Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dem Party Platform Calls For Prosecuting Global Warming Skeptics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dem Party Platform Calls For Prosecuting Global Warming Skeptics

    Dem Party Platform Calls For Prosecuting Global Warming Skeptics

    MICHAEL BASTASCH
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/de...#ixzz4CnHHPuko

    Another reason to vote anything/anyone other than Democrat.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
    Present Current Events are the Future's History

  • #2
    You mean Dumbocrats advocate persecuting those exercising First Amendment rights. Good luck even trying it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Currently, AGs from California, Massachusetts, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands have launched investigations of Exxon, and at least two AGs have demanded records on conservative think tanks and scientists skeptical of global warming. Such targeting has only fueled calls that these investigations are an attack on free speech.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/de...#ixzz4CncHn8Gg

      So far, this has been the best response to these jackbooted thugs...

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/...generals-ever/

      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #4
        I am reading Anne Applebaum's book Iron Curtain, the crushing of Eastern Europe 1944-1956 and it is eerie how similar the tactics are of the Far Left and Stalins regime used and are using against their foes. God help us!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mystikeye View Post
          I am reading Anne Applebaum's book Iron Curtain, the crushing of Eastern Europe 1944-1956 and it is eerie how similar the tactics are of the Far Left and Stalins regime used and are using against their foes. God help us!
          Should Hillery win along with Democrats in Congress, such tactics will become the norm as the Bill of Rights will only apply to the State and no longer the individual.
          “Breaking News,”

          “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

          Comment


          • #6
            Every Leftist movement and government has imposed restrictions on speech, assembly, and anything else they see as a threat to their holding on to power. Why would this be any different?

            Comment


            • #7
              Because we are an armed citizenry.

              Comment


              • #8
                9 INSANE Things In The New Democratic Party Platform
                The Democratic National Committee has released excerpts from its new platform – and it’s even more insanely extreme than the old platform. More so, as we’ll see. Here are the top nine lowlights from the party of Bernie Sanders:
                ....
                http://www.dailywire.com/news/6965/9...mpaign=dwbrand
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                Present Current Events are the Future's History

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                  9 INSANE Things In The New Democratic Party Platform
                  The Democratic National Committee has released excerpts from its new platform – and it’s even more insanely extreme than the old platform. More so, as we’ll see. Here are the top nine lowlights from the party of Bernie Sanders:
                  ....
                  http://www.dailywire.com/news/6965/9...mpaign=dwbrand
                  I like how the article opens with a picture of one of them...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    I like how the article opens with a picture of one of them...
                    No shortage of hubris there, nor of delusional disconnects from reality.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                    Present Current Events are the Future's History

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It is already adopted policy when it comes to Obama protecting his Muslim immigrants buddies.

                      Reaction to threatening comments from President Obama’s U.S. attorney in Idaho following the release of two Muslim boys accused of sexually assaulting a 5-year-old girl have been swift and severe.

                      http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/idaho-rap...s-of-arrest/#!
                      “Breaking News,”

                      “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Obama has run one of the most opaque American administrations in modern history. While Bush made a lot of questionable moves, and the Cheney/Rumsfeld team was a master at controlling the media (Cheney got his practice in the 90s), Obama's reign has been marked with one of the least transparent tenures in office.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                          Obama has run one of the most opaque American administrations in modern history. While Bush made a lot of questionable moves, and the Cheney/Rumsfeld team was a master at controlling the media (Cheney got his practice in the 90s), Obama's reign has been marked with one of the least transparent tenures in office.
                          Let's not leave off one of the most partisan, and racist as well.

                          Remember when Bush got pilloried for replacing a number of US attorneys? Obama fired them wholesale on taking office and nary a peep was raised about that.

                          http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...torneys-018390

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismis...ys_controversy

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            Let's not leave off one of the most partisan, and racist as well.
                            The partisanship is a two-way street, and one could see the response from conservatives (the tea party and related movements) as being in tandem with Obama's policies. And if you asked the average person, I imagine their view on which side was more partisan or obstructionist will depend almost entirely on their established political loyalties - making it very relative as well.

                            And the idea that Obama's reign has been one of the most racist presidencies is... well, it's always amusing to hear. As a racial minority I'll take Obama's reign over LBJs, Hoover's, Garfield's, or even Lincoln's. As an ethnic minority (say Irish) I'll take Obama's over Grant's or Fillmore's.

                            But back on topic, one thing that seems to have escaped further scrutiny is the quite partisan (and one could even say misleading) nature of the original article.

                            It seems highly dependent upon one's own established beliefs on global warming. If you believe global warming is proven then this is just promising to go after companies that lie about their objective impact on the world, meaning it is more akin to going after tobacco companies saying smoking isn't that bad for you than an attack on free speech.

                            However, if you have your doubts about global warming then this most clearly can be construed as an attempt to limit debate by punishing companies (and more horrifying, think tanks and other groups) who happen to express their opinion on the other side's unproven pseudo-science.

                            So what we end up with is one side saying it's an attack on free speech and open discourse by using the legal and legislative system to prosecute dissenters, the other saying it's promising that they won't allow companies to mislead the public about their demonstrated environmental impact.

                            And both sides can make strong, rational, and logical argument about their stance... which is entirely dependent upon a previously accepted belief in one side or another of global warming.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                              The partisanship is a two-way street, and one could see the response from conservatives (the tea party and related movements) as being in tandem with Obama's policies. And if you asked the average person, I imagine their view on which side was more partisan or obstructionist will depend almost entirely on their established political loyalties - making it very relative as well.

                              And the idea that Obama's reign has been one of the most racist presidencies is... well, it's always amusing to hear. As a racial minority I'll take Obama's reign over LBJs, Hoover's, Garfield's, or even Lincoln's. As an ethnic minority (say Irish) I'll take Obama's over Grant's or Fillmore's.

                              But back on topic, one thing that seems to have escaped further scrutiny is the quite partisan (and one could even say misleading) nature of the original article.

                              It seems highly dependent upon one's own established beliefs on global warming. If you believe global warming is proven then this is just promising to go after companies that lie about their objective impact on the world, meaning it is more akin to going after tobacco companies saying smoking isn't that bad for you than an attack on free speech.

                              However, if you have your doubts about global warming then this most clearly can be construed as an attempt to limit debate by punishing companies (and more horrifying, think tanks and other groups) who happen to express their opinion on the other side's unproven pseudo-science.

                              So what we end up with is one side saying it's an attack on free speech and open discourse by using the legal and legislative system to prosecute dissenters, the other saying it's promising that they won't allow companies to mislead the public about their demonstrated environmental impact.

                              And both sides can make strong, rational, and logical argument about their stance... which is entirely dependent upon a previously accepted belief in one side or another of global warming.
                              Which is precisely why the First Amendment was added to the Constitution: To remind government that it cannot infringe on Free Speech, particularly speech with with the government disagrees.

                              These jack-booted thugs are not only issuing subpoenas to ExxonMobil, they are also issuing them to think tanks, authors and scientists who have expressed skepticism of Gorebal Warming. Securities laws, particularly those of New York State, provide at least a facade of legal authority to subpoena ExxonMobil's emails and other correspondence. The thugs claim that XOM should have warned investors that climate change regulations could adversely affect their profitability. XOM's shareholders have overwhelmingly rejected every motion to produce a report on how climate change regulations might affect their business. So, the thugs are suing going after XOM for doing what their shareholders voted for...

                              However, when they go after authors of books they don't like, the proper response is, "Frack off, fascist!"

                              Thus far, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has waged a very effective counterattack.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X