An inconvenient Absence

[osusev]

wow cal....... those posts were kind of out there.

[Mr. T]

liberlism = socialism according to another community organizer Saul D. Alinsky who wrote "Rules for Radicals"

Outlining his strategy in organizing Alinsky writes:

wiki here

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."[2]

Alinsky codified and wrote a clear set of rules[3] for community organizing. His rules for radicals are now used as key tactics to learn in the training of new community organizers.

In a separate chapter he suggests that the perennial question, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands: the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"

Alinsky continues by stating several rules of the ethics of means and ends:

• The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
• In war the end justifies almost any means.
• Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
• Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
• The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
• Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
• The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
• Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
• You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
• Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

These rules of the ethics of means and ends are only one chapter of his book, totally distinct from his "clear set of rules for community organizing." For example, his rule 12 is "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

And if the rules for radicals isnt bad enough I am holding another piece of trash in my left hand as I type, should be a very comical read, "The Communist manifesto"

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ha. I see that Sev is trying to do his best and getting nowhere. Cheers, Sev.

Thought you guys would find this interesting, since you still can't get beyond the "It was cold where I live for a couple weeks so global warming doesn't exist" line of argument, as elementary as it may be:

"The globe recorded its eighth warmest December since record keeping began in 1880, and 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated December 2009 as the 4th warmest December on record, and the year 2009 tied with 2007 as the second warmest year on record."

Seems to run counter to the point of this thread, no?

[Westside Steve]

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Ha. I see that Sev is trying to do his best and getting nowhere. Cheers, Sev.

Thought you guys would find this interesting, since you still can't get beyond the "It was cold where I live for a couple weeks so global warming doesn't exist" line of argument, as elementary as it may be:

"The globe recorded its eighth warmest December since record keeping began in 1880, and 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated December 2009 as the 4th warmest December on record, and the year 2009 tied with 2007 as the second warmest year on record."

Seems to run counter to the point of this thread, no?

OK.

So with cap and trade going nowhere (and no change in sight even if it did) tell us this:

So what?

Since you're obsessed with the issue tell us what's in store.

WSS

[Pumpkin Eater]

@osusev said:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090121/

Easterm Antartica cooling huh..... looks like the studies dont match that opinion piece.... already published and reviewed....

haha.... published and reviewed by who? The MMGW proponents have NO credibility now, lest we forget. Remember the emails about excluding those who disagreed with their theories from the peer review process? And I also believe there was talk of cherry picking data, suppressing other data, and then manipulating data.

[heckofajobbrownie]

@westside-steve said:

OK.

So with cap and trade going nowhere (and no change in sight even if it did) tell us this:

So what?

Since you're obsessed with the issue tell us what's in store.

WSS

Steve, I'm just trying to help them past the "Hey, it's snowing outside my house so global warming is hooey!" stage. And if you're still in that stage, there really isn't much point in debating what's beyond it, is there? It's like trying to debate the West Coast offense with someone who still doesn't understand what a quarterback does.

I mean, look at Sev in this thread. He actually knows this stuff, whereas all the other guys obviously don't, and have to cut and paste other people's opinions because their opinions are simply adopted from the political people they read or listen to. This should probably chasten them a bit, but it clearly doesn't. Once they're beaten, they just pick up another line and try that. And then the cycle repeats.

As for what comes next, I don't know what the point of your question is. Cap and trade is hanging in the balance, especially after a Brown win today, which he seems to be headed towards. And so you're faced with the prospect of EPA regulations, which nobody wants. So maybe you get some sort of watered down bill instead, which is all you can get out of Congress today. So there's a real prospect that greenhouse gas emissions will continue pretty much unabated, which is pretty bad news for the planet.

Besides, you're still stuck in your rut, which is to claim that there's no difference between emissions under a cap and trade system and emissions without one. So there's really no point in arguing with you either, which is why I don't, and periodically check in here to see what crazy people think is true this month.

[Mr. T]

Whats so funny about this whole thing is how only democrats want to tax the air you exhale and tax the weather outside.

Whats next a tax on how many hairs are on your head. The whole argument is getting ridiculous, especially when they have to fabricate their info.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Democrats don't want to tax the air you exhale or the weather. (Where do you get this stuff?) You're just a lunatic who doesn't know anything, T. That's all there is to it.

[calfoxwc]

And, Heck, you are a loser who keeps bailing out of the forum and keeps coming back when

you think that we forgot that you seem to be the one who reads articles, then pens in your opinions like they were yours.

In my reading, I have more than 3 times read posts by "experts", in nearly the exact same words as you.

Coincidence? Or not?

BTW, you never answered my question - did you, Shep, Mzbeetlejuice, and Al know each other, or

some subgroup of the above, on some other forum @@ before you came here?

I ask, because, seems to me, that none of the above ever said how they are Browns fans, love the Browns, etc...........

and you seem to share the same arrogance in your cherry picked articles.

After all the posts to the contrary of mmgw, they start all over AGAIN at the beginning, arguing the same premise.

"Deja vu all over again"

Answer to the question, mr phoney knowitall ?

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, we didn't know each other. Sorry if this ruins some sort of conspiracy you've created in your head.

[Kosar_For_President]

@calfoxwc said:

And, Heck, you are a loser who keeps bailing out of the forum and keeps coming back when

you think that we forgot that you seem to be the one who reads articles, then pens in your opinions like they were yours.

In my reading, I have more than 3 times read posts by "experts", in nearly the exact same words as you.

Coincidence? Or not?

BTW, you never answered my question - did you, Shep, Mzbeetlejuice, and Al know each other, or

some subgroup of the above, on some other forum @@ before you came here?

I ask, because, seems to me, that none of the above ever said how they are Browns fans, love the Browns, etc...........

and you seem to share the same arrogance in your cherry picked articles.

After all the posts to the contrary of mmgw, they start all over AGAIN at the beginning, arguing the same premise.

"Deja vu all over again"

Answer to the question, mr phoney knowitall ?

Cal I think it's the other way around. They did not know each other but gravitated to the EXACT same views because that is what their minds were molded to think. I've change my views from time to time because I don't let ego get into the way of what is right or wrong. When you side with either political gang, it's purely being brainwashed.

[heckofajobbrownie]

...Wha?? Who molded us?

You guys are too funny over here in your little sheltered colony, listening to each other say the same thing every day, then accusing everyone else of being automatons who were molded to think a certain way. It's pretty funny.

[Kosar_For_President]

@heckofajobbrownie said:

...Wha?? Who molded us?

You guys are too funny over here in your little sheltered colony, listening to each other say the same thing every day, then accusing everyone else of being automatons who were molded to think a certain way. It's pretty funny.

No Heck that is MY view not anyone elses, lol.

[Mr. T]

@heckofajobbrownie said:

No, we didn't know each other. Sorry if this ruins some sort of conspiracy you've created in your head.

Earth to Hack, I mean Heck. We are the conspirators. As you say its is our safe little colony.

Continue on our wayward son.

[Alo]

Ah, what a funny place this is...

[Westside Steve]

@heckofajobbrownie said:

As for what comes next, I don't know what the point of your question is. Cap and trade is hanging in the balance, especially after a Brown win today, which he seems to be headed towards. And so you're faced with the prospect of EPA regulations, which nobody wants. So maybe you get some sort of watered down bill instead, which is all you can get out of Congress today. So there's a real prospect that greenhouse gas emissions will continue pretty much unabated, which is pretty bad news for the planet.

Besides, you're still stuck in your rut, which is to claim that there's no difference between emissions under a cap and trade system and emissions without one. So there's really no point in arguing with you either, which is why I don't, and periodically check in here to see what crazy people think is true this month.

Actually my point is that the effect on emissions by a proposed carbon tax on US industry will be miniscule.

And I don't think you've had the moxie to state that it will be substantial.

So we spin our wheels.

But I'd bet it's in trouble even if Brown loses.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Nobody is proposing a carbon tax, Steve.

[calfoxwc]

Nobody is proposing a carbon tax, Steve. Heck

*******************************************

So, even after you ran away and hid for a while, you are STILL all WET IN EGYPT?

Egads, you never cease to get worse and worse...

Perhaps you never heard of Rep John D. Dingell?

************************************************

http://www.house.gov/dingell/carbonTaxSummary.shtml

Summary of Draft Carbon Tax Legislation Representative John D. Dingell

The earth is getting warmer and human activities are a large part of the cause. We need to act in order to prevent a serious problem. The world’s best scientists agree we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80 percent by 2050 in order to limit the effects of global warming and this legislation will put us on track to do just that.

This is a massive undertaking, and it will not be easy to achieve, but we simply must accomplish this goal; our future and our children’s futures depend on it.

In order to get to this end we need to have a multi-pronged approach. In addition to an economy wide cap-and-trade program, which would mandate a cap on carbon emissions, a fee on carbon is the most effective way to curb emissions and make alternatives economically viable.

Below you will find a summary of the carbon tax legislation I am working on. I invite you to comment on the proposal. Once I have received your comments, I will look at ways we can address the ideas and concerns brought to my attention by the American people.

We must remember we all have a common goal and are in this fight together. I look forward to hearing from you.

The legislation I am proposing would impose the following:

A tax on carbon content:

•$50 / ton of carbon (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation)

◦Coal, including lignite and peat

◦Petroleum and any petroleum product

◦Natural gas

A tax on gasoline:

•.50/ gallon of gas, jet fuel, kerosene (petroleum based) etc…(added to current gas tax) (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation)

◦Exemption for diesel – The fuel economy benefits of diesel surpass even its emissions benefits; it provides about a thirty percent increase in fuel economy and a twenty percent emissions reduction

◦Biofuels that do not contain petroleum are exempt. Biofuels blended with petroleum are only taxed on the petroleum portion of the fuel.

**The .50 gas tax is in addition to what is derived from the per ton carbon tax in the previous bullet.

[Kosar_For_President]

Heck = Owned

[heckofajobbrownie]

What I'm saying is that we're not debating a carbon tax and never have been. We're debating a cap and trade proposal. That's the only game in town. The bill that passed the House and is currently before the Senate is not a carbon tax. It's a cap and trade bill.

Dingell is on his own, doing the bidding for Detroit. There is no real discussion of a carbon tax in Congress. And I don't think Steve knows the difference between the two proposals, because he seems to think that they're the same thing when they're not.

But you can do a victory dance if it makes you feel good, as if Steve was really talking about the idea Dingell has, and not the bills that are before Congress. I won't stop you.