…is a flooded world made worse by the use of a fossil fueled water vehicle, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The H2, with a post on dirty jobs.
Oh, and there’s a bonus “empty chair” photo below the fold, a bit more risque than I would put on the front page (SFW, though)
Read: If All You See… »
Everybody panic!!!!!!!!!
(Yahoo News) “The zombies are coming!” the Homeland Security Department says.
Tongue firmly in cheek, the government urged citizens Thursday to prepare for a zombie apocalypse, part of a public health campaign to encourage better preparation for genuine disasters and emergencies. The theory: If you’re prepared for a zombie attack, the same preparations will help during a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake or terrorist attack.
Oh. Just a drill that teases us with the coming zombie apocalypse. Crap!
Actually, this isn’t a bad idea. There are a bunch of zombie clubs around the country who mostly do it for pure fun, but they plan for the Z.A., all in fun, and often partner with first responders to help out.
But, yeah, sucks that’s not real. Sniffle. I actually read a ton of zombie books. Love ’em. They’re more about people surviving a calamity rather than about the zombies.
I heard this one yesterday while listening to Rush at the gym, and, unsurprisingly I was unsuprised at many of the answers Democrats provided
(The Blaze) Radio talk show host and erstwhile Senate candidate Peter Schiff has a long track record of trying to reason with his opponents, or at least engage with them fairly. The Connecticut based libertarian has taken on Lawrence O’Donnell on his home turf at MSNBC and most recently, even tried to engage with members of Occupy Wall Street in an 18 minute video that went viral last year.
Now, Schiff is back with a video from the DNC. Except this time, he’s taken on a rather different approach to engaging with his opponents. That is, rather than advocate his own views, he has shot video of himself playing devil‘s advocate for what many would consider to be a completely ridiculous extension of his opponents’ philosophy.
Schiff‘s target in this case is the Democrats’ seeming antipathy to corporate profits, which he attacks by pretending to be a radical Leftist who wants to ban corporate profits altogether, just to see if he can get any Democrats to agree with this economically absurd idea.
So while there’s not nearly universal agreement on the idea, and some people in the video force Schiff to moderate his position and others simply nod along politely, the video certainly shows a high degree of sympathy with the goal. And the immediate positive (and enthusiastic) reactions of several delegates, including one who enthusiastically calls for “corporate losses,†may strike some readers as either entertaining or disturbing.
The story writer, Mytheos Holt, isn’t particularly happy with this line of questioning, saying it isn’t good journalism. Holt misses the point that it’s not meant to be journalism, Schiff is a talk radio host, not a reporter. Anyhow, watch the video, and hear the replies
Peter Schiff’s blog post on this is here.
Peter Schiff’s official blog is here.
Read: Many Democrats Think We Should Ban All Corporate Profits »
It’s very simple
(Daily Caller) President Barack Obama‘s 2012 Democratic National Convention speech asked voters to embrace a planned economy where government leaders would set goals for large swathes of the economy.
Pretty much exactly like we expected. This is all Obama and a good chunk of today’s Democrats know. Government. The speech validated the criticism regarding Obama’s “you didn’t build that” line (along with the rest of the comment). It validated what we’ve watched him do and what he’s pushed as policy for the past 4 years as president and during his time campaigning for president. Government is Good and Right and should be In Charge.
“I’m asking you to rally around a set of goals for your country — goals in manufacturing, energy, education, national security, and the deficit; a real, achievable plan that will lead to new jobs, more opportunity, and rebuild this economy on a stronger foundation,†he declared.
But Obama didn’t promise a rapid benefit from an expanded government.
“I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy. … It will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades,†he said, implicitly acknowledging the public’s skepticism about his government-focused economic policies after almost four years of record deficits and unemployment, declining wages and shrinking wealth.
And to solve those problems, we apparently need more Central Government. They will plan everything, instead of passing some common sense legislation designed to fix the issues (such as reinstating Glass-Seagal and reigning in the Community Reinvestment Act, among others) for the long term and then getting out of the way and dealing with the core missions of government as described by the Constitution.
But, it’s no wonder Obama is now pushing the notion that it will take a few years after initially telling us that he could fix it in one term: he’s a miserable failure whose policies failed miserably particularly when his Party had full control of Congress.
His speech was also a laundry list of issues that his kook fringe base….er, most liberals, care about. He certainly made the Warmists happy with his mention of the climate change hoax and that he wants to waste more money on “clean energy” investments, ie, shifting taxpayer money to campaign contributors.
Lastly, from the transcript
We don’t think the government can solve all of our problems, but we don’t think the government is the source of all of our problems — (cheers, applause) — any more than our welfare recipients or corporations or unions or immigrants or gays or any other group we’re told to blame for our troubles — (cheers, applause) — because — because America, we understand that this democracy is ours.
This is the same guy who blames everyone and everything else for whatever happens. He’s spent years Blaming Bush, Republicans, ATMs, Europe, tsunamis, earthquakes, , you name it, they’re/it’s at fault.
Oh, BTW, did any hear any spontaneous chants of “USA USA USA” during the convention? Certainly, I only watched a certain amount of the convention, but, same with the RNC, and Republicans seemed to use that chant quite often.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Total bummer
(HuffPo) (Climate refugee) has primarily been an academic debate until now. New Zealand immigration authorities have just refused refugee status to a man from the drowning island country of Kiribati. The 36-year-old man sought refuge in New Zealand from climate change related harm, saying on his application that he fears for his children’s future on the coral atolls of Kiribati, which are elevated just slightly above sea level.
The I-Kiribati man has been in New Zealand since 2004. His visa expired recently, so he sought a more permanent solution to his sense of homelessness. During my recent trip to Kiribati, many spoke of New Zealand as a back up option that they would keep in the back of their mind. However, most that I spoke with want to remain in their homeland of Kiribati for as long as they can.
In other words, he didn’t want to go back to the poo infested waters of Kiribati so he decided to apply using the silly “climate refugee” crap. Pun intended.
The waters around Kiribati are not rising. In fact, the islands themselves are growing. Even if the waters were rising, how the heck do these flat earth Warmists think they came into being anyhow? The islands are coral based, hence, the seas had to be higher in the past to allow the coral to build what would become islands when the sea level went down.
But, then, who wouldn’t want to live in a paradise like New Zealand (ignoring that little issue of being on severe fault zones) versus islands that are barely above sea level to start with, are running out of fresh water because they’re tiny islands, and, oh, all that poo infested water?
Read: Bummer: Kiribati Man Denied “Climate Refugee” Status »
…are empty chairs preparing for Obama’s petulant blamestorming speech, you might just be a Conservative
The blog of the day is DaTechGuy, who takes on the notion that Dems really know how to throw a convention.
Read: If All You See… »
Yesterday I noted that Grist is really bummed over the lack of climate change (hoax) discourse at the DNC abortionfest. Alas, it’s worse than they thought
(Daily Caller) Though the 2012 Democratic Party platform declares that the “national security threat from climate change is real, urgent, and severe,†it is apparently not urgent and severe enough to merit mention by speakers at the Democratic National Convention during the past two days.
The Daily Caller reviewed the speech transcripts of the over 80 speakers who took the stage at the Time Warner Cable Arena here in Charlotte on Tuesday and Wednesday, and only one mentioned climate change — and even he only mentioned it in passing.
“Thanks to President Obama, America is laying the foundation for the way we power tomorrow,†said Tom Steyer, co-founder of the Advanced Energy Economy trade association, in one of the early and therefore likely least watched speeches to the convention Wednesday.
“Gov. Romney’s road to the future will lead to dirty air and increasing climate volatility, uncertainty over energy prices, and less security, not more,†Steyer continued. “President Obama’s road to the future will lead us to energy independence, energy security, a safer and cleaner environment, and countless new jobs that can never be outsourced.â€
As The DC’s Jamie Weinstein points out, that’s as close as it gets to the climate change hoax, “climate volatility”. Because weather never happened before 1980 (or, pick whatever year the Warmist wants to use).
..the words “climate change†appear in the document (DNC platform) 18 times.
So, that’s 17 times more than God. And certainly a whole lot less than “abortion”, “choice”, etc. I’d like to say I can’t blame them for ignoring the fake issue, since people aren’t terribly thrilled over the prospect of higher energy prices, higher food prices, higher costs of living, reduced energy availability, more government control of their lives, and more taxation, all to do….well, something. Dems can certainly see what has happened, and still going on, in Australia since the passage of their AGW legislation. The Aussie Labor Party is in deep, deep doo doo for passing the legislation. But, then, if Dems are willing to yammer on constantly about abortion, you’d think they could go for AGW, too.
Tom Nelson provides 5 quotes you won’t hear from Obama tonight regarding climate change. And Reason points out that Dem voters love “choice” for abortion, but not so much when it comes to choosing a lightbulb (h/t Valentine Cotton)
Read: Sorry, Warmists, DNC Just Doesn’t Care About You Anymore »
Y’all have certainly read about the brouhaha at the DNC regarding the vote to put God and Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol back into the Party abortionfest platform (more on that at the end of this post, except for the Right Wing News crosspost, since John has already covered it). But, what does Debbie Wasserman Schultz think?
(The Blaze) CNN’s Brianna Keilar asked Wasserman Schultz on the convention floor how she felt as one of “the most prominent Jewish lawmakers†when she learned that any mention of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel was struck from the Democratic platform.
Wasserman Schultz said a “technical oversight†led to the omission, adding that the platform was amended to reflect President Obama’s personal views and the views of the Democratic party. Conveniently, the DNC chair said a “technical oversight†also led to all references to“God†being left out of the platform.
“The bottom line is we’ve taken steps, we’ve amended it, President Obama felt it was important to reflect his personal view and it’s done. And we’re moving forward and continuing this convention,†she said, adding that she is very proud of the president’s record on supporting Israel.
But that wasn’t what sent Cooper into a tizzy. Even though video of the platform amendment vote shows a chaotic scene, many people booing and hollering in protest, Wasserman Schultz argued that “there wasn’t any discord†during the vote.
After watching the interview from the CNN studio, the always fair Cooper said: “I mean, that’s an alternate universe.â€
DWS almost makes me pine for the good old days of Howard Dean. Yes, he was nasty, crazy, and overbearing, but, at least he wasn’t a complete fool.
Cooper reminded his audience that it was Wasserman Schultz who attacked Mitt Romney’s campaign because “it is the candidate who sets the platform, who designs and writes the platform. It wasn’t true when she was saying it two weeks ago — but now isn’t it fair if she claimed that about the Republican platform to claim that about the Democratic platform?â€
When you’ve lost Anderson Cooper, you’ve…..well, you haven’t lost much, because so few actually watch CNN.
As for the supposed “booing” many are talking about, it sound more like about half the DNC delegates in attendance were yelling “no”, not booing. Decide for yourself
Read: Anderson Cooper: Debbie Downer Lives In “An Alternate Universe” »
Well, it’s certainly better off not having a president who sexually harasses women, was credibly accused of rape, impeached for lying to a federal grand jury (along with suborning testimony), and had stuck a cigar in the hoo-ha of a girl young enough to be his daughter. Instead, we have a president who, um, really doesn’t care. Jennifer Rubin discusses Clinton’s long, rambling speech, of which I’ll skip the parts regarding her interpretation as I was watching my Giants lose, not Clinton’s speech, and makes a two excellent points
At his most effective, Clinton said that no president could have fixed in four years the economy that Obama inherited. And he extolled the belief that America â€always comes back.†Unfortunately, Obama promised to fix the economy in his first term. And the Obama recovery is the weakest in history. The comparison between the two presidents’ records was obvious, leaving one to consider if Clinton’s mere presence was a reminder of Obama’s weaknesses.
When Reagan took office, the economy immediately started turning around from the malaise and misery he inherited. When Bush 43 took office, the economy turned around from the issues he inherited (Dotcom implosion, WorldCom, Enron), and turned around the economy after the disastrous 9/11. Clinton turned around the economy when….the GOP took over the House. With Obama, what has he turned around? One could expect things to get somewhat better after a deep recession naturally. But…..
Like every other Democratic speaker, Clinton ignored the appalling increase in poverty under this president , a cynical betrayal of liberals’ supposed concern for the poor. No empathy or bitten lip is shown for them, or for the more than 8 percent of unemployed Americans (and millions more underemployed or who have stopped looking for work). The actual results of Obama’s policies are a sticky matter, so better to let him defend that himself.
Can anyone point to the Democrats talking about the poor? It’s all middle class this, middle class that. Of course, much of the middle class is suffering. How so? Investors Business Daily points out
There’s your “better off today”.
“Are we where we want to be today? No. Is the president satisfied? Of course not. But are we better off than when he took office? Of course,†Clinton said.
Love the way he hedged his bet with “are we where we want to be today? No.” Expect that to be the Obama position for the rest of the campaign, with lots of whining about those mean Republicans refusing to work with him, to which Republicans should answer “you’re damned right! His policies are a disaster. Look at what they’ve wrought over the past 4 years.”
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
Read: Snort-worthy Clinton: “Are We Where We Want To Be? No” »
Yeah, saw it over at The Chive, I’m sure it’s been around for a bit.
Read: As You Watch (Or Don’t) The DNC Big Government Abortionfest…. »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
