think Bush, who was no longer the President signed on to the total withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, to help Obama fulfill his campaign promise. Did Biden, Sanders, Reid, either Clinton, Pelois, Debbie Schultz, Frankenberry, Boxer, or for that matter, Nozart, Degan or you, Dave Dubya sign on the withdrawal?
If leaving Iraq was the right thing to do, why is Nobel Prize winner B.H. Obama want to go back? Bad poll numbers would be my guess. If the only reason for going in the first place was OIL and the EVIL big OIL CORPORATIONS (you know, GWB's friends), why is Obama going back now? Friend of BIG EVIL OIL CORPORATIONS? What is the Democrat Party doing to stop this Warmonger Corporatist President?

"A couple people beheaded and we FREAK OUT!"
"Dozens of reporters killed in those wars from bombs or bulletts. two from "Friendly fire" Who cares"
The same man who said this also said:
"who knows their names other than family and friends?" And argued that there is no universal moral standard. I think this proves that HE has no universal moral standard, much less a moral standard of any kind.

Now its time for Mr. Bloggosphere Hall Monitor and Custodian, to say one, if not all, of the following talking points,
"blame the black guy, he's an asshole troll, Theirs is the hate that fuels fascism, Run, Chuckie, run away, Blauck bluck bluck, classic con-servative without a conscience, Right cult dogma, hate filled GOP propaganda and bubble cult.

Got to say one thing, he does stays on message. Make you wonder who if he's trying to convince himself or someone else?
Period!

 
At 7:57 PM, Anonymous Nucky Thompson said...

Socialism does not eliminate greed and selfishness, but merely changes how it is expressed.

Central planners and bureaucrats selfishly devote their time and effort in personal activity but are careless with the other people's lives and money they control. Bribes are significant.

The worldview behind socialism pretends Man Is Good and its framework does not even account for greed.

These facts often lost or ignored by the uninformed and Low Information Voters who just want as much free stuff as possible.

Marxism, Socialism, Totalitarianism generally are just substitutes for despotic rule. Bureaucrats, apparatchiks, and the well-connected thrive in those regimes. How else to explain the wealth of the Castros in Cuba or the well-connected Chinese in China or the Pelosis in California? Stalin had a dacha for weekend retreats and parties while most of the Soviet Union couldn't feed itself.

 
At 8:47 PM, Anonymous The Rest of Us said...

Nucky Thompson,

"How else to explain the wealth of the Castros in Cuba or the well-connected Chinese in China or the Pelosis in California?"

My advise would be to ask Mr. Bloggosphere Hall monitor and Custodian. He knows everything, just ask him.

 
At 9:11 PM, Anonymous Nucky Thompson said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

President Clinton stated in February 1998:
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production....

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits....

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal....
President Clinton ~ 1998[6]


Hey Mr. Bloggosphere Hall monitor and Custodian. What do you think of the above?

Would your complaint only be that Bill Clinton did not mention "Nukular Aluminum Tubes"?

 
At 10:50 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

It's amazing how fast Anonymous can change the subject (and apparantly screen names)

If ignorance is bliss, he's got to be the happiest guy in the world.

 
At 12:58 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Something must have struck a nerve with Chuckie. He spent three hours sputtering, raging, and fuming.

I think he's saying Clinton invaded Iraq now, or something crazy.

Yeah, he wants to blame Clinton and Obama for Bush's war for crony profit and political gain.

It's fun watching his narrow little mind blow a fuse.


 
At 1:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And O Obama, O mule of the Jews. You are vile. You are vile. You are vile."

Racist statement from, are you ready Mozart, ISIS!!

ISIS May Attack American Embassy In Baghdad, AQAP Tried to Sneak Bombs Into The U.S. Senator Feinstien(d), a WAR MONGER who is being duped by ISIS.

Right Mozart?

Speaking of ignorance, has it ever crossed you mind Mozart, that there is more than one person posting vies you disagree with?

Nah, didn't think so.

 
At 4:12 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous, are you ready to tell us who your congressmen are?

No ? Then shut up. For all we know all the Obama whiners on here are YOU.

You troll every blog with your constant WHINING. If Tom writes about a nice vacation he had, within a few posts you have it being another Obama whinefest.

Whenever you get corrected or debunked (which is every time) you just change the subject to another whinefest.

Give it a rest already, NO ONE takes you seriously.

"Ahh Mozart, Mitch McConnell is in the Senate, not the Congress."

The wisdom of Anonymous

 
At 9:44 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Nucky -

"The worldview behind socialism pretends Man Is Good and its framework does not even account for greed."

I wholeheartedly agree. BUT (and this is the one that gets me crossways with many conservative friends)... laissez-faire capitalism also pretends as if there is a magical "silent hand" driving markets rightly all the time and that man's self-interest in this arena somehow becomes near flawless. Especially in the Randian version, is see humanism expressed on the other side of the coin from Marx. Both were wrong. In reality, "the market" or "markets" are a social structure made up of the same flawed men as government. Modern laissez-faire capitalist proponents seem to me to have almost a Darwinian approach and go too far, stretching credulity. I truly think more (and better) regulation (in the banking industry for example) would have headed off some of the pain this world will some day endure - within the next 5 years most likely. Crooked banking, offshoring of middle-class manufacturing jobs, corporations owning politicians, and other factors could have been better managed for our country's well-being. Reasonable and right-minded regulation would have been better for us in hindsight.

I think we have to be intellectually honest... do our markets today really appear to be "free"? Not to me. They appear to be in the control of a very few central planners made up of western banking interests.

 
At 10:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Harley A,

I agree with your over all position. But I do so because I believe that mankind, if left to their own means, is evil. Your debate with Mozart about morality supports this.

With out a universal moral standard to be held accountable to, man will de evolve to his lowest level regardless of the economy being state controlled or laissez-faire capitalism.

The current struggle against a moral standard is not a new one. Mankind's history is in fact one of evilness when the belief that there is not a universal moral standard to be held accountable to and for.

I would refer to Jonathan Edwards sermon of July, 1741, "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" in light of today's society, IE if man denies there is a God who could be angry with mankind's actions, whose standards are His own, there is no universal moral standard that man can be held accountable against.

With out God's moral absolutes to modify mankind, our will is never independent from our strongest desires at the time of our making a decision. Man will always chose his strongest desire. Regardless of the style of economic or political governance.

"Reasonable and right-minded regulation would have been better for us in hindsight" will not happen in the future without the Universal Moral Standard that the majority of mankind rejects. The question becomes, how is the current lack of a standard changed? If Mozart is an example of how those who want a govt to control everything, then the moral standards would allow, accept, support and pay for the murder of a human child while still in it's mothers womb. Under the guise of its another form of birth control,etc.

The most glaring insight in the defense of this murder is claiming those who would appose the murder are trying to control the sex life of women aborting (killing) the baby. That ignores the death of a human and supports that our will is never independent from our strongest desires at the time of our making a decision. Mankind will always chose his strongest desire if there is no God based universal moral standard, in this case, you shall not commit murder..
Laissez-faire capitalism is another example IE you should not steal. Gov control economy with the promise of sharing the wealth equally, you shall not lie.

 
At 11:07 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Yep, we are on the same page...

 
At 11:11 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous proving once again that he has no brain of his own.

I already shot down Harleys "No Morality without a "god" argument. Go figure Anonymous agrees with him.

How many wars fought and how many people dead in the name of religion?

Pretty much all of them if the truth be told.

 
At 11:15 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

BTW, the same people who CLAIM to be "pro life" have no time for the baby AFTER it's born. You cut programs for the poor, education, child care funding etc.

And if you were so against abortion you would not be so cob up the ass rightious when it comes to female birth control and sex education.

What it comes down to is that you believe it's OK for men to have recreational sex, but not for women.

Hy[ocritical religious fruitloops. As soon as you come up with ONE SHRED of actual, measurable, observable PROVABLE evidence that ANY "God" exists, let us know. Until then, it's all superstition and mythology.

 
At 11:23 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Mozart,

You shot blanks my friend. Not only did you not shoot anything down, you never even so much as engaged the argument. Because you are incapable. You are one deluded individual. And your hubris is offensive.

 
At 11:38 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"How many wars fought and how many people dead in the name of religion?

Pretty much all of them if the truth be told."

Another piece of made-up nonsense devoid of even superficial critical thought.

American Revolution, French Revolution, Napoleonic imperial aggression, American Civil War, German Nazi Aggression, Soviet Communist Revolution, Chinese Communist Revolution, Korea, Vietnam, all wars fought in the 20th century for the most part. All of which account for FAR more death than former wars combined. An atheistic foundation played a large role in some of these, in fact. 20th century was the bloodiest EVER and virtually none accounted for due to "religion".

 
At 11:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Humanist Mozart,
I've often wonder, in reading your posts, what was the source of your positions.

I think this spot on video of JFK Jr has solved the mystery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKWRRnS-BQ

Do you in anyway, disagree with anything JFK Jr said?

 
At 12:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Humanist Mozart,

"BTW, the same people who CLAIM to be "pro life" have no time for the baby AFTER it's born."

Total pure liberal humanist lie put out there to justify the failure of their policy's with no universal moral standards and to continue the funding same. Do a Google search for charitable organizations who do exactly what you claim is not happening. While you are at it look how our govt has reduced the federal tax exception of charitable giving and explain why govt doesn't like competition.

"You cut programs for the poor, education, child care funding etc."

Show me how these programs have been successful in reducing the continued need for increase in funding. They haven't been successful or there would not be the need for them. Also, not increasing spending is the not the same as cutting spending. Anyway ,if these programs were so good why would there be an ever increasing demand for them?

"And if you were so against abortion you would not be so cob up the ass righteous when it comes to female birth control and sex education."

And you have what to prove this as the truth? Sex education should start in what school year? Should heterosexual education be the only thing taught? How about sex between minors and adults, should that be taught? What about bestiality sex ed, should it be taught? Your position about being righteous indicates you, having no universal moral standards would have no problem with any type of sex ed. I'm amazed Mozart, that you post on this blog as its owner Tom Degan has made a moral judgement and standard that sounds like what you call "so cob up the ass righteous" with his statement "some pervert from who-knows-where started posting adolescent porn sites".

"What it comes down to is that you believe it's OK for men to have recreational sex, but not for women."

And you know that to be true because of personal experience? Or since you have no universal moral standard do you believe that sexual relations between a married couple can not be "recreational"?

Have teenage unmarried pregnancies increased or decreased since liberal humanist sex education has been taught? Have unmarried teenage pregnancies increased or decreased with the legalization of abortion?

Do you believe the goal of sex ed and abortion is to make recreational sex out side of marriage risk and consequence free? Isn't that a moral position, a moral statement, a moral judgement you are making? How dare you impose YOUR moral standards on me! Works both ways Mozart.


 
At 2:05 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

To clarify my remarks, the "all wars fought in the 20th century" was part of the series - not meant as a descriptor for the series. Since, obviously some were not 20th century wars...

 
At 2:30 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,
This:
In reality, "the market" or "markets" are a social structure made up of the same flawed men as government. Modern laissez-faire capitalist proponents seem to me to have almost a Darwinian approach and go too far, stretching credulity. I truly think more (and better) regulation (in the banking industry for example) would have headed off some of the pain this world will some day endure - within the next 5 years most likely. Crooked banking, offshoring of middle-class manufacturing jobs, corporations owning politicians, and other factors could have been better managed for our country's well-being. Reasonable and right-minded regulation would have been better for us in hindsight.

I think we have to be intellectually honest... do our markets today really appear to be "free"? Not to me. They appear to be in the control of a very few central planners made up of western banking interests.


Gee, when I made this point Chuckie would call me Marxist and link my name to a commie site.

It looks like we have Chuckie agreeing with both of us on this point. Or will he change his mind now that I support this?

LOL!

 
At 2:47 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Harley, social programs for the poor are ONLY "failures" in the eyes of greedy conservatives. And I would start teaching sex ed as early as 5th or 6th grade as that's when kids start noticing their bodies changing and hormones are kicking in. Since hetrosexuals are not the ONLY people in the world I would teach about ALL forms of human sexuality (in a sensitive way) because teaching intolerance only fuels bigotry.(And how is bigotry in ANY form "moral"

My wife and I have 4 kids between us from previous marriages, but we have had the same attitude. If they are old enough to ask the questions, they are old enough to get HONEST answers. If you want abortion to at least be less frequent (it's NEVER going to stop) maybe you might help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Teaching "abstinence only" might make you FEEL better, but it's never going to prevent kids who want to have sex from doing so, and in fact many of the kids who sign "abstinence oaths" are the very ones who turn up pregnant and then feel an abortion is the only option because the parents will freak out. Peer pressure and raging hormones will ALWAYS overpower any artificial and unrealistic form of prehistoric "morality".

MY form of morality is realistic and much kinder to people in general. Yours just makes YOU feel better, but really does more harm than good. How many teens commit suicide because their parents refuse to accept them for who they are?

Put down Leviticus, and try to be a human.

Yes, kids should be taught to identify sexual preditors. No one condones adults having sex with minors, nor does anyone condone bestiality, so please stop comparing them. You look like an idiot. Sex ed would give kids info they need on the risks you worry about. It does not encourage them to have sex, they will do that anyway. It encourages them to have SAFE sex and maybe if the parents were not so uptight they could get that info from them. Since most can't, it's up to our schools.

Why do two consenting adults HAVE to be married to have recreational sex? Who does it harm? Why is it anyone's business but their own?

And Utah, being one of the most conservative states in the country, also has (or at least had when I lived there from 86-02) one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. WHY? No REAL sex ed and kids under 18 could not buy birth control without parental consent. If the parent is as strictly moral as you do you REALLY think the kid is going to be comfortable asking for it? No, they will just do without, with the inevitable result.

 
At 2:50 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuckie's straw men soaked in red herrings are stinking the place up.

His utter lack of reason and logic are still amusing, though.

How dare you impose YOUR moral standards on me!

Yeah, it's only OK for Chuckie to impose HIS moral standards on ALL WOMEN.

My favorite logical fallacy and disconnect from reason:

Show me how these programs have been successful in reducing the continued need for increase in funding. They haven't been successful or there would not be the need for them.

How's that failed war on drugs going, there, Chuckie? I suppose you could argue it is successful in making the US the world's leading "Incarceration Nation".

Chuckie won't discuss his fallacy though. He just KNOWS he's right, far Right.

So how do we measure the effectiveness of social safety nets? By how many jobs they provide? No. By their reducing unemployment? No.

There are neither their intention nor their metric for success. The ONLY metric for their success is the NEED they meet, whether in unemployment benefits or in putting food on the tables.

Now let's play Chuckie's stupid game of illogical assumption.

They haven't been successful or there would not be the need for them.

Having military powers hasn't been successful or there would not be the need for them. There are still wars.

Law enforcement hasn't been successful or there would not be the need for them. There is still crime.

Fire departments haven't been successful or there would not be the need for them. There are still fires.

Obviously, in the narrow, ideologically blind mind of Chuckie, these useless failed programs, at least by his unilaterally defined metric, all need to go.

There's no reasoning with his ilk. But at least Chuckie agrees with me on this:

Crooked banking, offshoring of middle-class manufacturing jobs, corporations owning politicians, and other factors could have been better managed for our country's well-being. Reasonable and right-minded regulation would have been better for us in hindsight.

I think we have to be intellectually honest... do our markets today really appear to be "free"? Not to me. They appear to be in the control of a very few central planners made up of western banking interests.


We'll always have this to share, right, Chuckie?

Cue double standards, hypocrisy, outrage and hate.








 
At 3:29 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Mozart,

I didn't say anything about sex... that was an anonymous poster.

 
At 5:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Since hetrosexuals are not the ONLY people in the world I would teach about ALL forms of human sexuality (in a sensitive way) because teaching intolerance only fuels bigotry."

So your morality would have allowed your kids to have been taught as sex education, sex as a minor with an adult or an animal? To not would be intolerant.

"If you want abortion to at least be less frequent (it's NEVER going to stop) maybe you might help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place"

And my question about the numbers of unwanted unmarried teen pregnancy's not dropping since tolerant sex ed and abortion is answered how? Are there other things that because they are never going to stop, their laws we should resend? Y

All of these leads back to the lack of a universal morality which you as a humanist, do not want to be held to. You are making my point for me.

"Put down Leviticus, and try to be a human." What chapter and verse am I using from Leviticus?

Look Mozart, Dave is fond of quoting the Bible and taking it out of context to prove his humanist point of view. Or at least to attempt to catch believers in a Universal Moral Standard on the horns of a dilemma. He's not the first nor will he be the last. I would suggest you use the Bible to interpret the Bible.

To address your rejection for a God given Universal Moral Standard look at what Paul wrote in Romans 5:13. "For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." And verse 20a, "Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound".
I take this to mean that the law, IE God's Universal Moral Standard was not given to prevent sin, but to set the standards of behavior of what was sin. A standard that man under his own humanistic standard can not obey perfectly. In my opinion what you are saying Mozart is "since we can't obey the law of God 100%, then let's just ignore it 100%."

I would respect you if you were honest and simply said that.

I am still amused how the moral standards of Tom on the posing of links to child porno doesn't offend you Mozart.
Why haven't you taken him to task for imposing his morality on you?

 
At 5:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No one condones adults having sex with minors, nor does anyone condone bestiality, so please stop comparing them."

Muslims would be offended by your imposing your moral standard on them. Who are you Mozart to declare what their Holy Book the Koran and what their Imam's say about this subject is not condoned. It's views like yours Mozart that lead the the justified attack of 9/11 and the recent beheading of two Americans.

Explain your intolerance to the views held by billions of peaceful Muslims!

Half way kidding you there Mozart, but I hoe you see how slippery the slope you on when you in one breath deny Universal Moral Standards and in the next breath state one as an absolute. Now who looks lie a fool?

 
At 6:01 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Anon -

You're missing the point. Mozart doesn't even understand the subject matter when it comes to morality (though he will swear he does and you don't). He confuses morality with individual values and beliefs. He doesn't understand that morality (by definition) must be based on an objective absolute standard. He doesn't realize that it would be fine for him to say morality doesn't exist as a category - but not to say it exists subjectively (as he does). He gives it then takes it back. He cannot separate volition and agency of the individual from the concept of morality which cannot be subjective.

So, warning, your conversation will get muddled beyond recognition very quickly.

 
At 7:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He doesn't understand that morality (by definition) must be based on an objective absolute standard."

And there is the whole debate wrapped up in one sentence, with the question, not to you but to anyone, does Mozart not understand that or does he pretend not to?

Thanks for the advise and heads up.

 
At 8:59 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Does anybody want to make the argument that Republican politicians are more "moral" than their counterparts?

 
At 9:55 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Dave is fond of quoting the Bible and taking it out of context to prove his humanist point of view.

False.

First the quotes are very much in context to my points. Chuckie is a liar and deceiver, among other things. I quote the Bible to prove Chuckie wrong, and illustrate his lack of understanding, or his willful disregard of the message he allegedly holds as his truth. Chuckie is the kind of hateful and dishonest hypocrite that gives Christianity a negative image. His is the hypocrisy that Jesus rebuked. Jesus was actually far more a “humanist” by this definition, “a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity” than he was a Republican servant of mammon.

The proof is Chuckie’s glaring lack of honesty and morality as evidenced by his falsehoods, accusations and hate. He will say anything to demonize and convey hate for those who call out his dishonesty.

Some Christian.

His only apparent values are, “Thou shalt unquestioningly support for the agenda of the richest servants of mammon”, and of course, “hate and scapegoat liberals”.

I wonder if Chuckie still agrees with:

In reality, "the market" or "markets" are a social structure made up of the same flawed men as government. Modern laissez-faire capitalist proponents seem to me to have almost a Darwinian approach and go too far, stretching credulity. I truly think more (and better) regulation (in the banking industry for example) would have headed off some of the pain this world will some day endure - within the next 5 years most likely. Crooked banking, offshoring of middle-class manufacturing jobs, corporations owning politicians, and other factors could have been better managed for our country's well-being. Reasonable and right-minded regulation would have been better for us in hindsight.

I think we have to be intellectually honest... do our markets today really appear to be "free"? Not to me. They appear to be in the control of a very few central planners made up of western banking interests.


Let’s ask.

Well, Chuckie?

Are you with us or against us, buddy?

Got an honest answer? Cult got your tongue?

I bet that sticks in your craw. LOL!!

 
At 11:58 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

So why are religious fruitlops some of the LEAST "moral" people around? They seem to get caught "sinning" as often if not more than non religious people, they just cry and "pray for forgiveness" and go right back to it.

There is no sense to the idea that a person must believe in some kind of deity to be a good person.

In fact, if you are "good" because you fear eternal punishment or you wish for eternal reward you are just a hypocrite doing it for yourself and not for others.

You'd think any God worth his robes would see right through that crap.

 
At 12:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mozart,
Define good for us.

 
At 1:06 AM, Anonymous Chuckie #3 said...



He's back and more vile that ever, Mr. Bloggosphere Hall Monitor and Custodian is in the house!

 
At 1:24 AM, Blogger Carljohn X. Veraja said...

For a 32nd degree Freemason, he was a good guy.

 
At 3:24 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous,name your congressmen for us.

Don't forget the Senators.

 
At 9:49 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"There is no sense to the idea that a person must believe in some kind of deity to be a good person."

No one is saying that. What we are saying is, absent an authoritative basis for morality, what "good and bad" indeed are is (as you allude) purely subjective. If it is purely subjective, then it is obviously not objective. At that point, you destroy the concept of morality. What you are calling your "own morality" is not, then, actually morality. This isn't hard. If you'd let the defenses down and THINK about this for a moment, you'd understand this very simple concept. I am not saying it is illogical for an atheist to believe in a purely subjective view of how a person should act. But, I am saying, if it is purely subjective, then objective morality DOESN'T EXIST - a la Nietzsche, Sartre, et al. You can logically believe that (though, it has horrific consequences), but you cannot logically believe that and then turn around and berate another person for acting "wrong" - that you cannot logically do.

What you have created for yourself is a delusional construct in which you are allowed to defend your own version of right and wrong by claiming subjectivity. But, then you deny that very subjectivity when you make ANY claim against another person for his/her viewpoint on right and wrong. At that point, when you do that, you are bringing objectivity into the picture - which you seem to disallow previously.


My 13 year understands this - this isn't difficult. I'm being very patient with you... But, it is important.

 
At 11:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hu·man·ism
ˈ(h)yo͞oməˌnizəm/

noun: humanism

an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

Humanist

In the Renaissance, a scholar who studied the languages and cultures of ancient Greece and Rome; today, a scholar of the humanities. The term secular humanist is applied to someone who concentrates on human activities and possibilities, usually downplaying or denying the importance of God and a life after death

So Jesus was a humanist?

"Jesus was actually far more a “humanist” by this definition, “a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity" Maybe by that definition but by his OWN definition of himself, he said he was the Son of God.

Let Jesus define himself would be my advise.

 
At 12:34 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Let Jesus define himself would be my advise.

Or better yet, let's ignore Chuckie's advice and follow His.

There would be less need for "humanism" if so-called Christians acted according to Jesus's teachings, instead of the usual lip-service. The hypocrites like Chuckie cling to hate for others and to the narrow interests of the servants of mammon.

What did Jesus say concerning the rich? How about taxes?

Or is this "out of context"? Yeah, better forget what Jesus said and serve the economic elites.

No matter how you look at it, you can't serve Wall Street and the Koch brothers and the Lord at the same time. Taking food from the poor so the Kochs pay lower taxes is NOT a Christian value.

Sorry.

But the good news is Chuckie agrees with Harley and me that:

In reality, "the market" or "markets" are a social structure made up of the same flawed men as government. Modern laissez-faire capitalist proponents seem to me to have almost a Darwinian approach and go too far, stretching credulity. I truly think more (and better) regulation (in the banking industry for example) would have headed off some of the pain this world will some day endure - within the next 5 years most likely. Crooked banking, offshoring of middle-class manufacturing jobs, corporations owning politicians, and other factors could have been better managed for our country's well-being. Reasonable and right-minded regulation would have been better for us in hindsight.

I think we have to be intellectually honest... do our markets today really appear to be "free"? Not to me. They appear to be in the control of a very few central planners made up of western banking interests.


Isn't that right, Chuckie?

Chuckie?

Chuckie? Is anyone there?

Any "Chuckie" all, who can admit to some agreement and common ground?

Or is Chuckie just playing his GOP card of switching positions if Obama or a liberal agrees?

Yeah, we all know how that works.

How ornery and hateful can these rigid authoritarian hypocrites be?

 
At 12:42 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12:44 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

he said he was the Son of God.

Yes, and as I have explained to Chuckie before, Jesus said we are all children of God.

Chuckie questioned me on this so I asked him what Jesus meant by, "Our Father".

Poor Chuckie. He will deny his faith in order to spew his hate for his brothers and sisters. I bet he's the same way about "Love your neighbor" too.

No way in Hell, right, Chuckie?

 
At 3:21 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

NO Harley, if morality is subjective (which it is since no two people have the same "moral values) you destroy the concept of "GOD" and that, if the truth be told is the argument you are trying to make. Having said THAT, "God" is subjective since no two people have the EXACT same idea of what "God" is. You know this to be true, whether you have the courage to admit it or not.

Clearly, you have no desire to admit that there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT ANY GOD EXISTS. You are stuck in medevil superstition and mythology and to admit that there is no God would not only be embarrassing to you for admitting such childish thinking but probably destroy your entire sense of self. Sorry about that, but it's a situation you will eventually have to come to grips with.

This argument is going NOWHERE since you won't even admit to the simplest TRUTH that a person can be "moral" and not believe in a mythological father figure.

A large and rapidly growing number of people are rejecting religion. It does NOT mean they are without "morals" In fact I've looked in several places and in NONE of them does the definition of "morality" include the requirement of a deity. Like I've said, if being a "good" person (and Anonymous you know what "good" means, though it too is a subjective term) is predicated on either eternal reward or eternal punishment, than one is being "good" for the wrong reasons and any alleged "god" worth his robes would see right through that.

The entire "carrot and stick" concept of God is a HUMAN tactic, designed to control the masses.

mo·ral·i·ty noun \mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\ : beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

: the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something


This discussion is OVER. Believe what you want. But the founders of this country made sure that religion was not to be part of the lawmaking process.

Are you saying they were trying to build an "immoral" nation?

Have a nice life in the "Bubble", but there are serious problems to solve, and we need to base our thinking in REALITY.

 
At 3:42 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Notice, I did not invoke God in my last post, Mozart. It is you who are focused on your disbelief in Him - not me.

Let's leave out the term "morality" for the time being. It is tripping you up.

Take your statement "and Anonymous you know what "good" means, though it too is a subjective term". This leads me to believe you either don't understand what the word subjective means or you don't understand fundamental logic.

If the definition of "good" is indeed subjective, then BY DEFINITION, "good" means whatever in the world the subject (i.e. the person in question) deems it to be. So, for you to say you are being "good" is a nonsensical statement outside the closed system of your own volitional agency.

Furthermore, not only can you not defend what is or is not good, you cannot defend the concept of goodness. You believe in a universe which came into existence without a creator and in life forms that evolved by chance and time through purely material processes. At what point can you defend "goodness" as anything other than, at best, an accidental evolutionary mechanism with no real meaning?

For you to use the term "good" borrows capital from a bank that doesn't exist.

 
At 3:43 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"...that doesn't exist in your construct" I should say.

 
At 4:12 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

The term "morality" is not "tripping me up". I said accurately that it is a "subjective" term. I gave you one of many dictionary definitions proving this.

Instert "Morality" in place of "good" in your post. You'll have it right.

You lost this argument a long time ago.

Are you getting enough oxygen in your "bubble"?

 
At 5:06 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

There never has been an argument. There have been logical and coherent points made by me followed by inability or refusal to engage by you. And the last two posts have contained cliché-ridden insults thrown in for good measure. Must be that subjective goodness coming out.

 
At 5:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Chuckie claiming to be the Son of God? Is Dave claiming that as children of God we are divine and a part of the Christian Holy Trinity?

"There would be less need for "humanism" if so-called Christians acted according to Jesus's teachings, instead of the usual lip-service."

So it's the fault of Christians that we have to have liberal humanest policy's? Are the standards for being a Christian set by Dave or by God? Is a person a Christian because of what they do or what they believe? What makes a person a Christian?

"Taking food from the poor so the Kochs pay lower taxes is NOT a Christian value."
Let's get this straight, if the rich pay lower taxes, the poor have less food?
How does that work?

Would it follow then if there were no rich because their wealth had been taken from them by taxation, there would then, be no poor? How would that work?

 
At 5:14 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"Insert "Morality" in place of "good" in your post. You'll have it right."


Ok, let's try...


Notice, I did not invoke God in my last post, Mozart. It is you who are focused on your disbelief in Him - not me.

Let's leave out the term "morality" for the time being. It is tripping you up.

Take your statement "and Anonymous you know what "MORALITY" means, though it too is a subjective term". This leads me to believe you either don't understand what the word subjective means or you don't understand fundamental logic.

If the definition of "MORALITY" is indeed subjective, then BY DEFINITION, "MORALITY" means whatever in the world the subject (i.e. the person in question) deems it to be. So, for you to say you are being "MORAL" is a nonsensical statement outside the closed system of your own volitional agency.

Furthermore, not only can you not defend what is or is not MORAL, you cannot defend the concept of MORALITY. You believe in a universe which came into existence without a creator and in life forms that evolved by chance and time through purely material processes. At what point can you defend "MORALITY" as anything other than, at best, an accidental evolutionary mechanism with no real meaning?

For you to use the term "MORAL" borrows capital from a bank that doesn't exist.




Mozart, for once you're right. It works nicely...

 
At 5:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


"Clearly, you have no desire to admit that there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT ANY GOD EXISTS."

And Mozart you clearly have no desire to admit that there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE IS NO GOD.

 
At 5:38 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 5:41 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

"Taking food from the poor so the Kochs pay lower taxes is NOT a Christian value."

Whenever Chuckie says, “Let's get this straight”, we know he’s going to muddy the issue.

For the “low information voter” like Chuckie, the Kochs support eliminating public education as well as all public aid to the poor.

Voting for their politicians to give them tax cuts and do their bidding will result in cuts in safety nets. These words must send a tingle up Chuckie’s leg.

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:

“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs.
“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”


There’s the agenda of Chuckie’s masters, therefore Chuckie’s mission in life. He is their shill and stooge. Run away, Chuckie, Run from the truth.

As Harley correctly stated: “…laissez-faire capitalism also pretends as if there is a magical "silent hand" driving markets rightly all the time and that man's self-interest in this arena somehow becomes near flawless. Especially in the Randian version, is see humanism expressed on the other side of the coin from Marx. Both were wrong.”

What makes a person a Christian? That’s up to the person and his conscience, or lack thereof. As Chuckie shows us, you cannot love your neighbor if you have no conscience.

One thing for certain is:

"Taking food from the poor so the Kochs pay lower taxes is NOT a Christian value."

 
At 5:47 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous, that statement rates up there with "Why are there no stars in the Moon Landing Photos" on the STUPID scale.

One cannot prove a negativem and besides,the burden of proof lies with the person making the POSITIVE claim.

I could say "Prove a flying spaghetti monster DOESN'T exist.


Now we all KNOW it doesn't in it would be ridiculous to think one does. But PROVING it would be pretty much impossible. All we have is the COMPLETE LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE OF SUCH A CREATURE.
Such is the way with any "God"

Want me to believe? provide some evidence.

But don't come here with such STUPID rplies as "Prove God doesn't exist". You look like even more of a moron that usual, and THAT boggles the mind.

 
At 5:47 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

As Harley correctly stated: “…laissez-faire capitalism also pretends as if there is a magical "silent hand" driving markets rightly all the time and that man's self-interest in this arena somehow becomes near flawless. Especially in the Randian version, is see humanism expressed on the other side of the coin from Marx. Both were wrong.”

So, "Let's get this straight". Can Chuckie explain how he both agrees with this, AND the agenda of his Koch masters?

Harley, are you sure your fellow traveler agrees with us? He refuses, or more likely is afraid, to go near the question.



 
At 5:50 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Mozart,

Chuckie can only prove brainwashing, hate, and hypocrisy exist.

 
At 5:56 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Harley, I never said I believe there was no "creator" I said that to date there is no evidence whatsoever that there WAS a "creator"

I ask you to provide such evidence, and to date you have failed.

Science has explained the origin of the universe in logical, measurable, observable, detail all the way back to the "Big Bang" (Flippant term, but it works)

It's only a matter of time before we figure out where THAT matter and energy came from.

Just because we don't know ALL the answers does NOT mean it must be a "God". WE used to think fire was "alive" abd that diseases were caused by demonic posession. We used to think the Earth was flat (until about 50 BC anyway)and that everything in the sky travelled around the Earth.

We know better now don't we? We are capable of LEARNING AND GROWING.

Well, some of us are anyway.

 
At 6:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Dave, I'm not you friend Chuckie.
And when did holding you to your positions become muddying the waters?
You make clear statements of your belief, I ask about them. Isn't that allowed by liberal humanists? It is allowed by Christian.

BTW, who is this "we" you refer to, the Imperial "we" per chance??

When have said I agree with or support the Koch's? More humanistic imagination on your part? I am happy for the millions of dollars they give the charity each year and for the thousands of people they employee.

Which is kind of interesting, you have bashed Christians, yet have not addressed any of the points I made, except for one. You said,
"What makes a person a Christian? That’s up to the person and his conscience, or lack thereof." Since you are so keen to quote Bible passages, where can I find some verses that support your view?

Using your definition, how can you be critical of a Christian who doesn't live up to your standards of what a Christian should be? Using your definition maybe their conscience is different than yours? So how can you demean them with comments like;
“Thou shalt unquestioningly support for the agenda of the richest servants of mammon”, and of course, “hate and scapegoat liberals”. Some Christian" Who are you to judge since, by your own words, it is a matter of "conscience, or lack thereof"?

Who do you think gives more to the poor, does more for the poor each year Christians or non Christians? Who are you to stand in judgement of the hearts and the reasons Christians have for giving?
Who are you to judge any one using your standard of liberal humanistic moral standards, or lack there of?


 
At 6:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Bill Clinton a Christian because of his statement?

Former President Bill Clinton, who signed into law budget measures that led to the developed world’s highest corporate rate of 35 percent, wants it cut to encourage U.S. business to stop fleeing overseas.

What’s more, the husband of the leading 2016 Democratic presidential hopeful also called on Washington to stop elevating the tax charged on overseas earnings of U.S. corporations.

Clinton, in an interview with CNBC’s Becky Quick during his Clinton Global Initiative event, said when he raised taxes, the agreement was that the U.S. corporate tax rate would be about equal to the “average rate” of developed countries, not the top as it is now.

“We need tax reform,” he told Quick.

 
At 7:05 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

No Dave, I'm not you friend Chuckie

Yeah, yeah, we know you by your hate. You just can't hide it.

But thanks for proving me correct that you are a shill for the mammon serving Kochs.

If you're not the "anonymous chuckie", then why do you respond to me about "Anonymous" agreeing with Harley and me? This is the "we" that seems to confuse you, or perhaps its just more of you muddying the water.

Harley A,

I agree with your over all position.


I was correct. He/you refuse, or more likely is afraid, to go near the question. We can be fairly certain this "agreement" was just another lie.

Deception, and lies, are crucial tools of evil.

Nobody here employs those tools more than "Anonymous Chuckie".

“Thou shalt unquestioningly support for the agenda of the richest servants of mammon”, and of course, “hate and scapegoat liberals”.

Proven repeatedly.

Thanks, "Anonymous" Chuckie.




 
At 1:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Using your rules Dave what I say isn't hate, you only think it is. Who are you to judge me? Who are you to determine that what I believe in is wrong or hateful?

Aren't you the one who said it was up to my personal conscience what I believed or didn't believe? Why are you trying to impose your description of me? Who gave you the authority to determine what I am or am not?

There are no absolutes according to you, so what is the base line you use to say I'm hateful? And how did you get that base line?

BTW, who is this "we" you refer to, the Imperial "we" per chance??
Deception, and lies, are crucial tools of evil according to who Dave, you? What right to you have to sit in judgment of me?

Using your definition, how can you be critical of a Christian who doesn't live up to your standards of what a Christian should be? Using your definition maybe their conscience is different than yours? So how can you demean them with comments like;
“Thou shalt unquestioningly support for the agenda of the richest servants of mammon”, and of course, “hate and scapegoat liberals”. Some Christian" Who are you to judge since, by your own words, it is a matter of "conscience, or lack thereof"?
You have not proven repeatedly anything except you have your standards of no standards except when it come to you judging others.

Your a mess.

 
At 7:36 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

I'm critical of Christians that have no concept of what the Jesus of the bible was about. One cannot follow those teachings (no matter if he existed or ot SOMEONE wrote the words attributed to him) and be a conservative as the values are diametrically opposed. The Jesus of the Bible was, by todays political standards, a "liberal". I can respect those ideals (minus the supernatural nonsense) without having to believe he existed. Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, admonishing the greedy, championing the poor...all good ideas and values. Too bad conservatives don't folow them.

 
At 9:30 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Mozart, in fact I did answer your question, but you were not willing or able to engage it.

It is obviously a big topic and not easy to communicate without taking over with long posts.

But, the fact that ANYTHING IS logically warrants a Creator - an uncaused first cause. Or, it requires that you suspend the laws of logic (which you've proved quite willing to do) and believe the matter and energy came to be from nothing. You are wrong to say that science has proven anything - it is not settled science - but what the preponderance of the scientific community HAS agreed on is that there was indeed a beginning. Given that, to say it sprang into something from nothingness defies the law of non-contradiction.

There are other arguments dealing with the complexity of design, with the fine tuning of physical constants, etc. as regards the material side of things.

Ok, that's the material side of things. That doesn't even address the teleological argument. The seeming existence of reason, purpose, meaning, love, etc. In a purely material universe, these are non-existent or illusory at best. But, they certainly do seem to exist, which also points to not only a first cause, but a personal, rational first cause.

So, you can quit saying I've offered no evidence. YOU ARE the evidence.

You're certainly willing to stick with your belief and trust in cosmological "science" (really 90% philosophy with 10% scientific content) you don't understand, science that isn't settled (in fact has a wide range of views with none prevailing), and science that cannot have been observed. I observe my evidence daily - you do too. It is so evident, virtually every people group on the face of the earth believed(es) in a Deity and has a version of a creation story. It is obvious - the evidence is vast. You latch onto to make believe "science" which is in reality philosophical in content and far from settled because that is your desire. Oddly, we come back to morality - it is a moral issue - not an intellectual one.

How many college level chemistry & physics classes have you had? Want to compare?

 
At 10:22 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Look! They've done a study on Chuckie:

Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists

They confirm what we already know from direct observation of his hate and lies.

 
At 10:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A good example of the humanistic liberal conscience at work.

California School Pulls Book About Christian Family Saving Jews During WWII Because It’s “Christian-Themed”…
Springs Charter Schools in Temecula, Calif., not only had a problem with “The Hiding Place,” they also took issue with any other book that was written by a Christian author or included a Christian message.

Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists, and every thing on the Internet has to be the truth? Oh, wait a minute, truth is all relative. What's my truth might not be your truth therefore since there is no absolute truth base line to judge the degree of truth everything is false. Depending on the conscience of the individual, of course.

Odd, how you Dave, have resorted to assigning values based on what YOUR conscience of me says, while being unable to deal with any degree of humanism to my post. I believe that's called running from the issue.
Or maybe walking from the issue, depending on one's personal conscience. LOL

 
At 11:14 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuckie the evil hateful troll has a book banning example he wants to show. (Christian schools and Right wingers NEVER ban books, do they? LOL)

How would Chuckie feel if schools buy Jehovah's Witness tracts and Korans with public funds?

The removal of the book in question that fuels his anger and hate are distributed by an evangelical publisher. The book in question was co-authored by the evangelical "guideposts" editors.

This is evangelicalism wrapped in a historical story. Profits go to evangelical organizations.

So what do you say Chuckie? How many tax dollars would you like to go to the "Watchtower" publishers?

It's a good thing we agree on something quite important though:

In reality, "the market" or "markets" are a social structure made up of the same flawed men as government. Modern laissez-faire capitalist proponents seem to me to have almost a Darwinian approach and go too far, stretching credulity. I truly think more (and better) regulation (in the banking industry for example) would have headed off some of the pain this world will some day endure - within the next 5 years most likely. Crooked banking, offshoring of middle-class manufacturing jobs, corporations owning politicians, and other factors could have been better managed for our country's well-being. Reasonable and right-minded regulation would have been better for us in hindsight.

I think we have to be intellectually honest... do our markets today really appear to be "free"? Not to me. They appear to be in the control of a very few central planners made up of western banking interests.


Right, Chuckie?





 
At 11:52 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,
The Deeper Mysteries aside, why do you suppose the "Anonymous Chuckie" who agreed with you denies he is the person, yet is responding to me, and still avoids the issue of "agreement"?

Is he here just to be disagreeable?

Does this mean his purpose for being here is to do exactly what trolls do, disrupt, antagonize, agitate and distract?

This seems to indicate "Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists" are the accurate descriptors.

Is his behavior Christian in any way?

It does support his and your view that "mankind, if left to their own means, is evil", despite their trappings of faith.

If Chuckie is a Christian, then he proves the existence of the "Evil Christian". Nothing new here, the crusades, inquisition, witch trials, and lies about WMDs and Saddam in cahoots with al-Qaeda all tell us hate and evil infect "religious" people as much as the irreligious.












 
At 12:08 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

DD -

I don't pretend to know how to sort out the various Anon posters. I tend to think they're not all attributed to what was once Chuck Morre, but I have no idea really. It would be nice if folks had continuity of ID - would make conversation a little more coherent for sure.

Couple responses along the lines of your postings..

I am not a proponent of a state religion. Nor, frankly am I a strong proponent for a state driven education system, though not necessarily against it - mixed feelings. But, as it does exist, I would not be for any state educator leading my child in ANY form of prayer (were my children in the public system). Along those lines, the fact that I pay for my child's private education as well as being compelled to fund a second-rate state-run educational system does gripe me a bit, but I get over it pretty quickly.

As for "religion", I separate that from truth. Most religion is false - simple logic would tell one this - it has to be as they all make exclusive truth claims. Given my belief that Christianity is reality-based and true, it necessarily excludes other truth claims in this arena. Part of the beliefs as understood in scripture is that there not only be those who are only nominally Christian - in fact, there will be "wolves among the sheep" who will be evil and anti-Christian. So, it is no shock to me that evil is done in the name of Christianity. It happens unfortunately. And, having said that, I wouldn't pretend to fully know the heart of a person based on their holding a political view.

 
At 12:30 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,
It would be nice if folks had continuity of ID - would make conversation a little more coherent for sure..

Some folks are just not nice.

Thank you for your civility and personal responsibility for your words. Unlike a certain individual, you are a gentleman and scholar.

Obviously coherent conversation is not the intention of Chuckie the troll. Which affirms my assessment, and that of the study on people who troll.

Chuckie cowardly hides behind "anonymous" so he can evade responsibility for his words and maximize his trolling behavior. We all know that.

I know all the anonymous comments are not his, but it is clear most of them are. As long as he responds to "Chuckie", that is who he is.

...Right, Chuckie?

 
At 12:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave, while anony hides behind a lack of a name to post, you who has a name, dont answer posts or questions or respond to them.

So what's you excuse?

 
At 4:05 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous accusing somone of not answering questions.

Oh, the irony.


And Harley, your logic, as usual, is flawed. You believe that because we don't know the origin of something that there MUST be a "god".

Who "created" your alleged God"?

And you, like all religious fruitloops will say "He has ALWAYS been"

Besides we are not talking about who "created" what. We were talking about morality REQUIRING a supernatural father figure. (actually we were talking about the Roosevelts, but you and Anonymous have to turn every blog into an Obama whinefest)

It doesn't as every definition of the word shows.

 
At 4:20 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Anonymous accusing someone of not answering questions.

Oh, the irony.


Yeah, hypocrisy and double standards are his stock in trade.

It's his authoritarian personality.

You see, WE must submit to his interrogation, while HE is above polite dialogue and conversation between people who are responsible for their words.

Note how he refuses to accept something he already allegedly agreed with. LOL! Something Harley said WAS OK, until I agreed. Now...crickets.

That's how the RRBC works.

 
At 5:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's how the liberal humanist think.

Clark County NV

Clark County School Board Considered changes include education of homosexuality as early as ages 5 through 8 and giving everyone “respect regardless of who they are attracted to.”

Children of that age range also would be taught that “touching and rubbing one’s genitals to feel good is called masturbation.”

“You want to teach my 5-year-old how to masturbate?” said parent Julie Butler, referencing the item getting the most attention Monday night.

The district presented these 101 pages of possible changes in closed-door meetings with community members last week.

Parent Nicole Luth attended one of the “community input” meetings and was shocked at how they were run, allowing only those invited to attend.

“I felt it was quite limited in scope and who was able to attend,” she said.

The School Board is considering a rewrite of its sex education policies.

The district long taught abstinence-only courses until 2004, reverting to an abstinence-based education since then that continues to focus on abstinence while exposing students to contraceptives and safe-sex practices if they decide to have sex.

The changes under consideration would make sex education in the nation’s fifth-largest school district a “comprehensive” sexuality model, which breaks away from the district’s long-used conservative approach that relies heavily on the promotion of abstinence.

Clark County Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky tried to calm the approximately 50 parents by asserting that the curriculum is not proposed for the district’s 357 schools.

The district is just gathering community input, he said.

Reported By TREVON MILLIARD
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Moving your grand kids there Mozart so they can experience hand's on "diversity" in sex ed?

More of the Imperial WE from Mr. Bloggosphere Hall Monitor and Custodian, Dave Dubya

 
At 5:31 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

So now Chuckie's cult tells him all liberals want to teach five-year-olds to masturbate.

He WILL believe that without thought or question. Why? Because it demonizes and frames liberals to fit the cult propaganda. AND he is an asshole troll.

It's also no surprise that Chuckie never read the source of his copy and paste. He would have read this, from a person actually AT the meeting reported:

The district is NOT proposing to use the curriculum that these parents complained about. I was at the meeting. They CLEARLY stated that this is a proposal from one organization. The district only presented it as an example of what some people think should be taught. They NEVER indicated in any way, shape, or form, that they were going to use that curriculum. It was merely an example to show the differences in curricular ideas. Someone lied to these parents when they said the district was considering it for adoption. People listed to the lie, got worked up, and came in to the board meeting screaming and yelling.

"Screaming and yelling" not knowing the facts. Now THAT is con-servatism to a tee.

Keep the cult faith, Chuckie.

His is the hate that fuels fascism.



 
At 6:39 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"And Harley, your logic, as usual, is flawed. You believe that because we don't know the origin of something that there MUST be a "god"."

My logic could be flawed, but that's not my logic.

You reading comprehension skills are flawed.

Your class and demeanor are flawed as well.

 
At 7:33 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

If by " Flawed class and demeanor" I use logic and reason as opposed to nythology and superstition, then yes I will admit to those "flaws.

I notice you never answered my question.

IF EVERYTHING REQUIRES A "CREATOR" WHO OR WHAT "CREATED" YOUR ALLEGED GOD?


I'll tell you who. Humans did, in our own image and likeness. With all of our emotional human faults such as vanity (Thou shalt not have any Gods before me)suggesting that they believed there WERE "other gods".

 
At 8:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reporter wasn't at the meeting?

Must work for MSNBC!

But what the heck, who are you to judge the possible changes in the sex education being taught there? Are you saying the idea resented at the meeting isn't a good thing? Based on what? What's wrong with the proposal? Your values? What are you some kind of closet Bible thump-er tea party right wing bubble cult inbred KKK member?

Who are you to say that the new programs would be incorrect and not good for the kids? What makes your conscience about this matter have more value than the trusted employees of the school district? After all they are the experts and they ARE govt employees. More importantly, it would be replacing, per the article, the conservative based abstinence program being taught now. We cant have that religious right inspired sex ed being taught to K-12 children. That would be bad!

I'm just happy that the district was just gathering community input. But it is odd that they restricted the parents who could attend. Wonder why? Afraid of what? Good thing they didn't open the meeting in prayer. Now that would have really ups set the liberal humanists.

I'd like to know where you, Mr. Bloggosphere Hall Monitor and Custodian, Dave Dubya got your quote. Odd it can't be found any where.

But this one can.

Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) -- Monday's Clark County School District Board of Trustees meeting was met with a packed room of angry parents who recently discovered proposed updates to the district's sex education curriculum, which would teach kids as young as five-years-old about topics like masturbation.

"We certainly should not be teaching five-year-olds that masturbation and pleasuring one's body is good and that a 12-year-old should know about the very details of anal and oral sex," said one parent.

Another followed with, "Words can not even begin to describe my shock when I read what is being suggested to be taught to my daughter at age 5 [or 6]."

Another appalled parent told the crowd that a section of the proposals teaches kids that abortion is safe, which she did not necessarily agree with."

The proposals are derived from the "Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, published by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States".

That's two sources that don't seem to match what you claim was said.

And the Clark County Superintendent said that the proposal was one they were getting "input on". Could that mean if no one objected the new format would have been put into place? Nah, couldn't be.

Now, start the low brow name calling you have learned so well at your job. It is the window into your soul.

 
At 9:11 PM, Anonymous Nucky Thompson said...

97% of Climate Scientists predict that next year is going to be statistically significantly hotter than this year - that's what man-made global warming means.

well it didn't happen between 2012 and 2013
and it didn't happen between 2011 and 2012
and it didn't happen between 2010 and 2011
and it didn't happen between 2009 and 2010
and it didn't happen between 2008 and 2009
and it didn't happen between 2007 and 2008
and it didn't happen between 2006 and 2007
and it didn't happen between 2005 and 2006
and it didn't happen between 2004 and 2005
and it didn't happen between 2003 and 2004.
and it didn't happen between 2002 and 2003
and it didn't happen between 2001 and 2002
and it didn't happen between 2000 and 2001
and it didn't happen between 1999 and 2000
and it didn't happen between 1998 and 1999
and it didn't happen between 1997 and 1998
and it didn't happen between 1996 and 1997
and it didn't happen between 1995 and 1996
and it didn't happen between 1994 and 1995

19 times in a row the 97% of Climate Scientists have been proven wrong and man made CO2 has increased 35% while the temperature has remained the same.

"Scientists" like that are normally laughed out of science by their peers - at least in any other field of science except climate science.

Imagine scientists claiming they cured all cancer year after year for 19 years and cancer still showed up the next year.

ALL 97% of those Climate Scientists are 100% wrong......yet Liberals believe and follow these assholes with religious fanaticism and drink the kool aid just like the followers did of that communist community organizer Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana.

 
At 9:21 PM, Anonymous RedPetunia said...

Yes Leo DiCaprio and Al The Junk Scientist, climate change is a fact.

It warmed up until 1940, it cooled until 1975 and warmed again until 1996.

Since then it has remained relatively static and now scientists tell us that it's likely to cool again for the next 30 years or so.

The only hysteria is in regard to spending hundred of billions to fix a problem that doesn't exist and to make the cheapest forms of energy far more expensive so we can prop up outrageously costly renewables that can't meet our ever increasing energy needs.

No Leo you're not a scientist, your an uninformed pretender who is standing in front of a corrupt UN body to pretend that mankind is doomed if we do not abide by nonsensical restrictions on energy usage which corrupt environmentalists have told us must be followed blindly without any debate while they do everything they can to suppress real scientists from being heard.

 
At 9:30 PM, Anonymous Smokey Lagumski said...

I'll start believing the alarmists like Mr. DiCaprio when they change their lifestyle to curb their CO2 emissions, instead of just preaching about it to the rest of us.

When Mr. DiCaprio charters a private plane and flies 13 hours from Australia to Las Vegas so he can celebrate New Year's twice, spewing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, it's really hard to take him seriously on this. http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2013/01/leonardo-dicaprios-bi-continental-new-years-eve/60493/

We need a web site that tracks the carbon footprints of the assholes like Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore as their private jets load Mother Earth's atmosphere with CO2.

 
At 10:05 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Yeah Nucky, because it's better to believe the fossil fuel industry (who stands to lose billions if we go "green") over people who havespent their lives studying the climate.

Again, yourchart of years describes WEATHER not CLIMATE (if ti describes anything significant at all)

When somone is ALLOWED to build a plane beyond the experimental phase which is continuing) that can hold more than one person, I'm sure Mr DeCaprio will owm one. But you keep attacking the messenger while igmopring the message. That's what you are best at.

I'm sure that in the early 20th century, blacksmiths and horse breeders had some pretty nasty things to say about Henry Ford.

 
At 10:57 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Oh and Nucky, a "communist" cannot be religious. But I do find it interesting you seem to know so much about Jim Jones.

Anything you want to tell us?

 
At 12:18 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

So, in his own words, here is how Chuckie thinks:

”Here's how the liberal humanist think.

Moving your grand kids there Mozart so they can experience hand's on "diversity" in sex ed?

Now, start the low brow name calling you have learned so well at your job. It is the window into your soul.

Here's how the liberal humanist think.

Why are you trying to impose your description of me? Who gave you the authority to determine what I am or am not?

Now, start the low brow name calling you have learned so well at your job. It is the window into your soul.

just like the followers did of that communist community organizer Jim Jones

Here's how the liberal humanist think.

What's my truth might not be your truth therefore since there is no absolute truth base line to judge the degree of truth everything is false.

Now, start the low brow name calling you have learned so well at your job. It is the window into your soul.

More of the Imperial WE from Mr. Bloggosphere Hall Monitor and Custodian, Dave Dubya

Here's how the liberal humanist think.

Now, start the low brow name calling you have learned so well at your job. It is the window into your soul.”


That’s Chuckie in all his double standards, hypocrisy and hate.

His is indeed the hate that fuels fascism.

I'd like to know where you, Mr. Bloggosphere Hall Monitor and Custodian, Dave Dubya got your quote. Odd it can't be found any where.

Can’t be found…anywhere? Even at the source of his article? Obviously Chuckie just copy and pasted from a Radical Right Bubble Cult site. Odd that he needs to LIE about that.

What. An. Asshole.

THIS is to the original article:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/education/sex-education-proposals-surprise-ccsd-parents

The quote is in the comment thread from a person WHO WAS THERE.

And this is the reality:

the curriculum is not proposed for the district’s 357 schools.

The wingnuts are outraged over something NOT happening. Just because some wacky ideas are submitted doesn’t mean they will be implemented…unless you’re a Republican, of course.

the conservative based abstinence program being taught now..has been repeatedly proven to FAIL. “Just say no” is NOT education.

Oh, boy! We can see Chuckie has spun into in a furious fit of Right Wing Hysteria.

ALL 97% of those Climate Scientists are 100% wrong......yet Liberals believe and follow these assholes with religious fanaticism and drink the kool aid just like the followers did of that communist community organizer Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana.

This is the most perfect example yet of the famous projection from the RRBC. Amazing. “Science is a cult of assholes! And corporate PR and GOP propaganda are holy scripture”.

There you have it. Beautiful.

Chuckie, thanks again. Really.

But we stand shoulder to shoulder and in sincere agreement on this, right?

In reality, "the market" or "markets" are a social structure made up of the same flawed men as government. Modern laissez-faire capitalist proponents seem to me to have almost a Darwinian approach and go too far, stretching credulity. I truly think more (and better) regulation (in the banking industry for example) would have headed off some of the pain this world will some day endure - within the next 5 years most likely. Crooked banking, offshoring of middle-class manufacturing jobs, corporations owning politicians, and other factors could have been better managed for our country's well-being. Reasonable and right-minded regulation would have been better for us in hindsight.

I think we have to be intellectually honest... do our markets today really appear to be "free"? Not to me. They appear to be in the control of a very few central planners made up of western banking interests.


For Chuckie would NEVER hide behind anonymity and flee from responsibility for one’s words?

Right, Chuckie?

 
At 5:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your threads really get off track, but that's what happens in an open forum. Better than all this censorship and comment control on most blogs, that just want to control ideas.

 
At 9:47 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"IF EVERYTHING REQUIRES A "CREATOR" WHO OR WHAT "CREATED" YOUR ALLEGED GOD?"

Well, you might start by reading my posts. But, again, reading comprehension not apparently your strong suit. I used the clear phrase "uncaused first cause" - a logical necessity. So, this would obviously imply my understanding to be that God is eternally self-existent and transcendent. Whether right or wrong, absolutely and perfectly logical. "Ex nihilo" coming into being, on the other hand, flies in the face of logic.

Your questions have been more than answered - quit hiding behind that.

 
At 11:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"God is eternally self-existent and transcendent."

Isn't that what God says about Himself? If man doesn't believe in God, man by his own human nature will put the limitations and the ability of understanding of man on God.

 
At 11:29 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

It is the original sin.

To say God is not and to say morality is subjective is, in essence, saying "I am God." And that is indeed what the world in general says - look around...

 
At 2:34 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Harley, the way you assume things is hilarios.

You contradict yourself with your "uncaused first cause" thing. Just like whenever you religious fruitloops get backed into a logical corner you come back with "God can do anything he wants". It always resorts to MAGIC or some other physically impossible explaination.

Thank you for proving that you know that God doesn't exist. You just make up stuff to explain the impossible.

"Uncaused first cause".

That's rich! I gotta remember THAT one. ROTFLMFAO!

 
At 6:20 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

I say the energy and matter from the Big Bang is an "uncaused first cause".

At least there is observabel measurable evidence of the Big bang. "God"? Not so much.

 
At 9:00 PM, Anonymous Al Gore said...

I predicted in 2008 that in 5 years the Northern Polar Ice cap should disappear.

It is an Inconvenient Truth that the Northern Polar Ice cap has been growing at a record pace for the last 2 years.

Clearly my computer model was wrong and excuses are like assholes, everybody has one. The climate science deniers are twisting the facts and claiming I said "would" instead of "should".

I just want everybody to know that even though Leonardo Dicrapio and I are not scientists, we did stay at a Holiday Express next to the UN during the latest IPCC meeting.

 
At 10:30 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

What makes Conservatives so Science challenged? Why do they put their faith in Big Oil propaganda and money grubbing politicians? I am amazed how close minded and dogmatic they are on this subject.

They seem to believe the worlds scientific community is making the whole Global Warming scenario out of thin air, now that is being naive and gullible to the extreme!

 
At 11:58 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

"Al Gore" how many times are you going to misquote the real one? You look like an idiot.

And learn the difference between "weather" and "climate"

And get your info from someplace other than Fox news.

http://ecowatch.com/2014/09/01/greenland-antarctic-melting-climate-change/

 
At 9:31 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Mozart,

I'll leave your last statements as the end of the story. Says it all...

 
At 1:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has there been a "climate" warming int he past 19 years?

How can it be explained that the LA Times reported climate changes are the result of changes in wind?
Is the LA Times a closet branch of FOX News?

What's the deal with a beheading in OK? Reports say it was done by a recent covert to Islam. Are they now here?

 
At 2:46 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

James -

I've no desire to get into a discussion on global warming, but more to the point of your thought process.

What is the rationale for placing the "world's scientific community" (a bit of a vague sweeping term to begin with) on a higher ethical plane than oil companies. I don't have an answer to that, and maybe there is warrant, but I don't see it as necessarily a given. Is that a settled truth in your mind?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home