"and his share of the US national debt may exceed what he’ll make in a lifetime."
Take heart, his actual share of the national debt will be closer to $10 TRILLION/300 million = $32,716 per person.Comment Posted By Ron C On 3.11.2008 @ 16:46
Last night I donated as much as I could, because I too believe it is 'now or never' - and I believe in the conservative base of this nation, who have been largely deprived of any information about Fred...
But - that information IS getting out, and people are moving, in Iowa, in the South, and I believe Fred will move to the front of the pack by late March.
Politics is like no other contest.. you 'never give up' and you can come from far behind, often in what seems a mere heartbeat.
There is no better choice than Fred in this - and many are beginning to find that out. He is the best man at the right time - and I thank God we have him.Comment Posted By Ron C On 27.12.2007 @ 17:16
Every Thanksgiving, I always think of William Bradford's journal entries I read once - about the common-store ('commonwealth') kept the first year after the pilgrims landed - and how that led to famine.
Bradford ended the socialist practice, assigned plots of land to all and told them they could keep all they grew, or trade with it as they saw fit. Prosperity flourished and famine was ended.
The important lesson learned then is never spoken of by liberals intent on demonizing the pilgrims and all of American history - because they are in-fact lovers of always-failed socialism.Comment Posted By Ron C On 22.11.2007 @ 17:30
Based purely on scientific evidence, there is no doubt that the world is getting warmer..." - Moran
Quite the opposite is true. There is little to no scientific evidence that the world is getting warmer.. unless you want to be alarmed about one degree in a short period of time.
There is a 30 to 60 degree swing in local temperatures at various points on earth - daily, and no one gets excited - because it happens every year. Why get excited about a 1 degree earth mean-temperature change over a period of ten years?
But warming isn't the real problem here - its the declaration that the warming is caused by human activity - and that has certainly not been established by any form of scientific evidence.
"At least on the other side of the political coin with the most organized efforts to debunk global warming there is the rationality of promoting an anti-warming agenda based largely on economic interests." - Moran
The leftist agenda isn't science, it's an economic wrecking-ball aimed at private industry and the future behavior of individuals and government. There is significant verifiable scientific data that refutes the best data promoted by the IPCC (and originally by Gore, backed by very few 'scientists,' all of which are financially and politically dedicated to false figures used to promote a false thesis. Hence, indeed it is good that we have economic arguments to counter false science - but, we have far more than that.
Want to leave politics out of it, and focus on none anthropogenic climate change evidence - just repeatable verifiable temperature facts, to first ascertain whether or not there is a rational reason to be alarmed at some significant temperature rise? Then there is a host of evidence to draw from. I heartily recommend the #1 science blog on the net - Climate Audit, as a good starting place.
There you will find more than enough real science to refute Gore's hockey-stick evidence. Second, if you have not already visited the site, and all the links to others found there - check the science at JunkScience.com
You don't have to be an expert to commit to honesty. If you spend but a few hours looking at all of the evidence presented by both sides, it isn't hard to find out which side is most forthcoming, most diverse, most thorough - and most absent an agenda that promotes government dictating future behavior and taxation.
Bottom line though, why ignore the political implications? Why should we, when the left is using falsehoods to push a political agenda? For conservatives to ignore that would be folly of the highest degree.Comment Posted By Ron C On 19.11.2007 @ 10:08
Ooops.. I meant the Taliban in above (verus al Qaeda - not that al Qaeda isn't a player in concert, however)Comment Posted By Ron C On 4.11.2007 @ 08:49
Musharraf had a choice - let al Qaeda and its allies in the judiciary evict him and gain control of the nuclear weapons they long have hoped to gain access to - or maintain control by whatever means necessary.
Musharraf has some in the US breathing a sigh of relief that the only man standing between nuke-armed al Qaeda in Pakistan is still standing, but they have to know he won't last much longer. The question for US leadership is, what will happen when al Qaeda finally succeeds in getting their fingers on those red buttons?Comment Posted By Ron C On 4.11.2007 @ 08:41
There was a long list of grievances, a very long list... and many were fearful, and felt still tied to England. But oppression had bred revolt and the sense that all freedom was slipping away brought about a Declaration that still shapes our future today. That's quite a tale to blog - and capture the passion of so monumental a moment in time! I love the subject and the idea.Comment Posted By Ron C On 4.07.2007 @ 08:17
Pages (1) :