Man Made Global Warming
"Job 38:8,11 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when brake forth ... And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?"
---jerry6593 on 4/26/09
Correct jerry and the doors he uses against the seas are tiny grains of sand!!!
---mima on 4/26/09|
mima: Global warming is also mentioned in:
Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
It's likely that Al Gore and his band of Gaia (Mother Earth) worshipers will be among them.
Global Warming theory predicts the rising of ocean levels, but the Bible says:
Job 38:8,11 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth ... And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
---jerry6593 on 4/26/09|
We find the answer to global warming in Deuteronomy 32:22,
" 22-For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains." Here in very clear wording is the answer to the Earth warming up. Proof of this is given when we observe the volcanos.
---mima on 4/24/09|
Donna66 Well thats why i planted trees in my garden, as said before i have the most amazing microinvermont in my neighborhood. in my garden i counted allready 4 differnt types of lizards of which one is the firelizard, and another is normally only fouund in caves, 25 different birds in all colours, 6 different types of ants and 4 different types of cockroaches (however im working on that since these are not the ones to have around. i have again 3 differnt rattypes (also a problem to be fixed,
---Andy on 4/24/09|
Andy: Perhaps it is your grammatical construction that leads one to believe that you are an animal rights whacko:
"we should be verry concerned. since every tree that is destroyed every animal that is killed, every life that is altered God will ask us."
I am glad to hear that you are not, and I apologize for calling you one. I am not either. Although I personally don't eat them anymore, I defend everyone's biblical right to eat clean animals. I just find it hypocritical that such people would continue to eat animals while blathering about their "rights."
---jerry6593 on 4/23/09|
Andy -- That sounds terrible. Makes me itch just to think about it :)
Drainage would be especially important since mosquitos breed in standing water. A little digging beforehand, some small ditches placed to drain the water away, should help. But other peoples' trash and garbage may not be so easy to solve!
We have mosquitos where I live. People spray
their breeding places with insectacide. But I use another solution. I erected a birdhouse on a tall pole where numerous families of mosquito-eating birds live.
When it rains, they are happy and so am I.
---Donna66 on 4/22/09|
I absolutely agree.
---BruceB on 4/22/09|
It's a masterful hoax, because it can be sold to every country on earth. Get all those countries uniting to combat "Global Warming"...and you might as well organize them under a global Government. (Which is, of course, the expressed goal of the UN)
To me this is one of the surest "signs of the end times".
---Donna66 on 4/22/09|
Jerry, i never said i was a animal right freak. let me ask a question to put your mind at rest. you go in the nature dumping all your heavy metal garbage? you impoison voluntarely your drinkingwater. the animal rights movement takes animals over men, that i do not do. again envirmental management is the key in all my blogs.so yes to kill the occassional chicken is allowed and permitted yet to butcher every chicken with no reason whatsoever is not allowed. this is deffenately not anyi-biblical.
PS. you owe me an appology
---Andy on 4/22/09|
Donna, the best way today to lower Mallaria is by imroving the devestated infrastructure, that is Hygiene and water. when it rains there are no drainages and sometimes one cannot even leave his room for days due to rain, upon that since there is no good garbage disposal service we live at times between piles of garbage. can you imagine what stagnant water open soors and piles of garbage do to the mosquito population? so not only Malaria, but tbc and other dreaded diseases run high here. the problrem is so bad that in Africa most people laugh at the worries over aids that some western governments show.
---Andy on 4/22/09|
Steveng, indeed, but where do you see that the same are piling and devestating creation? we will be uprooters and PLANTERS of trees we will BRAKE DOWN and BUILD walls. something that i see rather as management then blunt taking advantage.
---Andy on 4/22/09|
Andy: Bunk! If you really cared about animals, you wouldn't have people murder them for you so that you could eat them. What hypocrisy! Get of your "animal rights" kick until you give up meat eating.
---jerry6593 on 4/22/09|
Thanks for giving us more background on the African malaria epidemic. I should have known my explanation was too simple!
In any case, the only reliable prevention known for malaria is to kill the mosquitos that carry the disease. From what I know of God, He would not allow the death of so many children for the sake of saving mosquitos.
(He has, however, given mosquitos the ability to reproduce by the billions in a very short time!)
---Donna66 on 4/21/09|
ALL the things of this world have been given unto man, Animal & plant alike.
I also have some bible verses that tell us not to offend one another because of what one person may or may not eat, ect. ect. ect.?
Global Warming is not a hoax, God has told us how it's going to be(HOT), Even the heavens shall melt with a feverant heat,
Gods way of Cleaning the Heavens from what we've pollutted it with(Can't have that stuff falling to earth when God comes back to live here
The HOAX is, Thats it's MANS fault!
Sure, man is a contributing factor,
Some more than others, However, Valcano's, cows, ect. produce much more.
---Duane_Dudley_Martin_Jr. on 4/21/09|
IF one choses to believe the "criminal" misuse of science behind the global warming frenzy surrounding anthropogenic-sourced greenhouse effects, then isn't it as reasonable (or more so) to believe the actual science proving the contrary?
Over 600,000 years of ice-core history have been charted, proving (contrary to the bogus chart Al-Gaia used in his "documentary") that increases of CO2 have FOLLOWED increases of temperature (in every single occurance)... by 800 years (on average.) In other words, CO2 has never, ever caused warming--warming increases CO2.
Here's another tidbit for ponderin': the UN-IPCC is an arm of the UN, a communist-run, global effort to blaze the trail for the "anti-christ".
---BruceB on 4/22/09|
Strong christians believe that they may eat anything, but a weak christian only eats plants. But do not judge a person whether one eats or not.
Besides, Many people in the bible uses meat for one reason or another - from sacrifices to killing oxen and fatted cattle for certain feast.
---Steveng on 4/21/09|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause
Ralph and Jerry, When God gave dominion over this world he did so in a managment kind of way. Ido agree that everything is there for our proffit: still that does not imply that i have the right to destroy mindlessly. do you not know that everything in this nature has the SPIRIT OF GOD! his RUACH (also translated breath) sustains everything.about meats God PERMITTED US, HE however did not command usto eat meat there is a difference there. Still i do admit i eat meat and i enjoy it. no that doesnot give me the authority to kill or maltreat animals, yes i weed my garden yet that does by no mean implys i need to destroy every weed i see.Environmental management is an obligation to A believer
---Andy on 4/21/09|
Hey Andy, you should probably see if you can find a Bible somewhere and start reading it from the beginning.
You will read that God provided plants, trees and animals for man's use. Plants for food, trees for fruit and building materials, animals for meat and clothing.
It's a remarkable concept. I'm starting to see why the only thing Belgium is known for is waffles.
---ralph7477 on 4/21/09|
Andy: I have one question for you. Please answer.
Do you eat meat?
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
---jerry6593 on 4/21/09|
Donna, i live in Africa, Let me tell you itwas not the banning of DDT that caused an epedemie, rather a malfunctioning healthcare and a coruption to the bones from african politicians. the money nessecary for prevent-ion has been put into wrong pockets for decenia, thank God this is starting to change gradually but deffenately.
---Andy on 4/21/09|
we are stewards of God's earth, indeed. It is our duty to become informed about the needs, habits, characteristics of all kinds of flora and fauna. ( with more detail and accuracy than the gobal warming crowd teach)That does not mean every specimen of every specie should survive.
Do you think God will ask me about the mosquito I smashed to keep from being bitten. Should we not kill these insects though their bite may cause Malaria, Dengue Fever and other serious diseases. When DDT was foolishly banned world-wide, an epidemic of malaria broke out in African countries which cuased the death of hundreds of children.
---Donna66 on 4/20/09|
Jerry and Donna, dont you know that WE ARE the stewards of Gods creation? we should be verry concerned. since every tree that is destroyed every animal that is killed, every life that is altered God will ask us. when i arrived in my new house there was only one tree in the garden, now we have 7 fruit trees, and a two trees for shade. we live in the middle of the city, yet our house has become the refuge of 5 types of lizards, twenty different tyupes of birds 8 types of ants and soime discusting animals as well. im glad that God uses my garden to repopulate the city with animals "except the discusting ones"
---Andy on 4/20/09|
jerry -- you are right. Plant all you want...Keep your own neighborhood clean...don't worry that we will run out of trees
---Donna66 on 4/17/09|
Donna: It is my opinion that those who are so intent on cleaning up the earth should begin at home, even in their own minds. That is where the greatest accumulation of polution and overheating is occurring in the earth.
---jerry6593 on 4/17/09|
the lumberjack industry is really jacking arround. as i totally agree that everything needs to be done in a measured way, still does not take away our reponsibility.chop and replant, its a grat way to make sure that tomorow we stilml have trees.
---Andy on 4/16/09|
Jerry is right. The earth is a miracle of self preservation.
It's like the Alaskan pipeline. There was no end of objections that the pipeline would "melt the permafrost" and that caribou wouldn't be able to migrate. Turns out the only difficulty was for those constucting it in the harsh environment. Caribou flourished and we found that NOTHING melts the permafrost!
There was objection to forestry in the great forests of the Western U.S. So lumber companies cafefully re-planted, only to see an increase in forest fires. We learned that forests replace trees naturally, but not en masse. Overplanting trees, simply causes weaker trees with more dry brush, a lethal condition where fire is concerned.
---Donna66 on 4/15/09|
Alan: "Because it is in the wrong place ... the upper atmosphere?"
No Alan, CO2 is much heavier than air and tends to collect in the lower atmosphere where the plant life readily absorb it.
God designed our self-regulating ecosystem. It is godless arrogance to think that mankind is in control of our planet.
Besides, CO2 IS NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS!
---jerry6593 on 4/15/09|
Why do things naturally when it coulkld be done chemically. the solutions presented will only cause more polution.whats' really needed is following. 1.massive replantation of forrests. plant a tree in every garden, at the sided of every road and one might see allreday a great ammelioration. 2.limmiting engines: instead of a 2000 engineforce use a 1.6 cc and you will see it will improve. as example before i drove a car,. needed 20 liters on a hundred. i've ghot rid of this and i drive a small bike 125cc today i spend 3 liters on a hundred. difference of 17 liters every 100 km
my wife is now driving a electric bycicle 0fuel even wer want to install solarpannels. strange thing is we gain money at the end of the year
---Andy on 4/15/09|
I hope they don't remove too much CO2 from the air anyplace, because insufficient CO2 in inhaled air can cause respiration to shut down.
But I don't expect they would be THAT successful.
Still the oxygen::carbon dioxide ratio in the human body is critical. I'd hate to see them throw out the baby (literally) with the bath water.
---Donna66 on 4/14/09|
Global Research Technologies completed the first prototype of a CO2 scrubber last year that will absorb CO2 from the air.
Other projects around the world are finding ways to do the same: David Keith working out of the University of Calgary in Canada, Indo-German project that aims to dump iron in the ocean capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air are just two more projects.s
---Steveng on 4/14/09|
alan8566_of_UK: "If there is an increase of CO2 in the air, why don't we see an increase in plant life? Why do we not see stronger plants? Because it is in the wrong place ... the upper atmosphere? & there are not enough pllants to absorb it all?"
The young earth was filled with plants covering the entire earth. The air also had a high concentration of CO2.
---Steveng on 4/14/09|
Andy-- 20 yrs ago (1989) skin cancer was as much a problem as it is today, maybe even more (I was in a health care field at the time)... , because for years prior to that, it was considered "healthy" to have a "good tan" and fewer people used protection. When it was determined that exposure to sunlight was causative of cancer, the diagnosis and prevention of skin cancer got much more attention.
---Donna66 on 4/14/09|
Jerry, that the point two hypothesisi are given
1 an ice-age
2. a decreasing protection against the suns destructive rays
20 years ago nobody ever heard about skincancer however everybody was working out in the sun today it has become a plage.
the southpole has lost a verry great amount of ice in the last 20 years more then ever before.
if humanmade, we need to do something about it. even if not humanmade, we need tto try manage the world anyhoiw and do whatever will prevent polution. it is our duty as Christians.
---Andy on 4/14/09|
If there is an increase of CO2 in the air, why don't we see an increase in plant life? Why do we not see stronger plants? Because it is in the wrong place ... the upper atmosphere? & there are not enough pllants to absorb it all?
Scientists have developed a machine to extract CO2 from the air - something plants do anyway. Now, the problem is where to store all this CO2. Thants interesting ... more details please! Is it called a froest?
---alan8566_of_UK on 4/14/09|
If there is an increase of CO2 in the air, why don't we see an increase in plant life? Why do we not see stronger plants?
Scientists have developed a machine to extract CO2 from the air - something plants do anyway. Now, the problem is where to store all this CO2.
---Steveng on 4/13/09|
Better watch out! Somebody's likely to say, "aha! volcanos in the arctic! I told you global warming is real!"
Last fall, some friends and I succeeded in convincing a few people that a more imminent threat was the daily loss of small amounts of sunlight in the northern hemisphere. Scientific calculations showed that, at the rate we were loosing daylight, we should be down to 24 hours of darkness by the middle of June.Now that's something to worry about!
Luckily, it didn't happen quite that way.
Do you think it was the calculations that were wrong?
---Donna66 on 4/13/09|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce
"The global warming is man made upto (sic) a large extent due to the Industrial asge (sic) and consumerism which we view worldwide.In this sense the global wrming (sic) man made is valid scientifically."
---Abhijoy on 4/10/09
The worldwide CO2 output has increased exponentially over the last decade - particularly with the expanded industrialization of China. Average global temperatures, however, have actually DECREASED over the same period. The Global Warming Hoax is thus MADE INVALID SCIENTIFICALLY!
Anyone familiar with the physics of infrared atmospheric transmittance knows that CO2 is insignificant as a greenhouse gas.
---jerry6593 on 4/13/09|
India's ubiquitous cows.
By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane - a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide - India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contribute more to global warming than the vehicles they obstruct. With new research suggesting that emission of methane by Indian livestock is higher than previously estimated, scientists are furiously working at designing diets to help bovines and other ruminants eat better, stay more energetic and secrete lesser amounts of the offensive gas.
---Duane_Dudley_Martin_Jr. on 4/11/09|
I am also of the understanding that the snows of Kilamanjaro and most north american glaciers are diminishing. The question is whether it is man caused. If it isn't, then the real question is whether we are addressing the wrong problem. So if the sun is increasing in intensity and meanwhile we are worried about CFL light bulbs, cow tax, cap and trade, etc. We may not end up having any money left to deal with problems that may still come along that are not man caused. I don't think we should be stupid and pollute our planet, but I don't see that we should be stupid and tax ourselves into poverty, when we may need the money to address the real problem.
---Doug on 4/10/09|
How do you know that "global warming" is due to the industrial age and consumerism? NOBODY has proof of this. The average temperatures have varied by only a few degrees over twenty years. Do you think that the earth never warmed (or cooled) without the influence of man?
For centuries men have tried to manipulate the weather and have never succeeded.
I find it somwhat ironic that now man thinks he has done it by accident!
---Donna66 on 4/10/09|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry
The global warming is man made upto a large extent due to the Industrial asge and consumerism which we view worldwide.In this sense the global wrming man made is valid scientifically.
---Abhijoy on 4/10/09|
"...hurricanes,typhoons have tripled both in frequency and power."
Oh really? You mean to say that there are 3 times the amount of hurricanes now, and they are 3 times as strong as they ever were? Wow, I would love to see proof of that because that statement is a total fabrication.
"i regret that Obama is collecting more taxes without doing anything about the real problem, but that does not take away the problem. even if scientists have ecgagerated."
And what exactly is the "problem"? Obama has advisors who are considering pumping pollution into the atmosphere to cool the earth. These people are insane. And if scientists exaggerate, then they are not scientists, but people with agendas.
---ralph7477 on 4/10/09|
Doug, it was Duane, and not I who put the theory of 1 day equals a thousand years, i also understand that this is a methaphore to express that God is not time-bound. however, one says that since the last ice-age... this is a hypothese based on calculations. it is proven however that in the last 25 years the ice of the kilimandjaro has almost dissapeared that the snow-level in the alps has risen by more then twohundred meters, that the icecape has lost a quarter of its mass in antarctica, that hurricanes,typhoons have tripled both in frequency and power. donna, i regret that Obama is collecting more taxes without doing anything about the real problem, but that does not take away the problem. even if scientists have ecgagerated.
---Andy on 4/10/09|
Donna: Congrats! I'll bet that not one person in a hundred understands the simple principle of ice melting that you just explained. Are you a physicist as well?
BTW, If one were interested, he could find that undersea volcanoes caused the modest ice melt in the Arctic.
---jerry6593 on 4/10/09|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture
Andy -- I believe "global warming" is mainly a political device. Obama is a believer in it, using it as an excuse for yet another tax... though it kill the oil and coal industries in this country and makes utility bills almost unaffordable for everybody. That wipes out a lot of jobs. But the promised "green" jobs are few and far between because wind and solar power are just not cost effective.
The so-called "science" is too often flawed. Since when is CO2 a pollutant? We couldn't exist without it. Arctic ice melting doesn't raise the level of oceans any more than melting ice cubes cause a glass of beverage to overflow.
---Donna66 on 4/8/09|
I respect that you take bibilical creation as literally beginning and ending 6000 years ago. I think it's not literal, as many have mentioned, time does not exist with God, thus "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day". However, the science shows that oceans on average have been rising at a rate of roughly 400'/10,000 years over the last 10000 years. Thus 10000 divided by 400 = 1 foot every 25 years. Obviously our rate of ocean rise has not increased, but almost stopped when compared to the historical average since the last ice age. The Noah Flood would be a grand exception showing ocean levels actually dropping 10,000 ft and massive reglaciation of Antartica and the artic in the same 4000 years since.
---Doug on 4/8/09|
This IS truth,
Creation to Abraham
= 2000 yrs.
Abraham to Yahshua/Jesus
= 2000 yrs.
Yahshua/Jesus to 1996 +/- a couple yrs
= 2000 yrs.
We are in the beginning of the 7th day
and early into the 3rd day(3000 yrs) since his Death/Ressurection, as far as the 1000 yrs a day and a day as a 1000 yrs go, this IS how that stands.
I pray this truth Bless's you, and remember our Lord ROSE early on the 3rd day, Will we?(I think so)...
---Duane_Dudley_Martin_Jr. on 4/7/09|
Doug, indeed San Francisco bay did not exist 10.000 years ago, since the world was not created until 6000 years ago, i am also aware that there is much truth in what you say, however we are talking about the speeded development 'one scientist said that the climate change is indeed normal, what is extraordinary is the speed of which it occurse 130 times quicker then normal.
---Andy on 4/6/09|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops
Over 100 prominent scientists from more than a dozen countries including a Nobel Prize winner have signed a letter to President Barack Obama charging that his views on climate change are simply incorrect.
"We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now ...
"The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior."
(Exerpted from a Newsmax article 4/5/2009)
---jerry6593 on 4/6/09|
"Global warming however is a man-made problem and therefore man should take everything possible to turn the tide."-Andy
There is zero proof that man has any effect on the temperature of the earth. Global temperatures have not increased for the past ten years, and in fact, more and more scientists are dismissing the premise altogether.
Secondly, why is a warming earth a "problem"? Exactly what is the "correct" temperature? Who makes that judgment call? The same elitists who flock to warm climates in the winter because it is too cold up north? In the middle ages, the earth was much warmer than it is now. There was no Armageddon. Agriculture and trade flourished.
---ralph7477 on 4/6/09|
I'm still not convinced that man has much to do with it. Ocean levels have been rising since the last ice age. I was raised in California and learned that San Francisco Bay didn't even exist even 10,000 years ago, because sea levels were hundreds of feet lower till glaciers started melting and retreating (all began way before men did much to change things). Glaciers carved mountain valleys like Tuleride, CO and Yosemite, CA. They are gone today. They extended into New York and left the finger lakes. I am convinced that we may need to adjust things in order to deal with further sea level rise (maybe a dam on San Francisco Bay (like the dikes in Holland)).
---Doug on 4/5/09|
Guess which country isn't even mandated to slow down on CO2 under the Kyoto Protocol. Yep you guessed it China. Everyone made fun of the US for refusing to sign, meanwhile China became the worlds biggest CO2 producer and easily the worlds biggest polluter. If one country tries to go "green" all they do is shift manufacturing and business to China. If this is a crisis, as it is always portrayed, shifting polution to China isn't a solution. Because no one seems to scream against China, it all appears to be anti-american rhetoric, rather than science and care for the future.
---Doug on 4/5/09|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer
Dear Doug, first of all communism has never been tought a great idea by the Europeans,except the french,all rejected communism, nevertheless the french did like it allot, ion the other hand french like to eat frogleggs and snales as well hardly any good example of Europeans.Marxism was however quite well accepted, and out of that socialism and even Nazism has been born. Hittler was not tought to be a appeaser, however he was too powerfull by the time the world recognised the danger. Global warming however is a man-made problem and therefore man should take everything possible to turn the tide.
---Andy on 4/1/09|
I agree Americans can be naive, but I believe we have no monopoly on the situation. 1/2 the world thought communism was a great idea (many still do). Virtually all Europe, including most of Great Britian thought appeasing Hitler was a great idea. The question of right and wrong is not about numbers of people, but about facts.
I personally believe that global warming has been occuring, but that little of it is due to man, though man would have to affect it some (up or down) because he does interact with his environment.
The problem is that the world's solutions are usually worse than the problem and actually often weaken us to deal with the real problems. Remember how Europe was weakened by appeasement, not helped by it?
---Doug on 3/31/09|
Americans are somethimes so frightfully naive, whilst the entire world is convinced that Global Warrming is no more a question, still there are Americans who even doubt FACTS. lets ghet real we all know that all the administrations (not only bush)have deliberatly questioned the global warming because of some proffits they could ghet personnally. YOURE GREAT AMERCAN NATION IS KILLING THIS WORLD WITH THIS MENTALITY, SO PLEASE CALL upon the common sense of your governors. since global warming does not stop at the US border. and has no need for a visa or greencard to establish on american soil.
PS one of the effects of global warming is blistering snowstorms.
---Andy on 3/20/09|
I don't believe man has much to do with global warming. I think that glaciers have been melting long before men did enough to affect much. I think some are using this to gain power, and I think some are honest believers in global warming.
My concern is that if we waste trillions of dollars on things that do little to no good, we will not have that money to make needed changes for whatever (including natuarally occuring global warming). For example if ocean levels rise much many coastal areas will be damaged and possibly uninhabitable, that is when we will want to spend trillions to make needed adjustments.
---Doug on 3/19/09|
That IS funny Ralph! :D What perfectly hilarious timing in a way! :D
---Mary on 3/3/09|
Another big global warming demonstration was disrupted by a frigid snowstorm yesterday in Washington, D.C. Speaker Pelosi was supposed to address the kooks, I mean demonstrators, but she couldn't get there because her flight was cancelled due to the snow. Ha.
---ralph7477 on 3/3/09|
Obama is not even a natural born American. If he was a righteous man he would want to prosecute the Bushies for all their evils, but he wants to let them off because he knows that when the other team get in they are going to let him away with whatever he has got to do to the American people, as puppet of the Vatican, just like Bush. We have not had a proper investigation of 911 yet, and what about the torture? It is doubtful that it has stopped, just more propaganda to make us believe that B.0. is a good guy. Boy, what an awakening the people of America are about to get. I feel sorry for the deceived masses.
---frances008 on 2/28/09|
Jerry, a few questions.... Were more Americans killed by 'terrorists' or by their mothers in abortions over the years ? You need not answer, because it completely humiliates your team. By the way what did Bush, Cheney, Obama or Biden or Nancy Pelosi do to stop abortion? I believe Catholic-trained Nancy voted FOR partial birth abortions. And who signed a recent order allowing Canada to send troops into America to police Americans in 'emergencies' which were a direct result of economic collapse caused by printing money, a decision of the Obama government? Oh, and the security blocks set up by police in America, are any of them speaking with faulty American - (immigrants?) That was un-P.C. I should wait for the cops to arrest me.
---frances008 on 2/27/09|
Yeah, Jerry, Bush was tough on terrorism, having become a terrorist first as a member of the Satanic Skull and Bones black psychological operations group which run the world wars on behalf of the Vatican. I expect Jerry believes in the moon landings among all the other huge hoaxes that the Satanists mind control us into believing. I expect Jerry agrees that 78 year old white couples should have picnic knives confiscated from their picnic sets as they board planes. That they should have mobile phones confiscated as they enter embassies. All in a good cause of course. ''Fighting terrorists''. Boy, are you one deceived dude.
---frances008 on 2/27/09|
Alan: I use strong language against those who would destroy MY Country. It also infuriates the ignorant "liberals" who put them in power. Bush saved untold thousands of American lives by his tough stance on terrorism. Obama will cost thousands of American lives, and the ones of us who aren't killed by terrorists will live a miserable life of depressing mediocrity in but another 2-bit socialist dictatorship.
---jerry6593 on 2/27/09|
Jerry and Alan, I believe are both correct. most rich people would be horror struck if they knew of the conspiracy The new rich people work for it unknowingly because they lack the history of seeing how the world works in the upper or middle classes. I have a book which explains a lot of this . The rich who work for the NWO, however, decided to help the NWO to crash the economy. They monopolized industries and manufacturing, to the point that when they removed jobs from the USA there were no cheap sources of services or products to go to. Then, in a carefully planned arena, they deliberately busted themselves, knowing that the government would reimburse them. It was a deal made beforehand. The superrich and government are in cahoots.
---frances008 on 2/26/09|
In the UK protest at Newark, it was clear the Unions are in with the NWO plans. One or two protesters correctly identified government policies as the reason they were not allowed to apply for jobs in a newly opened factory (power plant?) and the union boss was angry with the ones voicing anti-government feelings. He claimed that the protest was infiltrated by extremists. See how the union bosses hijack and control people and always to support the government. A more obvious example is the unions that backed and paid for Obama's promotion to president, now are receiving their payments from him. The unions were the reason (excuse too) for employers going to the Chinese and Indians for workers.
---frances008 on 2/26/09|
The government are much more wasteful than private companies. The bosses of multi million dollar companies need private jets to remain competitive to be at important meetings, including answering to their bosses the government. It is disingenuous for the government to call them to a meeting immediately, and then berate them for coming in private jets. All this is mind control, because we are to believe in global warming and feel that these industry captains are a threat to the world. In Japan and in the UK, the most wasteful buildings, and jobs are given in labour controlled constituencies, at the same time, they also provide the most public parks. We have to be fair in judging government and industry. But they are basically in cahoots.
---frances008 on 2/26/09|
Jerry ... There may be different views as to the causes of the problems and the remedies therefore.
I would perhaps discuss them with you, but not when you refer to Mr Obama and his team as "Communist terrorist traitors"
That shows you are entrenched with so much hatred for him that no sensible discussion could be possible.
One might just as well, and with perhaps more justification (because Bush has lost so many American lives) refer to Mr Bush as "Nazi terrorist traitor"
---alan8566_of_UK on 2/26/09|
The economic system is the basic process of combining labor and materials to produce wealth. ie:
In Capitalism, materials and labor are both purchased with capital, derived from Daddy Warbucks. Wealth is what's produced, and since materials and workers have been purchased, Daddy Warbucks gets to keep any excess wealth produced.
Socialism is exactly the same, other than the workers are Daddy Warbucks. However, since the government controls the system of production through centralized planning and capital allocation, Daddy Warbucks hands over the excess wealth so the government can do with it as they see fit. Socialists are anything but smart.
Bailouts sound familiar? Ever heard the term Fusion-Capitalism?
---BruceB on 2/26/09|
Alan: Our economic crisis was not caused by "unfettered capitalism," it was caused by unfettered government intervention. Capitalism is, by definition, a self-limiting control system (law of supply and demand). Government removed the capitalistic "brakes" from the banks (loan restrictions) and insured inflated, unpayable loans. Now they are applying the accelerator of unfettered spending, which will cause runaway inflation, devaluation of the dollar, and global economic collapse. Just what you'd expect from a bunch of Communist terrorist traitors.
---jerry6593 on 2/26/09|
What Madoff did was illegal. He ran a ponzi scheme and is charged with a crime. Only his "clients" or perspective clients, would be likely to find him out. And Sadly,those he duped didn't realize what he was (wasn't) doing until he had spent their fortunes.
They didn't remember not to put all eggs in one basket.
What the banks did was not illegal...just highly unethical. HERE you can make a case for capitalism gone awry. The Real estate market was booming, speculators borrowed money any way they could in hopes of selling ("flipping") property at inflated prices. Banks were glad to help.
Some who were not speculators, just poor money managers, also got caught by these loans.SAD!
---Donna66 on 2/25/09|
Madoff was a crook. The government can't protect us from all the crooks, and I don't think we should expect it to. Nobody should trust a person in business, no matter how sterling his reputation, without demanding proof he's doing what he says. I speak from experience.
Yes, there needs to be oversight by those in authority (Bush actually wanted to apply more restrictions to Fanny and Freddy... Congress said no). But the main responsibility should be on the individual to protect his own welfare (who else is really committed?)
It's simple. Read every word of what you sign and don't sign anything you don't understand. A person who stands to make money from your decision is not to be relied upon.Everyone should get this basic education.
---Donna66 on 2/25/09|
Donna ... You are right about the nonsensical enforcement of stupid repressive laws.
However, the banks lent money they did not have, and chief executives devised their bonus schemes based on how much of this phoney money they managed to lend.
It was this "left-wing" government that removed the effective scrutiny and control of banks activities, and thus allowed escessive capitalism.
I am a capitalist, but it does need to be kept under control. IT was not and that is how Stanford Madoff with our money.
---alan8566_of_UK on 2/25/09|
Alan- When was the last time Britain tried Capitalism?
Government there seems quite oppressive to me (as an outsider)...not the kind that would tolerate a free market economy. Whenever I'm there, I'm amazed that citizens seem so resigned to whatever... oh, well... whatever government decides.
The government in England enforces laws that would have most Americans infuriated. For example, I read recently where a dog was confiscated, taken from the owner, because it was OVERWEIGHT. If government micro-manages businesses that way,I don't see how you can possibly have Capitalism.
---Donna66 on 2/25/09|
Alan of UK-
I think we have been through this before.
Pres. Carter signed an Act that would punish banks for "discriminating" in the neighborhoods where they would finance homes. Congress and organizations like Acorn, believing that all Americans, even the poor, should own their home, threatened to sue banks for "redlining" if they did not make many loans that would not be repaid.
The banks are not faultless. They made other loans, ARMs with nothing down or for more than the cost of the house... often to speculators. That's what you are talking about. Other buyers were already in debt and ignorant of the risk.They foolishly committed themselves.
---Donna on 2/25/09|
Donna ... "banks do not lend to people they know cannot repay their loans"
But they did lend money to people who they did not know would be able to repay their loans
How about lending 125% of the value of the house & 10 times the person's annual salary?
Unless house prices went up there was no hope of the person repaying?
And what about the bank lending out about 10 times its own cash holdings?
And of course it was not the "banks" which made thes foolish decisions but the so-called bankers who had no banking qualifications & setting their own rules (lending related bonus) so they could get huge bonuses for doing stupid thngs.
---alan8566_of_UK on 2/24/09|
Good analogy....the car with accelerator and brakes! Normally, banks do not lend to people they know cannot repay their loans.
Banks don't lend money in order to lose money.
But Congress can seldom let the engine run....they always know what's good for us. They asked, Aren't ALL Americans entitled to home ownership?
Answering yes... Barney Frank assisted by Acorn, took the wheel, stomped on the accelerator and when the vehicle went out of control, they hollered that capitalists didn't put on the brakes.
---Donna66 on 2/23/09|