Obama '08?

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Time is running out...

Yes, Rasmussen poll down to dangerously close to less than 50% for the first time.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"Overall, 51% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Forty-seven percent (47%) disapprove."

0 Replies

When is the black community going to get tired of being used, stereotyped and kept on the Democrat plantation?

I love it. Watch the video.

By the way, ci, where do you find losers like Boxer, and why do you send them to Washington?

1 Reply

@okie,

He "hangs around with" the people in his administration, congress members, foreign heads of state, dignitaries, his family and friends, and many people outside of these groups.

That's essentially what a president does.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

When is the black community going to get tired of being used, stereotyped and kept on the Democrat plantation?

I love it. Watch the video.

She stepped in it and received a well deserved thrashing.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

I like Mr. Alford's attitude and confidence, and I sympathize with him when he makes it clear he doesn't want to hear Ms. Boxer preach at him, nor does he want to hear it about what the NAACP might say, as I think he is more interested in individuals, you can hear it in his voice, he does not need the NAACP to speak for him, or for an energy or environmental issue of all things. Amen, Mr. Alford, I love it. He is a great American. After all, what if there was a National Association for the Advancement of White People, how would that go over? And he is obviously proud of being a former military man, he obviously feels like he has paid his dues and has a right to his opinion, without regard to his color, black, brown, white, green, or yellow. I love it. I would like to see him be able to sit in Ms. Boxer's chair and give her a few lessons about what America is about. We need more guys like Mr. Alford to tell the Democrats where to go with their race baiting.

The Democrats are probably sending their attack dogs and investigators out right now to dig up dirt on Mr. Alford. Would not surprise me in the least.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

okie wrote:
Bush invented the term, "compassionate conservatism," and ran on this concept, . . . .

I don't believe that Bush invented the phrase. Could you please do some fact checking with regard to your assertion and verify for us whether it is accurate.

You may be correct, Bush apparently did not invent it, however, I think Bush was the first candidate and president to advertise it and sort of make it a centerpiece of his candidacy and his presidency. No child left behind and his prescription drug program I think were outgrowths of that philosophy.

I am not agreeing with the term, I think it is a very bad term because it implies that previous conservatism or other traditional conservatism were not compassionate, which is baloney. Giving your kid a bunch of money without teaching him how to work is not necessarily compassionate in the long run, so giving people stuff does not prove compassion.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Holdren did NOT "advocate forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies."

I think the following are quotes from the book, Debra. When you co-author a book, you become responsible for what it says. Also, he hides behind third person references, such as "you could" or "one way to do something" or "a program could accomplish" and so on. It seems totally logical that unless you would strongly consider advocating such things or do advocate such things, you wouldn't write them.

"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

"One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption"especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime"sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.

Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the "tragedy of the commons," wherein the "commons" is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.

Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Read this again, genius! It says "...if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." When do you expect this to happen? Any time soon? In your lifetime? Get real - if that's possible.
Do you also understand what happens if we do not have population growth? Please answer this question.

Quote:

Population: 307,212,123 (July 2009 est.)
Age structure: 0-14 years: 20.2% (male 31,639,127/female 30,305,704)
15-64 years: 67% (male 102,665,043/female 103,129,321)
65 years and over: 12.8% (male 16,901,232/female 22,571,696) (2009 est.)
Median age: total: 36.7 years
male: 35.4 years
female: 38 years (2008 est.)
Population growth rate: 0.975% (2009 est.)
Birth rate: 14.18 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Death rate: 8.27 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Net migration rate: 4.31 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2009 est.)

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote:
Quote:
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Read this again, genius! It says "...if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." When do you expect this to happen? Any time soon? In your lifetime? Get real - if that's possible.
Do you also understand what happens if we do not have population growth? Please answer this question.

And who do you think gets to decide when it is sufficiently severe, dufus ci? We've already had a bunch of doomsayers tell us we were doomed a long time ago, one of them wrote the book with Obama's science advisor. If you trust Obama and his advisors, you are indeed dumber than I thought. You have already admitted he lies to you, so why would you trust him? Paul Ehrlich, the co-author of the book with Holdren once predicted in his "Population Bomb" book that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 70's and 80's. Paul Ehrlich is a nut. These are the type of people that Obama has as science advisors, ci. Do you want these type of people or radicals making those decisions? I do not, thank you very much.

1 Reply

@okie,

Not certainly you! And that's a relief.

You didn't answer my question: Do you know what happens if we don't have population growth?

The only doomsayers on a2k are you and a few other MACs and conservatives. You think we have any fear for over-population now or in the future in our country? Where do you get your information from? FOX?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You can add "over population" to your fear mongering. What other fears do you have?

Quote:

Rebuttal to Chris Hedges: Stop the Tired Overpopulation Hysteria

By Betsy Hartmann, AlterNet. Posted March 14, 2009.

Is it any coincidence that just as the U.S. government is finally getting serious again about environmental regulation and climate change, there is an upsurge of overpopulation hysteria? Malthus is riding again on the dark horses of the apocalypse. Unless we start curbing birth rates now, preferably by voluntary means but through more coercive measures if necessary, we will breed ourselves to extinction. This is the message of a recent lead story on AlterNet by Chris Hedges (March 11, 2009). Last month a Global Population Speak Out campaign aimed to spread similar fears throughout the media. The population bomb is back in vogue.

And it's time we diffused it. Raising alarms about overpopulation distracts us from the real environmental tasks at hand. It also undermines the provision of good quality, voluntary family planning services, instead legitimizing top-down punitive policies that hurt women.

Today's population alarmists are stuck back in the 1960s when high rates of population growth made it look as if the world was experiencing a population explosion. But much has changed since then. While world population is projected to increase from 6.7 billion today to about 9 billion in 2050, the rate of growth has slowed considerably. The average number of children born to a woman in the Global South is now 2.75, and the UN predicts this figure will drop to 2.05 by 2050.

Moreover, the few countries that still have relatively high birth rates, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, have the least impact on environmental factors such as global warming. From 1950-2000, the entire continent of Africa was responsible for only 2.5% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Though it is impossible to predict exactly what world population will look like further in the future, most demographers agree we are on the path toward population stabilization with families all across the globe having two children or less. In fact, demographers tend to be more concerned these days about declining population growth and population aging than they are about too many people.

okie, Don't you investigate anything before you post your diatribe?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Are you getting senile? I am not fear mongering about overpopulation. It has been Obama's science advisor, okay. Have a good evening, I am done talking and wasting time here. Seriously, have a good evening, give it up, ci, as you are becoming confused.

1 Reply

@okie,

And you took it to heart and posted it here, because?

FACT:

Quote:

Population growth rate: 0.975% (2009 est.)

Do you understand what this means for the US population?

You wrote:

Quote:

And who do you think gets to decide when it is sufficiently severe, dufus ci?

Yes, who? That's fear-mongering if I ever saw one.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Obama fits. He is a radical. Do not listen to what he says, but what he does, and who he admires and hangs around with.

Well, I wonder how you would call our conservatives - but since you called the French socialists, ours might be commies Laughing

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

Obama fits. He is a radical. Do not listen to what he says, but what he does, and who he admires and hangs around with.

Well, I wonder how you would call our conservatives - but since you called the French socialists, ours might be commies

yeah, well you "old europe" types. socialists. communists. who cares? it's all the same the way you guys all hold your forks and knives with the wrong hands. hrumph!

0 Replies

Okie, good stuff.

Thank you for posting the facts.

0 Replies

Obama has appointed more Czars in six months than Russia had in over 200 years...

0 Replies

It's Not An Option
Obamacare will make individual private medical insurance illegal

1 Reply

Why does the Obama administration continue to lie about the number of uninsured in this country?

The real number of uninsured in this country is 8 to 14 million, not 45 to 50 million.

Why does Obama perpetuate a lie?

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

LOL.. You might want to check the numbers from the Census Bureau, Squirt.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
Table 8 on page 25 lists total number of uninsured along with the number in each state.

According to the Census documents there were 45, 822,000 uninsured in 2007, the last year data is available for.

So that raises the question of why do YOU continue to lie, Squirt?

Why does Squirt perpetuate a lie?

_____________________

Is "perpetuate" the word of the day Squirt?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know