• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats Unveil Carbon Cap Plan.

Gibberish said:
Tofu is for the substitution of MEAT not BREAD. Your ignorance on the topic is showing. :roll:
Click to expand...

There are several things that are obvious.

You haven't read Atlas Shrugged.

People like you really need to study that book.

Wheat is an evil plant that symbolizes the evil of white colonial imperialism and it must be eradicated. Tofu is the food of the peasant, the worker, the proletariat, and the humble soybean will be made to replace the evil wheat until only the evil capitalist overlords will have bread to eat. It doens't matter if tofu-crap is a protein substitute, marxists and socialists never make a damn lick of sense anyway.
 
Gibberish said:
If climate change is true or not, we have the ability to lower emissions so why not? Less toxins in the air is healthier for all.
Click to expand...

CO2 isn't a toxin.

If it not beneficial to lower CO2 emissions, it's pretty damn stupid to waste money chasing it, isn't it?

Gibberish said:
I would much rather we lower emissions now and find out that climate is not really affected by emissions and is just naturally changing then to not lower emissions and find out not doing so has put our climate into irreversible destruction.
Click to expand...

We already know climate isn't affected by human CO2 emissions. The world is in a global cooling trend, that's why the frantic leftists have started using "global climate change".
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
There are several things that are obvious.

You haven't read Atlas Shrugged.

People like you really need to study that book.

Wheat is an evil plant that symbolizes the evil of white colonial imperialism and it must be eradicated. Tofu is the food of the peasant, the worker, the proletariat, and the humble soybean will be made to replace the evil wheat until only the evil capitalist overlords will have bread to eat. It doens't matter if tofu-crap is a protein substitute, marxists and socialists never make a damn lick of sense anyway.
Click to expand...

Tofu tastes pretty good if it's seasoned properly. Am I a communist now? =\
 
Zyphlin said:
Even if I was for this kind of thing, which I'm not, this is a horrendous time to be talking about this. The economy, especially in the manufacturing sector, is tanking so in the process of that you're going to institute massive government guidelines forcing them to potentially significantly change their structure in a potentially costly way? Regardless of whether you agree with this kind of thing or not, now is not the time to be pushing it.
Click to expand...
They don't give a **** about this country, they only care about their agenda and their power.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
There are several things that are obvious.

You haven't read Atlas Shrugged.

People like you really need to study that book.

Wheat is an evil plant that symbolizes the evil of white colonial imperialism and it must be eradicated. Tofu is the food of the peasant, the worker, the proletariat, and the humble soybean will be made to replace the evil wheat until only the evil capitalist overlords will have bread to eat. It doens't matter if tofu-crap is a protein substitute, marxists and socialists never make a damn lick of sense anyway.
Click to expand...

That's great for the author. I'm sure you can find some crackpot that uses Gatorade as a substitute for banana's. It doesn't change the fact that Tofu is most commonly used as a substitute for meat and not bread.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Where is the government denying you the ability to purchase products?
Click to expand...
I dont recall claiming that the government had done so.
 
Goobieman said:
I dont recall claiming that the government had done so.
Click to expand...

If the Goverment isn't denying you the ability to purchase something then how are they "destroying the freedom to spend your money on whatever you want"?

Goobieman said:
They want to destory the freedom to spend your money on whatever you want.
Click to expand...
 
Gibberish said:
If the Goverment isn't denying you the ability to purchase something then how are they "destroying the freedom to spend your money on whatever you want"?
Click to expand...
I suggest you read my statement in context.
 
Gibberish said:
If the Goverment isn't denying you the ability to purchase something then how are they "destroying the freedom to spend your money on whatever you want"?
Click to expand...

Hmmm....okay. A mugger doesn't deny me my freedom to buy things....he just steals all my money so I can't buy things.

Just like the government.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The question is: Why?

1) No one ever demonstrated a warmer climate is disadvantageous to the United States. That's all that matters. Then again, they never showed it was disadvantageous to the rest of the world.

2) The earth has entered a cooling trend. Ergo, global warming, the concern allegedly prompting all this interest in controlling people....er I mean reducing carbon emissions, isn't an issue.

So, why are the Democrats rushing to do as much damage to the American economy as they can as fast as they can?
Click to expand...

It is obvious WHY the Democrats are rushing to do as much damage as they can; (1) They know that there is a possibility they might lose their majority in the midterms, therefore everything needs to be implemented before then; (2) This is an attempt to fund their Socialist programs on the backs of industry without honestly debating that the people who will be most hurt are the ones they pander to, the poor; (3) this gives them control over industry which is what their entire agenda is all about.

One thing is certain, the Obama Presidency and Pelosi's control of Congress along with Reid’s control of the Senate are leading to the most extensive bankrupting of the American Government unprecedented in the history of this great nation. When the dust settles and the American people see the disaster these criminally irresponsible programs will be, the Democrat party may very well find itself rightfully in the wilderness.

One can only hope that Americans everywhere will come to their senses by midterm and rout out these despicable cretins and their desperate attempt to bankrupt America with their inane Socialist agenda.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hmmm....okay. A mugger doesn't deny me my freedom to buy things....he just steals all my money so I can't buy things.

Just like the government.
Click to expand...

When was the last time a mugger was voted into the position by the people based on his ideas and potential for mugging?
 
Gibberish said:
When was the last time a mugger was voted into the position by the people based on his ideas and potential for mugging?
Click to expand...

The year was 2008 when Obama was elected by a majority of buffoons who didn’t care about his true background or true Socialist politics; he is now mugging the future of America and the Federal Government by spending them into monstrous deficits which will be financed on the backs of every single man, woman and child in America for decades.

I can't think of anything more criminally irresponsible can you? :cool:
 
Gibberish said:
When was the last time a mugger was voted into the position by the people based on his ideas and potential for mugging?
Click to expand...

1932. In case you're unsure and to provide enough characters for this post, that's FDR.

We're still being mugged by that cripple in his wheel chair.

Then there was 1964. Guess who?

Then there was 1992. That mugger was a rapist, too.

Now there's the dismal prospects after the 2008 election.

Too bad they don't make the Constitution a required course in high school.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Too bad they don't make the Constitution a required course in high school.
Click to expand...

Or Economics, reading writing and arithmetic at the High School level; it is truly a sad state of affairs in our Liberally led Socialist education system that graduate the ignorant for expediency sake instead of actually teaching.

But then, this guarantees Democrat majorities into the future.

My apologies in advance for getting off the thread topic. :cool:
 
Truth Detector said:
Or Economics, reading writing and arithmetic at the High School level; it is truly a sad state of affairs in our Liberally led Socialist education system that graduate the ignorant for expediency sake instead of actually teaching.

But then, this guarantees Democrat majorities into the future.

My apologies in advance for getting off the thread topic. :cool:
Click to expand...

More importantly, the law doesn't permit exlcuding the ignorant from voting.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
1932. In case you're unsure and to provide enough characters for this post, that's FDR.

We're still being mugged by that cripple in his wheel chair.

Then there was 1964. Guess who?

Then there was 1992. That mugger was a rapist, too.

Now there's the dismal prospects after the 2008 election.

Too bad they don't make the Constitution a required course in high school.
Click to expand...

Clinton mugged us so hard the deficits created by him turned into a surplus.

It's quite telling how you target only Democratic President's and seem to have no problem with the historical spending and deficits left by Bush.

The link below shows that, with the exception of FDR, the evil Democrats have had a more positive spending habit then the angelic Republicans.
U.S. Federal Deficits and Presidents
 
Truth Detector said:
The year was 2008 when Obama was elected by a majority of buffoons who didn’t care about his true background or true Socialist politics; he is now mugging the future of America and the Federal Government by spending them into monstrous deficits which will be financed on the backs of every single man, woman and child in America for decades.

I can't think of anything more criminally irresponsible can you? :cool:
Click to expand...

He is definitely taking a socialist approach in attempting to fix our economic issues. I completely disagree with Obama on this.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt that your outcries of sending the future of this nation into monstrous debt was just as harsh on Bush when he was President.
 
Gibberish said:
Clinton mugged us so hard the deficits created by him turned into a surplus.

It's quite telling how you target only Democratic President's and seem to have no problem with the historical spending and deficits left by Bush.

The link below shows that, with the exception of FDR, the evil Democrats have had a more positive spending habit then the angelic Republicans.
U.S. Federal Deficits and Presidents
Click to expand...

Presidents cannot "spend" the tax payer’s hard earned wealth or create deficits; only the Congress has that power. Democrats have controlled the purse strings for 50 of the last 60 years.

Suffice it to say that there has only been ONE Congress that has gotten us to a surplus; it was a Republican led and controlled one.

The notion that Nixon, or Reagan, or "Bush I" had a LOT of control over the spending of Democrat run congresses requires willful denial or ignorance.

It is as specious as the Democrat argument that Bush spent away the "Clinton" surplus into deficits while ignoring the fact he was dealing with 9-11, two wars Democrats voted FOR and Hurricane Katrina that devastated a major US City and now argue FOR the current criminally negligent spending us into a $1.7 trillion deficit without a coherent debate about how to pay for it all; particularly after their promises to the American people to pay-as-they-go and have a open transparent process.
 
Gibberish said:
I'll give the benefit of the doubt that your outcries of sending the future of this nation into monstrous debt was just as harsh on Bush when he was President.
Click to expand...

Well then you would be wrong again; I wasn't harsh on Bush's spending because I recognized that 9-11, two wars which were started with BI-PARTISANSHIP support and the devastation of Hurricane Katrina were the reasons we had a deficit; one our economy could easily have grown out of if Congress controlled spending.

Attempting to compare the deficit when Republicans were in control which was under $200 billion to the current criminally irresponsible levels of $1.7 trillion is desperation at best.

Suggesting that Bush's spending was getting us into "monstrous debt" in today’s Obamanomics is rather trite. There is a VAST difference between what caused the Bush and the Republican controlled Congress deficits and what we are seeing now.

I did criticize the Medicare Drug reform act and was a staunch critic of it; but again, it was a bi-partisan measure that had equal support on BOTH sides of the aisle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom