Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Notes on the President’s State of the Union Address, January 25, 2011

Notes on the President’s State of the Union Address, January 25, 2011

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The President of the United States, Barack Obama, is always a relaxed, comfortable and effective speaker; last night’s State of the Union Address was no exception.

Tangible and incontrovertible was  the precedent-setting seating arrangement, wherein the barricades to productivity were for a time lifted. As Democrats sat with Republicans, as liberals shared armrests with conservatives, none could fail to note the new hope established.

The President entered and, moving through the welcoming crowd, he turned right and left, greeting those there assembled on a one-to-one basis, recalling pending matters, and putting the guests at ease in discussing things important to each of them.

In the speech, he recalled the shootings in Tucson, Arizona, and reminded those present that we are all a part of an American family. We are, he said, a “part of something greater,” and he expressed hope for a new era of cooperation. He asked for America to continue to be the “light of the world.”

If there was a main unifying thrust to the President’s words on domestic issues, it was a call for education and an emphasis on technology. He said we must devote ourselves to an investment in the future; an investment in the students of science and mathematics; a dedication to clean energy, and ever advancing technology, and to the further development of as yet undiscovered  technology, including advancement in the technologies that allow people to share knowledge. In that regard, he said a fireman at a fire site should be able to view the internal structures of the burning facility on a hand-held device.

He called for 100,000 new teachers and said we should reward innovation. He said the student who excels at a science fair should be as praised as is the student on the sports field. He called for a familial investment in learning, wherein parents applaud their studious, hard-working, and dedicated children. In the area of technology, he called for one million electronic vehicles to be on our roadways by 2015.

As to clean energy and new technology, he plans to cut subsidies, which have in recent years exceeded one billion dollars, for oil companies, which do well without these subsidies. He asked Democrats and Republicans to work together to “make it happen.” He touched on the needs of the children of undocumented aliens, children who have done no wrong, and who can be a valuable resource for America.

On the matter of health care, he continued to promote rules that will prevent insurance companies from exploiting patients. He said that pre-existing conditions must be covered. He called for coverage of prescription costs.

At that point, the President moved on to the matter of the national deficit: “A government that spends more than it takes in is not sustainable.” He says we cannot tolerate excessive discretionary or annual domestic spending; such spending, he says, should be frozen for the next five years. He continued that annual domestic spending only accounts for 12 percent of the growing problem. We must cut tax breaks and loopholes, while strengthening Social Security for future generations. Within the coming 12 months we need see transparency in earmarks and lobbying. He once again calls for internet listing of lobbying operations. Our government, he stated, must be competent, efficient, and open.

Turning to the matter of our conduct of foreign affairs, Obama praised what America has done in Iraq. He views Iraq as a triumph and says we are continuing to improve. He said we must defeat our determined enemies. We must establish coalitions. We must promote American leadership. We will continue to “take the fight” to the Taliban, to al-Qaeda. He mentioned too that we will begin to bring our troops home from Afghanistan in July. We will continue our interest in Pakistan, and “We will not relent.”

We are determined, he said, that North Korea abandon its program for nuclear weapons. Again he called for a strengthening of coalitions. We must, he says, combat corruption.

The President declared that we will stand with the people of Tunisia, as they yearn for the freedoms of democracy, a yearning inherent in each of us.

The President gave great praise to our military: Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim…and to the gays in our nation and in our armed forces, he stated that we will not discriminate against individuals based upon “who they love.”

The President concluded with the moving story of an American businessman and business owner, Brandon Fisher, who designed a device to free the miners trapped in the Chilean mine collapse a few months ago. He told of how Fisher began to fashion the needed equipment, then went himself to Chile, and there his designs and plans were used to free the trapped miners. The President used the term the innovator used, “plan-B,” and said, “We dare to dream.”

As the assembled statesmen, legislators, executive staff members, and Chiefs of Staff rose to applaud on many, many occasions, it was clear that the road to “reaching across the aisle” might begin with the aisle’s elimination.

The Republican response to the State of the Union Address was delivered by Republican Representative Paul Ryan, of Wisconsin. The Representative lacked luster, and spoke in a monotone, restating Republican positions long held.

To the contrary, Michele Bachmann, Republican Representative from Minnesota, doubtless won some new support for the Tea Party, now taking a stand apparently as an American third party, making a break from the Grand Old Party of the Republicans. Her speech, energetic and well delivered, concisely stated Tea Party principles. On the negative side, Representative Bachmann’s speech seemed to have been fashioned prior to the release of the Presidential oration; some of the points she made had just moments before been made by President Obama.

Powered by

About John Lake

John Lake had a long and successful career in legitimate and musical theater. He moved up into work behind the camera at top motion pictures. He has done a smattering of radio, and television John joined the Blogcritics field of writers owing to a passion for the liberal press, himself speaking out about the political front, and liberal issues. Now the retired Mr. Lake has entered the field of motion picture, television, and video game (now a daily gamer!) critique. His writing is always innovative and immensely readable!
  • jaske lake

    what the f is he talking about

  • fabiola

    good article

  • John Lake

    NB: as of two PM, 991 reads, very few comments.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Since you asked for it, John, here’s an incisive appraisal of the State of the Union address, and I totally concur.

  • pablo

    3 John Lake
    What’s to comment on here? There is no substance, nothing of interest, and this article is nothing more than you blindly, and blandly approving of the biggest hypocrital president this nation has ever seen.

    Most of what is left of the real left, is completely disgusted by Snobama, as he has backpedeled and outright lied about what he was going to do. His complete embrace of the the Wall Street thugs is so atypical of who he really is. Geitner, Summers, Daley, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs. Yeah he is a real Statesman that Obama.

    We still have Guantanamo, national security letters instad of warrants, the sanctioning of killing usa citizens that are suspected of terrorism abroad by the state, and I could go on and on an on. The truth is John, you have no backbone, why don’t you just admit it?

  • John Lake

    Obama’s leaning toward the corporate “thugs” is an attempt at centrism, brought about by an aire of obstructionism from certain quarters in recent months.
    The promoters of the obstructionism also have formed an alliance which prevented the closure of Guantanamo Bay, despite all the Presidents efforts. Our President has however set up a review board so that the confinees there are not left in complete obscurity. Obama has favored the fairer civil trials. Unfortunately the public outcry against the terror suspects, and this is no ones fault, has made it difficult for them to receive fair treatment.
    I am unaware of any sanction of killing U.S. citizens accused of terrorism abroad.

  • pablo

    “I am unaware of any sanction of killing U.S. citizens accused of terrorism abroad.”

    That is because John Lake, you are politically unaware of what your government is up to. You would rather spend your time touting a president that has not kept his word to the american people on numerous issues of great importance.

    A few examples. Obama promised to review and change NAFTA, to close Gitmo, to stop wiretapping americans without a warrant, end no-bid contracts above $25,000, forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses, allow five days of public comment before signing bills, continuing to use signing statements after legislation has been passed, when he said it was a violation of the constitution, failed to recognize the Armenian genocide, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

    Here are a few links for your political education Mr. Lake regarding the us government sanctioning the assassination of americans abroad that are “suspected” of terrorism, which is not only reprehensible, unlawful, repugnant, illegal (the is a distinct difference between unlawful and illegal), it is high treason and he should be impeached for that alone. Yes Mr. Lake you are indeed unaware.

    CIA – Obama approves License to KILL Americans

    Dennis Blair: U.S. Can Kill Suspected American Terrorists Abroad

    U.S. assumes right to assassinate American citizens abroad to safeguard it

  • Ruvy

    Pablo, nice job disemboweling and deboning – a fillet.

  • pablo

    Thanks Ruvy, I find those on the so-called left such as the author of this pandering piece to the Kenyan usurper blind in the extreme. I cant stand the right, because they are more often than not bigoted, racist, arrogant, and love their corporate masters. However this new breed of the left, the wolves in sheep’s clothing I find even more reprehensible. No backbone, no independence, and almost all of their publications are either creations of the Agency, or funded by fascist foundations, such as the Rockyfellers, the Ford Foundation, Soros, etc.
    The fact that Mr. Lake has the gall to actually pretend that he knows anything about politics, as shown so clearly by his lack of knowledge of us sanctioned killing of innocent americans (yes John in our country a peson is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law) abroad. The Kenyan usurper should be impeached on that fact alone, but he won’t be because he was in point of fact created by the Ford foundation and the agency.

  • John Lake

    If they were to impeach the “Kenyan usurper” (Obama is American born), you would find the likes of Senator McCain, currently making a maximal effort to appear centrist and involved considerable less concerned about legal, lawful, moral interests.

  • pablo

    Another example of John Lake’s ignorance can be found over on his blog site, where he wrote an article on the theory of human caused global warming entitled “Global Warming: Fact, or Fraud? and Stranded Polar Bears!” In the first paragraph he says:

    “I’m concerned actually about all these polar bears, with nothing to stand on. I’m sure you’ve noticed. Daily, without fail, on television, photos, video clips, of desperate polar bears, who, because of global warming, the plague of the twenty-first century, are mere inches away from tumbling into the frozen ocean, the block of ice they had occupied, now shrinking, soon to nothing! Oh, the anguish!” It is common knowledge and I do mean common, that polar bears can swim up to 100 miles at a time.

    Some people will stoop to anything including outright falsehoods to promote an agenda. Oh those poor poor polar bears!!

  • Jordan Richardson

    You think that’s “common knowledge,” Pablo? You have a weird idea of the concept, I’m sure, but how many people do you really think know that polar bears can swim up to 100 miles at a time?

    I know this isn’t about polar bears, of course, but I think a few facts are in order.

    The real problem with respect to the “poor poor polar bears” is due to habitat loss, actually. Because the rising temperatures are causing the sea ice to melt earlier, the bears are driven to the shore before they can store enough fat reserves. This means that their chances of surviving the food scarcity in the late summer/early autumn go down considerably.

    This article is from 2005 and it discusses the polar bears having to swim “up to 60 miles in the open sea to find food.” Guess what’s happening, Pablo? They’re drowning because they’ve adapted to swimming closer to shore.

    Some people really will stoop to anything to promote an agenda.

  • John Lake

    Speaking from memory, I also mentioned in a response to a comment on that or a similiar article I wrote that those polar bears, who have our full sympathies, would likely without hesistation, lop of the head of the nearest do-gooder, given the opportunity.

  • pablo

    Jordan,

    In that case the esteemed Mr Lake might have used a different reason than the one he used. I myself love most animals, and nature in particular. However when you quote an articl which uses the World Wildlife Fund as a source, forgive me while I gag. The WWF is nothing more than a globalist group in point of fact founded by Prince Bernhard the founder of the Bilderberg Group, and Queenie’s husband. I would be happy to provide you with reams of dirt on them should you ask Jordan, but I know you won’t. And speaking of some people will stoop to anything to promote agenda that fits the WWF to a fucking Tee.

  • Jordan Richardson

    You can dismiss whatever sources you want to suit your agenda, Pablo, but don’t expect me to keep a straight face when you accuse others of doing the same.

    All you’ve done is cite the introduction to a random article. It’s far from the sole reason John used, but it’s hard to see things properly when your goal is to paint your “opponent” in whatever dark colour you’re dreaming of.

    Also, I’ve seen your “reams of dirt” on a host of topics around here. Not impressed.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    pablo (#11), in your zeal to disembowel and debone another fillet for Ruvy, you’ve misread and misrepresented John Lake’s “Global Warming: Fact, or Fraud? and Stranded Polar Bears!

    Far from “stooping to outright falsehoods to promote an agenda,” Mr. Lake is actually rather noncommittal. Subtitled “An Insightful Look at Global Warming,” his article briefly surveys different points of view without strongly endorsing either side in the climate change debate. And his reference to polar bears is clearly tongue in cheek.

    At the risk of contradicting Jordan, I think some people don’t have to stoop to promote an agenda. They’re already as low as they can get.

  • pablo

    Alan the first paragraph of the polar bear article speaks for itself. You’re still trying to put your two cents in politically when you should be back where you belong doing Brady Bunch reviews, that’s your forte and your very good at it.

  • Jordan Richardson

    the first paragraph of the polar bear article speaks for itself

    No, it actually doesn’t.

  • pablo

    I assume John lake you can no longer claim ignorance regading Obama’s illegal, unlawful assasination squads against fellow americans eh bro?

  • pablo

    No comments about death squads from any of ya eh? Polar bears are so much nicer and cuddlier to talk about. Typical on this site, all bluster, and no substance.

  • Jordan Richardson

    You brought up the polar bears, Pablo. If you wanted to focus on substance, you shouldn’t have been in such a scattershot rush to defame the author’s credibility.

  • pablo

    big yawn for ya jordan

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    all bluster, and no substance.

    You’ve been looking in the mirror, pablo.

  • pablo

    Credibiliy of Lake? You would think that a guy who writes contemporary political articles would know about us sanctioned assassinations of americans abroad. That is not trivial, the fact that he did not know about it, and said so speaks reams about his lack of political acumen, and I said as much.

    I am still waiting for his comment about that particular subject, but I doubt he will say anything, as he is too busy pandering to the Kenyan usurper. :)

  • pablo

    Oh Alan I see its Brady Bunch time again!

  • pablo

    Oh and Alan? Comment 5 And comment 7 are all substance pal. Not even an iota of bluster.

  • pablo

    You cannot feign ignorance anymore John Lake concerning us government sanctioned assassination squads targetting innocent americans abroad by your hero. What say you Mr. Lake?

  • Clavos

    Because the rising temperatures are causing the sea ice to melt earlier…

    And yet. The sea ice in Antarctica is actually growing…

  • Jordan Richardson

    Well there’s a considerable difference between sea ice and land ice, Clavos. And there’s also considerable differences between the ice in the Antarctic and the Arctic, which this describes.

    And land ice in Antarctica is in quite a bit of trouble.

  • Boeke

    #28 …”And yet. The sea ice in Antarctica is actually growing…”

    Where does this come from?

  • John Lake

    I may require some research before I attempt comment on the sanctioned assassination of U.S. terrorists in foreign countries.

  • Clavos

    Well there’s a considerable difference between sea ice and land ice, Clavos.

    I’m aware of that, Jordan. I was addressing your point in #12.

    And there’s also considerable differences between the ice in the Antarctic and the Arctic…

    I’m aware of that, too. Notwithstanding the warmer sea temps, the sea ice in Antarctica is growing.

  • Jordan Richardson

    My point in #12 was that polar bears are losing habitat and that they do indeed drown when they have to swim further for food. That’s it.

    I’m not overly sure what Antarctica’s sea ice growth has to do with mammals living in the Arctic.

    And as the pieces I linked to illustrate, there’s a reason the sea ice in Antarctica is growing (only to melt off, of course) while the ice elsewhere is shrinking.

    From what I can see, it’s actually kind of weird to even say that the “sea ice is growing” because it exists in such a transient, fluid state due to its continual flow north into warmer waters (where it melts).

  • Clavos

    From what I can see, it’s actually kind of weird to even say that the “sea ice is growing” because it exists in such a transient, fluid state due to its continual flow north into warmer waters (where it melts)…

    Maybe, but there is indisputably more of it these days…

    Just sayin’

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Does the fact that there is more Antarctic sea ice tend to weigh as evidence against global warming?

    Maybe there is more ice in the sea there because it has come off the land as it melts there?

    Melting Antarctic ice is far more of an issue than Arctic ice.

    On a slightly tangential note, a recent documentary I saw showed how the Earth has naturally warmed and cooled, with a matching growth and retreat of planetary ice mass and range over a 100,000 year cycle many times over.

    In the case of the UK, at its greatest extent more than half the country was covered in ice up to a mile thick and so much sea water turned to ice we were no longer an island.

    This last happened slightly over 100,000 years ago so we are well overdue and there is no sign of it happening. Logically then, either the cycle is broken for no apparent reason or something is preventing it. What would that be?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Clav: Antarctic sea ice largely comes, as Chris surmises, off the land. Ice flows downhill. It also floats, so once a mass of it gets large enough, trivial things like shorelines make little difference to its progress.

    The sea around Antarctica is also freshening because of this glacial run-off and increased precipitation. Salt melts ice, so it makes sense that the less of it there is in the water, the more ice will remain.

    Chris: actually, you’ve got it backwards. In the current epoch, ice ages have lasted about 100,000 years and have been punctuated by interglacials of about 11,500 years. The interglacial we’re in now began 12,000 years ago, so you would expect that it’s about time for it to knock off.

    But that rhythm isn’t set in stone. You need a particular combination of fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt to trigger an ice age, and that combination isn’t currently happening.

    They’re enough in sync that global temperatures should be cooling somewhat (without being enough to send a mile-thick glacier thundering over Old Trafford), but this effect is unfortunately more than offset by all the crap we’ve been burping out into the atmosphere.

  • pablo

    31 John Lake:

    I may require some research before I attempt comment on the sanctioned assassination of U.S. terrorists in foreign countries”

    Uhhh thats “suspected” terrorists buddy, remember a citizen is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I know I know its a moot point, but hey Im the old fashioned kind of american, due process and all that quaint stuff John.

    Research? Uh that would take you about 2 minutes to verify with the links that I provided you, and you can cross check them. Sounds like your wiggling Mr. Lake.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    a citizen is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

    So is anyone else, Pablo.

    Without condoning current American military deployments overseas, however, the incidents cited in which American citizens have been killed appear to have all been combat situations, not law and order ones.

    Last I checked, it wasn’t the custom to try the soldiers of an opposing army to determine whether they plan to attack you.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Russia is one notable exception, and so is the People’s Republic. The function of the judiciary is to validate the Party’s decision as to who is the enemy of the state, and to convict. No other course of action is possible, for it would mean immediate removal.

    Just sayin’

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Indeed, Roger, but Pablo is talking about American judicial standards here.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    True, but isn’t it the case that for this very reason, we’re trying to circumvent them by resorting to extraordinary rendition?

  • John Lake

    Just between us, I think global warning is a fraud. The Republicans wage wars with preemptive strikes, the Democrats want to spend money not on cleanliness, but to forestall warming. Might be a hoax.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    John, climate change is a global, not a United States phenomenon, and it makes not one iota of difference what any political party thinks or does.

  • John Lake

    That suggestion of fraud might have been a little strong. Here again is the link to Global Warming that will supply the reasons for that suggestion.

  • John Lake

    Dr. D.
    In wouldn’t be a global issue if the U.S. weren’t following up on it. There are a number of irregularities, as the article (#45) indicates.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    How could global warming possibly not be a global issue? The US’s choice to weigh in on it is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether there is or isn’t warming.

  • John Lake

    It is only a “global issue” if it is actually a real phenomenon. If it is a divisive plan by any group, who forward the plan by bringing in international support, it is not a “global issue”, rather an insideous fraud. I did mention several ideas that lead one to the conviction that I have reached, and I concede that I may be wrong.

  • John Lake

    Dr. Dreadful it has come to my attention was among the first to criticize the article about the stranded Polar Bears. Here are some of the points made in that article.

    Al Gore, produced a movie, An Inconvenient Truth. The use of the movie in schools was ruled upon by High Court (London) Judge Justice Burton. This High Court London Judge called An Inconvenient Truth “alarmist” and “exaggerated”. He said the film was “one-sided” and would breach education rules unless accompanied by a warning. Ruling that the film could be shown in schools as part of the climate change resource pack, Mr. (Judge) Justice Burton warned it must be accompanied by new guidance notes to balance Mr. Gore’s partisan views. Without the warning, he said, the film would breach education rules. At that time the London Judge pointed out nine specific errors in the Oscar Winning motion picture. To elaborate: [I edited this for time; the entire article is here at BlogCritics. JL]

    1. Gore said the sea level could be expected to rise,owing to melting ice sheets, by 20 feet in the “near future”. The Judge said this change would only take place only over millennia.

    2. Gore said low lying atolls would need be, and already have been in some cases, evacuated. Burton said no such evacuations have taken place.

    5. Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro was the result of “Human-induced climate change.” Burton: That claim cannot be proved nor corroborated.

    6. Al Gore: “The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of the catastrophic result of Global Warming”. Burton: “No evidence to prove the contention”

    7. Gore stated that Global Warming produced Hurricane Katrina. The Judge found no evidence.

    8. Polar bears were drowning, swimming distances of up to 60 miles in search of ice. Judge Justice Burton indicates that a total of 4 bears had drowned that in a storm.

    Then I wrote:
    “One might point out that when the ocean currents change, the polar weather warms and the glaciers melt, there is a corresponding and countering effect. The large floating ice-blocks enter the adjoining ocean waters, travel south to a degree, and act much as the ice cubes in our lemonade, cooling the waters. The waters cool, the air is cooled, and the global warming is thwarted; all very self-contained.”

    Following my publication of this single judge’s decision, I recall that there were other findings. Groups calling themselves “scientists” had abandoned scientific principles to further the case for needed expenditure to combat the warming. I haven’t the time nor interest to re-publish that material. It’s somewhere on the WWW. (Another odd point: Prior to Gores going to bat for global warming, he considered warning the planet about global cooling. Many I’m sure still remember that.

    I have very little interest in pursuing this matter any further!

  • John Lake

    Well, it’s not so much. But. Following, some additional material.

    “In a 2007 report, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the Himalayan glaciers are very likely to disappear within three decades if the present melting rate continues. But a statement from the panel now says there is not enough scientific evidence to back up those claim.
    “The warning in the report ‘refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers,’ the IPCC said.’ In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.’
    said the Himalayan glaciers are very likely to disappear within three decades if the present melting rate continues. But a statement from the panel now says there is not enough scientific evidence to back up those claim.
    “The warning in the report ‘refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers,’ the IPCC said.’ In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.’”

  • pablo

    Well John Lake you are able to see the fraud of man made global warming due to c02 emissions. Congrats!

    38 Dread: “a citizen is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” So is anyone else Pablo”

    As if I did not know that Dread, you are so typical of the nitpickers on this site. Since my comments regarding us govt sanctioned hit squads was particularly about american citizens abroad, I used citizens in that context pal.

    I do find it interesting however that thus far no one but myself on this site, has said that they found this to be reprehensible, unlawlful, illegal, and grounds for impeachment, thus far not even a peep of indignation. Typical on this site Dread.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Pablo – the subject of extraordinary renditions had come up multiple times in the past – and yes, there was a reaction of reprehension from many. As to impeachment, the entire US government should be impeached, people of all colors and stripes. But rather than indignation, I take more courage from developments in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. Screw the American fat cat, that’s my attitude really. We’re past saving this country.

  • El Bicho

    “Al Gore, produced a movie, An Inconvenient Truth.”

    No, he didn’t. He wrote and appeared in the movie. If you are going to be disputing something, it helps bolster your case when the first statement you make is accurate, especially when the info is easily accessible.

  • pablo

    Roger,

    Forgive me but extraordinary renditions is a far cry from us govt sanctioned assassinations of us citizens don’t ya think???

  • pablo

    El Bitcho,

    A producer of a movie more often than not is the one funding it, and thats about it, so as usual you are engaging in your natural pettiness.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Pablo –

    Well John Lake you are able to see the fraud of man made global warming due to c02 emissions.

    Um, pablo – do you remember when “global warming” really began to hit the public consciousness? It was in the 1990’s, right? So why is it that global warming was supposedly already such a FRAUD in the 1990’s…and lo and behold, the very next decade is the hottest on record and getting hotter.

    How did all the global warming “fraudsters”, since they were already SO wrong even then in the 1990’s, get it SO right in the 2000’s and are continuing to get it right since the world as a whole is getting hotter almost every year?

    Hm? Did they somehow cut a deal with Mother Nature to make them look good and make conservatives look bad? Or could it actually be that maybe, just maybe they were right all along?

    nah – of course not! Anything liberals believe must be wrong no matter how strong the evidence is!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Same difference to me, Pablo, between slow and instant death. Besides, I don’t hold US life more precious than any other.

  • John Lake

    et nous continuons…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    I do find it interesting however that thus far no one but myself on this site, has said that they found this to be reprehensible, unlawful, illegal, and grounds for impeachment, thus far not even a peep of indignation.

    pablo (#50), I suggest a slight correction. In my Blogcritics article Anwar al-Awlaki Is Afraid to Die, published September 1, 2010, I wrote:

    In any event, the fact remains that Awlaki is an American citizen by birthright, and … is at least nominally entitled to the same protections of the U.S. Constitution that we all enjoy. So maybe this lawsuit isn’t as daffy as it seems. When the ACLU’s Anthony D. Romero argues that killing U.S. citizens without judicial oversight or due process is “unconstitutional, unlawful and un-American,” it’s tough to see where he’s wrong.

  • pablo

    Ok Roger, to you kidnapping and murder are the same thing, but I still stand what I said, nobody on this site gives a shit that their govt is engaged in such draconian evil, and more likely than not very few of the political commenters here were even aware of it. Typical of this site.

    Alan your correction is duly noted, and kudos to you.

  • pablo

    Roger, I certainly never meant to equate an american’s life being worth more than anyone elses. I was simply referring to the story, which was particularly about us govt sanctioned hit squads of us citizens abroad.

    you oftentimes read way more into something than is actually there. There was not even a scintilla of evidence that I value an americans life over anyone elses.

  • Jordan Richardson

    A producer of a movie more often than not is the one funding it, and thats about it

    Wrong. A producer of a movie oversees most of the production of the film and ensures that the process goes according to plan. He or she is not “the one funding it” necessarily, either, although the producer is often involved in securing funding. Sometimes producers kick in some of their own money to finance a picture, but that task more often than not falls to the executive producer. Producers also obtain rights to material and supervise major aspects in the film’s production, like hiring casting directors and directors, etc.

    I know, I know, Pablo. It’s irrelevant. When you want to tie up loose ends, you will. You’ll rearrange reality to suit your views.

    It’s absolutely enraging to hear this America-focused view on global warming, too. It’s always a hoax or a myth or a fraud because you idiots politicize the shit out of everything and ignore the facts. Al Gore has nothing to do with it!

    It’s sickening to watch the same suspects twist and turn to avoid facing reality, especially as the planet continues its inexorable slide towards becoming an inhabitable wreck for human beings. But hey, let’s bitch about the details and imagine it all as an affront to our “liberty.” What fucking arrogance.

  • Jordan Richardson

    And as EB pointed out, Pablo, Al Gore did not produce An Inconvenient Truth. Shit, he’s not even an executive producer or a co-producer. He wrote it and “starred” in it, as it’s a documentary largely about him.

    We can get into the hypocrisy of Gore all you like and I’ll be with you every step of the way. I’m well aware of it and am more than aware of the frequently hypocritical movements out there surrounding the issue. But that doesn’t mean the science on climate change is false, so it’s time to stop drawing easy conclusions based on the actions of a few. It’s time, instead, to start paying a little attention to the truth – even if it doesn’t suit us.

  • pablo

    55 Glenn: “Anything liberals believe must be wrong no matter how strong the evidence is!”

    For your information Glenn, I grew up as a liberal in the finest traditon. I was out on the streets in San Francisco circa 1965 protesting the war in vietnam. My father was in Men for Peace a very liberal activist group at the tim. We subscribed to Ramparts Magazine. My family including me frequently canvassed the neighborhoods for various liberal organizations.

    I cannot recall ONE person who characteriezed themselves as a liberal being an admirerer of Ronald Reagan. What you and your ilk fail to understand as I pointed out in my rant about MSNBC being owned by the world’s biggest defense contractor and manufacturer of nuclar ,power plants is that you are blind. Not only would GE never allow anyone of substance opposed to the military industrial complex on the air, they far prefer to have shills such as Olbermann and Madow creating an illusion of opposition.

    I have also pointed out in the past numerous times about how the left has been co-opted with particular reference to the Nation Magazine waos editors family was in the agency, as well as the owner of the dailykos being in love with the CIA. As well as Amy Goodman being funded by the Rockefeller family, arguably one of the most evil and fascist families in the world. Due to your extreme blindness and naivete it all falls oen deaf ears. In short Glenn you have been had, and for the life of you do not have the ability either mentally or emotionally to pick yourself up by your own bootstraps and move on.

    Man made global warming due to c02 theory was invented by the Club of Rome, and is the brainchild of Maurice Strong who is a Rothschild henchman. I have quoted freqently from the book published by the Club of Rome, where they laid out their case to create this modern day chicken little scenerio.

    If you as a so called liberal think that your friends are the Rockefellers, the Ford Foundation, the Rand Corporation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Club of Rome the CFR and the Bilderbergs your in for a rude awakening. Peace on Earth, justice for all, equality, and freedom are the very LAST things that the above groups advocate. They do however play up controlled opposition for their own nefarious ends, of which you are ignorant of.

    All of which is so well illustrated by your respect and admiration of one Ronald Reagan pal. So don’t go talking to me about liberal when you dont know what the fuck you are talkng about.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jordan –

    I’ll ask you the same question I asked pablo in #55 – if global warming nuts like Gore were so very wrong even in the 1990’s, is it some kind of weird conspiracy (or simply an incredible coincidence) that the 2000’s are the hottest decade on record…and there’s no sign of it getting better any time soon?

    I mean, is it really so flatly impossible that half a billion cars, hundreds of thousands of factories, and hundreds of millions of flatulent cattle might actually be contributing to global warming since our atmospheric CO2 content is nearly twice what it was 200 years ago?

    Nah – can’t be – ’cause since liberals believe it, it MUST be wrong, huh?

  • pablo

    Sure Jordan whatever you say pal.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Glenn, I’m not really sure what you’re asking me or why you’re asking me it.

    You’re acting as though I think global warming/climate change is a myth because I believe Al Gore to be a hypocrite. Gore’s activities against global warming in terms of raising awareness are very admirable, but his actions are more than questionable. This dates back to his well-documented derailing of Kyoto in the Clinton administration. He took the limp stance of not ratifying it and advised Clinton to not send it to the Senate. In 1998, he “symbolically signed” it to please his Sierra Club pals. But any meaningful action on his behalf beyond a documentary that has proven to be more politically divisive than actually useful is lacking.

    As for Pablo, nice evasion (again). I expected nothing less. You were wrong about the polar bears, you’re wrong about the role of producers in movies. You’re wrong about climate change. How many more things do you want to be wrong about today?

  • Jordan Richardson

    *…that has proven to be more politically divisive than actually useful… (#66)

  • Jordan Richardson

    And let me reiterate the part you must have missed, Glenn:

    But that doesn’t mean the science on climate change is false, so it’s time to stop drawing easy conclusions based on the actions of a few.

  • pablo

    Another yawn for ya Jordan.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I understand, Pablo. Rearranging reality to suit your needs is an exhausting process, isn’t it?

  • pablo

    Oh and for the record Jordan your theory of man made global warming as it used to be called due to c02 emissions is rapidly losing its lustre in the arena of public opinion. It’s a good thing don’t ya think Jordan that the scientific community would never skew their results for funding. Only a rabid cynic could ever propose such a thing!

    I would again cite the actual sentence from the Club of Rome’s publication where they actually talked about creating a global warming scare to elicit support for a world government, but I would be wasting my breath. I know your far to arrogant Jordan to actually do the research yourself, so enjoy your ignorance. I sure do. :)

  • Jordan Richardson

    What do you mean my theory>, Pablo?

    The “court of public opinion” is utterly meaningless with respect to scientific issues because they are more often than not tempered with the fragile idealism of the day. The fact that you think the entire scientific community would “create” global warming as a concept “for funding” only displays your ignorance about the scientific community. It is not a homogeneous entity.

    And what, pray tell, does the Club of Rome have to do with this?

    Everything you believe, Pablo, has to do with secret closed-door meetings and men of power in shady costumes. They meet privately and exchange mystical handshakes while deciding our fate with giant global conspiracies and the like.

    You do this at your peril because you ignore the truth right in front of your face. You conveniently assemble your own facts and discard the overwhelming body of evidence that stands in your way in favour of a sentence from a think tank (Club of Rome) or a theory about a group of businessmen. You draw this asinine links to everything and ignore what doesn’t suit you.

    The real enemy, Pablo, is in plain sight. It’s in the everyday mundane nature of corporate and political society screwing over the average person. It’s in the divisiveness proposed by shock jocks and talk radio hosts looking to make a buck off of DVDs. It’s in the arrogant posturing of priests defending their “gods.” It’s in front of your face, but you prefer to look in the shadows because it gives your life more value to be “right” about something you think nobody else knows about. You enjoy the ego boost, I think. You’re right and everyone else is wrong, no matter what the facts say.

    Reasoning with you, as you’ve proven time and time again, is futile. You’ll either shrug it off or drown your “enemy” in a compilation of useless, contentious facts and half-assed assertions.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Here’s the sentence from the Club of Rome you were probably looking for:

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

    As you must know, the Club of Rome is responsible for The Limits to Growth, a book that raised the ire of many in the scientific community for its insistence on faulty methodology and idiotic rhetoric. The Club is, of course, associated heavily with the World Economic Forum and other elite bodies.

    Now I’m sure because of this sentence you also don’t “believe” in famine or water shortages, right?

  • pablo

    “Everything you believe, Pablo, has to do with secret closed-door meetings and men of power in shady costumes. They meet privately and exchange mystical handshakes while deciding our fate with giant global conspiracies and the like.”

    No argument there Jordan! I couldn’t have stated it more eloquently than you did. To characterize the Club of Rome as just another think tank however is naive in the extreme. That organization is in point of fact operated an controlled by several of the most affluent families in the world. Now if I started a think tank you could get away with that throwout line (and yes I know your going to respond with a cute remark about pablo’s think tank)

    As to your comment that nobody else knows about it, thats absurd. The fact that you don’t only shows your ignorance, but thousands if not millions do know about it. My life in and of itself has value Jordan, and everyone else is not wrong, it just so happens that on this particular political website it is filled with ignorance. If you like I would be glad to provid you with numerous other sites filled to the brim with like minded people such as myself, but I know your not interested, as the projections that you lay onto me about ignorance are right in your own mirror for you to see.

    Your last sentence to me: “You’ll either shrug it off or drown your “enemy” in a compilation of useless, contentious facts and half-assed assertions”

    I never thought of you as an enemy Jordan. Naive sure. Wrong on this issue? Yup. Petty to the extreme? Yes… my enemy hardly pal. Your just another blind neophyte caught up in the false politcal matrix set up for you. You will LEAP to remark objectionably to anything of little substance that I say, regarding producers or polar bears, but on the issues of significance, such as who controls the left such as GE, or us govt supported hit squads against american citizens you are silent. It only goes to show your own pettiness and hostility to me, instead of actually debating an issue of substance. I have cast numerous pearls your way pal, but you react in the typical way, and show me constantly what you are really made of.

  • Jordan Richardson

    To characterize the Club of Rome as just another think tank however is naive in the extreme.

    Think tanks are sometimes instrumental in producing policy outlines internationally, without question, and they do, as I said in my post, generally side with elite interests. In the case of the Club of Rome, the World Economic Forum is of particular interest. I thought I went over this…

    I know there are many websites filled to the brim with people like you, Pablo. Trust me. The world is filled with all sorts of people feeling very useful about what they think they know.

    In terms of the “false political matrix” I’m caught up in, I’d like you to elaborate on that if you could.

    I remark on what you have blatantly wrong, Pablo. In terms of who controls the American Left, I don’t think that’s in any doubt. It’s the same group of IN-THE-OPEN political/corporate bodies as always. This is nothing new and you’re not wowing anyone with the GE connection. If anything, you’re focused on small potatoes.

    With respect to the hit squads, I don’t retort there because I, again, agree.

    You’re the one “yawning” to my points, Pablo, whereas I’ve responded to every single participle of crap you throw out. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong. And, conversely, when you’re right, you’re right. It’s bound to happen sometimes and I don’t need to pat you on the back because you understand the basics. Or do I?

  • pablo

    Yes Jordan that is the quote. In and of itself it does not mean that global waming is or is not caused by humans. What it does illustate so clearly however that the globalists were considering using it to further their agenda, which is exactly what they have done. Here is an excellent short video on Mr. Rotschild at the UNCED Rio Earth Summit in 1992 chaired by his henchman Maurice Strong. I doubt that you will watch it though.

    GEORGE HUNT PART 1 OF 4 ON UNCED EARTH SUMMIT 1992.

  • El Bicho

    “A producer of a movie more often than not is the one funding it, and thats about it, so as usual you are engaging in your natural pettiness.”

    And you appear to be engaging in your natural ignorance as you also demonstrate not knowing what a producer does, the duties of which Jordan lays out well. All you had to do was research it, but instead you were far too arrogant.

    I know it seems petty to be expected to get your facts right. You probably don’t run into that a lot when you are exposing the real powers running the globe from your laptop.

    Anytime you and John want to admit you were wrong, go ahead, but until then it seems absurd to think anyone should trust what you are talking about regarding global-warming science and secret cabals when you can’t get the easy stuff right that a ten-year-old with access to wikipedia could.

  • Jordan Richardson

    What it does illustate so clearly however that the globalists were considering using it to further their agenda

    And famine and the water shortage, yes. You’re right, it only proves the manipulation and opportunism of the world’s elite forces. This is a given and I’ve not at all disagreed with this point.

    Also, stop daring me to expose myself to information I’ve seen dozens of times.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    pablo, pal, you overuse the word pal, pal.

  • Clavos

    Heh.

    DING

    OK, everybody back to your corners. Round Two coming up…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jordan –

    Point taken. My bad. I didn’t read you as closely as I should have and so I misunderstood what you were saying, and that’s why it seemed to me that you were assuming that climate change was a myth…

    …and I gave a knee-jerk reaction because climate change is so obvious that anyone with half a brain (and not blinded by religious or political dogma) can see it plainly.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Understood, Glenn.

%d bloggers like this: