The open political discussion thread. Read the first post!

[2006fronty]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

You guys are OK with these people running the show?

Cass Sunstein, President Obama's friend and nominee for "regulatory czar" is a "raving animal rights nut". Calls for the banning of hunting. Believes animals should have the right to sue in the court of law.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104820

Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply. Believes in forced abortions.
John P. Holdren
http://www.infowars.com/obama-scienc...ady-happening/

Obama Appoints self proclaimed Communist To White House for "Green Jobs"
Van Jones
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/04/...ts-former.html

Obama climate czar has socialist ties. Calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
Carol M. Browner
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ocialist-ties/

FCC 'Diversity' Czar Lloyd is virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation. Will basically end free speech as we know it.
Mark Lloyd
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-m...mocratic-revol

Obama: "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU


NONE OF THIS STUFF BOTHERS YOU GUYS? And it's just the tip of the iceberg and doesn't count all of his friends and associations.

This is all from the mouths of the listed people. Not some right wing political propaganda as you guys will claim.

Seriously?????? You forgot to reference the National Enquirer lol. OH NO, don't drink the water, our black president is trying to make me shoot blanks!!!

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by 2006fronty

Seriously?????? You forgot to reference the National Enquirer lol. OH NO, don't drink the water, our black president is trying to make me shoot blanks!!!

The sources don't really matter in this case. The quotes are well documented.
Search yourself. Are you doubting what these people have said? It's on video or in their writings.
See, this is the problem, you guys count on the liberal media for your news and are completely uninformed
of these idiots being appointed.

It's John Holdren who suggests water sterilization as population control - it's outrageous sounding but he said it! Nobody said it was Obama.

Prove me wrong.

From his own publications...

In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many." In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls,including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.

BTW, Holdren is white since you guys are keeping track.
I must be racist against white people too.

[2006fronty]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

The sources don't really matter in this case. The quotes are well documented.
Search yourself. Are you doubting what these people have said? It's on video or in their writings.
See, this is the problem, you guys count on the liberal media for your news and are completely uninformed
of these idiots being appointed.

It's John Holdren who suggests water sterilization as population control - it's outrageous sounding but he said it! Nobody said it was Obama.

Prove me wrong.

From his own publications...



BTW, Holdren is white since you guys are keeping track.
I must be racist against white people too.

You conveniently forgot the references that are in the exact same wikipedia page lol.

Regardless, we're all in this together and ridiculous arguments from BOTH sides unfortunately don't help matters.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by 2006fronty

Seriously?????? You forgot to reference the National Enquirer lol. OH NO, don't drink the water, our black president is trying to make me shoot blanks!!!

If you're going to call me out like this, at least support it with proof that he didn't say and write these things.

It's to bad you can't unless you go erase those published writings.

This is the stuff you guys are supporting, so why do you deny it?

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by 2006fronty

You conveniently forgot the references that are in the exact same wikipedia page lol.

Regardless, we're all in this together and ridiculous arguments from BOTH sides unfortunately don't help matters.

The references are from his published works, lol.

You want me to add it in?

You still think it's made up?

[Kal-El]

Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[17] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many."[18] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls,including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.[19][7]

References

1. ^ a b Profile: John Holdren "Why He Matters","WhoRunsGov.com", A Washington Post Co Pub. accessed July 24, 2009.
2. ^ a b c News release. "Obama to Name John P. Holdren as Science Adviser"AAAS, December 18, 2008.
3. ^ Staff and news service reports. "Obama's science adviser starts job", "msnbc.com", March 20, 2009.
4. ^ Press Release.holdren_confirmation_release_3-20-09.pdf "Holdren confirmed as Director of OSTP"Office of Science and Technology Policy, March 20, 2009.
5. ^ Koenig, Robert. "President Barack Obama's Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Faces Limited Criticism at Confirmation Hearings",Seed Magazine, February 13, 2009.
6. ^ Video.[1]Senate Confirmation Hearing, February 12,2009.
7. ^ a b c Mooney, Chris."Hold off on Holdren (again)", "Science Progress", July 2009.
8. ^ Pratt, Andrew Plemmons "Right-wing Attacks on Science Adviser Continue", Science Progress, July 21, 2009
9. ^ Goldberg, Michelle (2009-07-21). "Holdren's Controversial Population Control Past". The American Prospect. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...n_control_past. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
10. ^ a b "John P. Holdren's CV", The Woods Hole Research Center
11. ^ Holdren, John P. "Science in the White House",Science Magazine", Abstract, May 2009.
12. ^ Holdren, John P."The Future of Climate Change Policy: The U.S.'s Last Chance to Lead""The Scientific American"
13. ^ Holdren, John P. "Convincing the Climate Change Skeptics", the Boston Globe, August 4, 2008.
14. ^ Holdren, John P. "Meeting the Climate-Change Challenge."The John H. Chafee Memorial Lecture, National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, D.C., January 17, 2008.
15. ^ Holdren, John P."Global Climatic Disruption: Risks and Opportunities",Presentation at Investor Summit on Climate Risk, New York, February 14, 2008.
16. ^ "Faculty page-Harvard University". http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/fac...y/john-holdren.
17. ^ Ehrlich, Paul R.; Holdren, John P. (1969), "Population and Panaceas A Technological Perspective", Bioscience 19: 1065–1071, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1294858
18. ^ Holdren, John P. (1973), "Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency", Daedalus, The No-Growth Society: 31–44, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7...cover#PPA31,M1
19. ^ Ehrlich, Paul R.; Anne H. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren (1977). Ecoscience: population, resources, environment. San Francisco: Freeman. ISBN 0716705672.

[2006fronty]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

The references are from his published works, lol.

You want me to add it in?

You still think it's made up?

Click the links in #'s 7,8, and 9 and read.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by 2006fronty

Click the links in #'s 7,8, and 9 and read.

They support my posts. He did indeed co-author those books. And a co-author is completely responsible for the contents.

Of course he will now say his views are changed, but it doesn't change what he once proposed.

[RedRide]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

BTW, only 20% of Americans claim to be liberals. I think they are all on here!

So I don't expect to get anywhere with my posts. Nevertheless, I'll try to open some eyes.

I do realize I'm on a fuel efficient car forum = liberals galore. But I thought that there were more of a variety of people that bought the Yaris for economical reasons or just because they liked the car. Seems like we have a lot of people here that apparently believe global warming is real (even though it's been cooling for the last 10 years) and feel that they needed to do their part with a gas sipper. Just an observation because all of the other forums I'm on are more split politically.

Flame on...

Just for the record, I am not a "liberal"

Perhaps you can tell us exactly why you call people who wish to seek the tuth "liberal"?

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by RedRide

Just for the record, I am not a "liberal"

Perhaps you can tell us exactly why you call people who wish to seek the tuth "liberal"?

There's generally 3 categories in America. Liberal, conservative, moderate (independent perhaps).

I guess it means you're an independent?

Doesn't matter really but one can easily guess based on the ideals of a persons posts.

And it seems clear that the left on here does everything to avoid the truth by denying video proof and published works of the things that are said by these people in Washington.

[2006fronty]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

They support my posts. He did indeed co-author those books. And a co-author is completely responsible for the contents.

Holdren was the third author (with Paul and Anne Ehrlich) of that book. They DESCRIBED not ADVOCATED these measures.

Originally Posted by Kal-El

Of course he will now say his views are changed, but it doesn't change what he once proposed.

Originally Posted by Kal-El

For the record, I'm 30. I was a liberal up until last year then I woke up.

Since apparently peoples views never change ^^^. You were a "liberal" until a year ago lol. Holdren was the 3rd author of a book over 30 years ago. He couldn't change his views over 32 years, how did you in 1 year?????

[2+2]

Pew poll says the media sucks

What can people believe these days? hehe Not much.

But taking a step back I think it's interesting that right wing groups form militias, left wing groups form, er I dunno er golf leagues? Right wing groups show up at town hall meetings to hear the President speak and bring their firearms with them. I'm sure they're just expressing their appreciation for their 2nd amendment rights. lol Left wing groups sit on the couch and hit the clicker when they don't like what's on tv at the moment - like when Bush took away their right to habeas corpus.

Right wingers seem to want to hate. Photoshopping pics of the President - adding a Hitler moustache just shows ignorance and an eagerness to hate. Hitler was a fascist! You can't call someone a socialist in an effort to get people all worked up and in the same breath paint him as a fascist. A socialist is a leftist. A fascist is at the far right of the spectrum. You can't be both, at least not at the same time. Anyone that wants to be a hater should at least try to be good at it.

Anyone that can't size up an idiot like Glenn Beck and see him for what he is quite frankly, worries me a little.

Glenn Beck on health care

Rush, Sean, Glenn and the rest of the people that seem to be trying to incite people to hate are unbelievably irresponsible. I predict that soon we'll start seeing the rise of right wing extremist militias, and they're going to create quite a bit of mischief.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by 2006fronty

Holdren was the third author (with Paul and Anne Ehrlich) of that book. They DESCRIBED not ADVOCATED these measures.



Since apparently peoples views never change ^^^. You were a "liberal" until a year ago lol. Holdren was the 3rd author of a book over 30 years ago. He couldn't change his views over 32 years, how did you in 1 year?????

Fear point. Some people change. Maybe his most extreme views have changed but his recent works still paint him as way to the left. And as one of the most powerful advisers to the president, it's not good.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by 2+2

But taking a step back I think it's interesting that right wing groups form militias, left wing groups form, er I dunno er golf leagues? Right wing groups show up at town hall meetings to hear the President speak and bring their firearms with them. I'm sure they're just expressing their appreciation for their 2nd amendment rights. lol Left wing groups sit on the couch and hit the clicker when they don't like what's on tv at the moment - like when Bush took away their right to habeas corpus.

Right wingers seem to want to hate. Photoshopping pics of the President - adding a Hitler moustache just shows ignorance and an eagerness to hate. Hitler was a fascist! You can't call someone a socialist in an effort to get people all worked up and in the same breath paint him as a fascist. A socialist is a leftist. A fascist is at the far right of the spectrum. You can't be both, at least not at the same time. Anyone that wants to be a hater should at least try to be good at it.
.

Do a google search for Bush/Hitler and you'll find way more photoshops of Bush as hitler than there is of Obama as him. Was that OK?

For much of Bush's presidency, there were heavy, violent protesting. Have we forgotten that soon?

It goes both ways.

We have a country sharply divided in two that just can't agree on politics. It's always been like that and probably won't change.

[Bob Dog]

Again the dyadic, divisive nonsense. We are not a country divided in two, we are a pluralistic society with many religions, ethnicities, and genetic heritages. We are a multitude of political opinions, united to form a nation, not a simplistic demarcation of liberal and conservative. You are choosing to define us so that you can define yourself. This is intolerable, and we will not allow you do it.

[supmet]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

Do a google search for Bush/Hitler and you'll find way more photoshops of Bush as hitler than there is of Obama as him. Was that OK?

For much of Bush's presidency, there were heavy, violent protesting. Have we forgotten that soon?

Hmm, I suggest you read up on the reichstag fire and its striking similarities to 9/11 and the events following. You could do a find and replace of hitler with bush, reichstag with 9/11, and communist with al qaeda, and the plot line would still make perfecct sense.

Also, as someone pointed out, people are calling obama a socialist, not a fascist/dictator, so the whole obama/hitler thing doesn't even make sense.

[Bob Dog]

"Hmm, I suggest you read up on the reichstag fire and its striking similarities to 9/11 and the events following. You could do a find and replace of hitler with bush, reichstag with 9/11, and communist with al qaeda, and the plot line would still make perfecct sense.
Also, as someone pointed out, people are calling obama a socialist, not a fascist/dictator, so the whole obama/hitler thing doesn't even make sense. "

I figured I wasn't alone in seeing that the similarity between9/11 and the Reichstag fire. I don't believe it 100%, but the similarity of events is astounding. Its like some very clever men with evil intent tried to recreate a historical event. It also did away with a large number of the most important players in world trade and created an opportunity for a power grab by those who were already prepared to do so. It is important to remember also that Al Queda was at one time largely funded by the CIA, daddy Bush's old organisation. The Bushes and middle eastern oil have had their hands in each other's pants for at least 3 generations. Another important and closely related fact is the majority (14)of the 9/11 hijackerswere not Iraqi, but rather Saudi. If it was a conspiracy it accomplished in large part what it set out to do.

[tk-421]

This thread is in the process on being converted to a members-only social group. Please read the following announcement and PM the mods if you have any questions:

http://www.yarisworld.com/forums/ann...nt.php?f=&a=10

Thanks guys!