Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30923 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

HowManyTimesCanY ouBeWrong

Los Angeles, CA

#29400 Jul 18, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the "birthers" facts or evidence has no meaning. Their fantasies stand on their own two feet.
We know who will be in the history books as evil lying moontards who tried to rip the constitution up and use it as toilet paper in Al Gore's OCCIDENTAL OIL/ALTERNATIVE ENERGY paid for MANSION.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#29401 Jul 18, 2012
DumBozo wrote:
I see, a road to nowhere.
You probably do.
menoworry

Florence, AL

#29402 Jul 19, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we are not a democracy, we are a Republic, there is a difference and I suggest you learn it.
We are a Constitutional Democratic Republic and I suggest you learn it. It's must be confusing to your brain.

Try this on for size:

- Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic.

- Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections.

- A Constitutional democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities.

- A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens.

So you see, we have characteristics of both.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#29403 Jul 19, 2012
menoworry wrote:
<quoted text>We are a Constitutional Democratic Republic and I suggest you learn it. It's must be confusing to your brain.
Whatever you think that means.
menoworry wrote:
<quoted text>
Try this on for size:
- Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/elec...

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

The STATE Legislature chooses which slate of electors to send to the capital. If Gore had won in Florida in 2000, Jeb Bush could still have gotten the Florida Legilature to send Bush Delegates ( a plan that was not required because of the corruption at the Supreme Court).

So, since your OWN definition is denied by the US constitution, you must agree that the US is NOT a Democracy. Not even a 'representative democracy' in truth. It only PRETENDS to be one, thus keeping it's citizens pacified.
menoworry

Florence, AL

#29404 Jul 19, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever you think that means.
<quoted text>
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/elec...
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
The STATE Legislature chooses which slate of electors to send to the capital. If Gore had won in Florida in 2000, Jeb Bush could still have gotten the Florida Legilature to send Bush Delegates ( a plan that was not required because of the corruption at the Supreme Court).
So, since your OWN definition is denied by the US constitution, you must agree that the US is NOT a Democracy. Not even a 'representative democracy' in truth. It only PRETENDS to be one, thus keeping it's citizens pacified.
I suppose you could argue that by the definition I gave for a Presidential Democracy does not apply because the electoral college de facto elects the president. However, since we do since we do select our senators and representatives. And that alone makes a representative democracy; a representative democracy. So no, I don't agree that we are not a democracy.

While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. Try yhis definition out.

A Constitutional democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals.

or this.

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (direct or indirect) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

Of course we are a democracy as well as a republic: a constitutional republic. A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#29405 Jul 19, 2012
menoworry wrote:
<quoted text>I suppose you could argue that by the definition I gave for a Presidential Democracy does not apply because the electoral college de facto elects the president. However, since we do since we do select our senators and representatives. And that alone makes a representative democracy; a representative democracy. So no, I don't agree that we are not a democracy.
By no means. It does not even make you a representative democracy (and there IS a big difference).
Also, the House of Representatives is composed of representatives of the STATE, not the public. And the state can override any election result. Only some of the states have VOLUNTARILY committed themselves to binding elections and this can be overturned with a stroke of a pen.
Fact is that the US constitution does not give any real power to the people. It gives power to the STATES.
menoworry wrote:
<quoted text>
While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. Try yhis definition out.
Certainly the US definition tends to distort it out of all recognition, in order to fit the US.
Democracy was best defined by John Locke. The US Constitution was based on the works of Jean Jacques Rousseau who believed in a 'natural elite'. The underpinnings of the Third Reich and eugenics.
Democracy was defined as the PEOPLE having all power over government. In other words, the government carried out the will of the people and could not override the will of the people.
And it still supports the 'elite' over the public to this day despite the smoke and mirrors.
menoworry wrote:
<quoted text>
A Constitutional democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals.
Since they are the representatives of the STATE, this does not fit. The representatives protect the rights and freedoms of the STATE, not the people.
menoworry wrote:
<quoted text>
or this.
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.
That shoe pinches very badly. There is NOT current country with this form of direct democracy.
menoworry wrote:
<quoted text>
Ideally, this includes equal (direct or indirect) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
Of course we are a democracy as well as a republic: a constitutional republic. A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens.
The rule of law even includes constitutional monarchies. All governments other than outright anarchies have some method of creating laws which then are used to judge.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#29406 Jul 19, 2012
menoworry wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic.
No. That makes you an elected dictatorship. Or a republic if the powers of the president are not total.
Hard to say these days how far they go with the power to make wars (by calling them police actions), abrogate treaties ( by calling POWs 'illegal combatants' and by executive orders).
The earliest definition of a republic was a ruling council that consisted of 'citizens' who had power over all the 'non-citizens'. The more recent definition of a head of state that is not titled as a 'monarch' or 'king' is rhetorical bafflegab. Calling a rose a turd does not change the smell. One requirement of both Democracy and Republic is that the ownership of 'real wealth', i.e land resides in the public, not in the head of state. That might be a better viewpoint.
Call a republic an intermediate between a Monarch (in which all wealth is owned by a hereditary leadership), republic (where all ownership is in the hands of the public, and the leadership is not hereditary) and a Democracy which is like a republic but with power in the hands of the people themselves.
A representative democracy is a republic that allows the public to decide which leader to select from the elite. As such, it has the defects of both democracy and republic forms without their benefits.
But not to be argumentative, it doesn't matter what you CALL it. It is what it is.
menoworry

Florence, AL

#29407 Jul 19, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
By no means. It does not even make you a representative democracy (and there IS a big difference).
Not at all sure how to read this sentence so I'll rephrase my comment.
The United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered.
Also, the House of Representatives is composed of representatives of the STATE, not the public. And the state can override any election result. Only some of the states have VOLUNTARILY committed themselves to binding elections and this can be overturned with a stroke of a pen.
Both of these statements would require an additional source or two, to support your argument.
So I would label this whole statement as bullshite.
Fact is that the US constitution does not give any real power to the people. It gives power to the STATES.
You need to reread the constitution. Better yet, have someone who understands it explain it to you. Try wiki for a start.
Certainly the US definition tends to distort it out of all recognition, in order to fit the US.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Democracy was best defined by John Locke. The US Constitution was based on the works of Jean Jacques Rousseau who believed in a 'natural elite'. The underpinnings of the Third Reich and eugenics.
Your drifting off now. But The idea of a the social contract is one of the foundations of the US constitutions. A concept first put forward by Plato and advanced by Rousseau and Locke and had a big influence on the founding fathers- not eugenics.
Democracy was defined as the PEOPLE having all power over government. In other words, the government carried out the will of the people and could not override the will of the people.
And it still supports the 'elite' over the public to this day despite the smoke and mirrors.
The above definition does not reflect the type of democracy we have. We have a representative democracy. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in the people's interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.
Since they are the representatives of the STATE, this does not fit. The representatives protect the rights and freedoms of the STATE, not the people.
Your premises are phucked.
That shoe pinches very badly. There is NOT current country with this form of direct democracy.
That maybe caused by you putting them on the wrong foot. You're talking politics and the abuse of government, not the principles of government.
The rule of law even includes constitutional monarchies. All governments other than outright anarchies have some method of creating laws which then are used to judge.
Duh!
menoworry

Florence, AL

#29408 Jul 19, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
It is what it is.
I agree with this.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#29409 Jul 19, 2012
menoworry wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all sure how to read this sentence so I'll rephrase my comment.
The United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered.
"tempered". How droll. You mean that the elite override the power of the people. Be honest.

P.S. Democracy is NOT about 'rule by the majority'. In a Democracy, the rule of the 'winners' MUST be temperated by an 'opposition' with the power to hold the government to account for the priorities of those who did NOT 'win'. That is why a Democracy is NOT a 'rule of the mob'.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#29410 Jul 19, 2012
[QUOTE who="menoworry<quoted text>Both of these statements would require an additional source or two, to support your argument.
So I would label this whole statement as bullshite.
[/QUOTE]

I guess you don't know either the Constitution or the USA then. The representatives have ALWAYS been by State. The USA is a FEDERATION of States, and ALL of the laws are based on this.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#29411 Jul 19, 2012
[QUOTE who="menoworry<quoted text>Your drifting off now. But The idea of a the social contract is one of the foundations of the US constitutions. A concept first put forward by Plato and advanced by Rousseau and Locke and had a big influence on the founding fathers- not eugenics.
[/QUOTE]

The drift is yours. Thomas Hobbes defined the 'social compact'.

Rousseau used it in his philosophies to back the 'natural aristocracy' and the 'leaders' of the 'unwashed masses'.

Locke broke with this view of the public as clueless followers and defined Democracy as putting people IN POWER, not just compliant with the rulers.

And the Founding Fathers followed Rousseau's ideas, not Lockes, to preserve their own power as the Colonial Aristocracy. They wanted a monarchy but settled for a republic. Over the centuries this original setup has been moderated towards Democracy but I would not call it one. For sure.
whammer jammer

Albuquerque, NM

#29412 Jul 19, 2012
What does your political rhetoric have to do with global warming which is the actual TOPIC of this blog? We are citizens of a 'republic society'. Fought for and settled by those who believed they could provide a better government for themselves and their children...a better country to live in and raise their families in than they came from. They ran from titles, surfs, tariffs, monarchy, dictatorship, etc.
What was this country founded on? Republic government. Now, back to the topic...global warming...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#29413 Jul 20, 2012
whammer jammer wrote:
What does your political rhetoric have to do with global warming which is the actual TOPIC of this blog?
Nothing.
It more or less proves how seriously people take Glowbull warming.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#29414 Jul 20, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
The drift is yours. Thomas Hobbes defined the 'social compact'.
Rousseau used it in his philosophies to back the 'natural aristocracy' and the 'leaders' of the 'unwashed masses'.
Locke broke with this view of the public as clueless followers and defined Democracy as putting people IN POWER, not just compliant with the rulers.
And the Founding Fathers followed Rousseau's ideas, not Lockes, to preserve their own power as the Colonial Aristocracy. They wanted a monarchy but settled for a republic. Over the centuries this original setup has been moderated towards Democracy but I would not call it one. For sure.
The founding fathers based our Constitution largely upon that of the Iroquois.
menoworry

Florence, AL

#29415 Jul 20, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing.
It more or less proves how seriously people take Glowbull warming.
How does "it more prove(s) how seriously people take Glowbull warming"?
You talk funny.
menoworry

Florence, AL

#29416 Jul 20, 2012
whammer jammer wrote:
What does your political rhetoric have to do with global warming which is the actual TOPIC of this blog? We are citizens of a 'republic society'. Fought for and settled by those who believed they could provide a better government for themselves and their children...a better country to live in and raise their families in than they came from. They ran from titles, surfs, tariffs, monarchy, dictatorship, etc.
What was this country founded on? Republic government. Now, back to the topic...global warming...
You mean like the Republic of China.
Back to GW.
Did you know the drought could cause gas prices to go up? And here I thought Obama was always the cause of that.
menoworry

Florence, AL

#29417 Jul 20, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The founding fathers based our Constitution largely upon that of the Iroquois.
Damn, here I thought it was the Christian Bible.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#29418 Jul 20, 2012
menpause wrote:
How does "it more prove(s) how seriously people take Glowbull warming"?
You talk funny.
Try reading the sentence again, "It more or less proves how seriously people take Glowbull warming."
Now book an eye test.
menoworry

Florence, AL

#29419 Jul 20, 2012
Grandma Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Try reading the sentence again, "It more or less proves how seriously people take Glowbull warming."
Now book an eye test.
Now Grandma, you know a little Boolean might help your inability to put forth a logical argument. You know "If A or B = C" is a true statement, then either A or B or both must be."
So now try real hard to answer my question assuming first, "more"(ie. A) is true' then second, "less" (ie. B) is true.

To wit; "It more proves how seriously people take Glowbull warming."
"It less proves how seriously people take Glowbull warming."
" more proves, less proves". How stupid is that?
"It" ( what ever "it" is) either proves something OR it doesn't. Of course both can't be true. "IT" can't prove something "more" and at the same time prove something "less". Now can it Grannie?
So take out your knitting and just relax. This forum is proving you are more or less to old to understand it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 25 min Quirky 1,582,534
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 29 min ImPeach 1,498
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 35 min ImPeach 287,782
News Obama to Devote Speech to Economy and a "Thrivi... (Feb '13) 4 hr C Kersey 30
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... (Nov '16) 4 hr Tm Cln 8,659
News Ryan's Primary Opponent: 'Why Do We Have Muslim... (Aug '16) 9 hr YouDidntBuildThat 4
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) Sun Chicagoan by Birth 242,537
More from around the web