It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1984 is here, Democrat wants to punish incorrect thought (climate deniers)

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
You won't get much support in fighting this until a conservative tries it.


Beez, your REALLY should look beyond the sensationalist (and false) title before posting... A conservative has DONE it already...



Florida's ban on using the words "climate change" and "global warming" in official communications goes beyond just the state's Department of Environmental Protection to other government agencies under Gov. Rick Scott (R), according to a new report by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.


Source




posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: beezzer

The difference being in Florida an elected official did.

Here, it's FORMER elected official with no say in government dealing anymore beyond what words his money can buy him.

Big difference. If a democrat in congress has suggested this, I'd be right there with the angry conservatives.


Alot of people say that, but I doubt it, sorry, but I do.

People are more apt to defend someone of their own ideology than to defend an abstract term like freedom.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
You won't get much support in fighting this until a conservative tries it.


Beez, your REALLY should look beyond the sensationalist (and false) title before posting... A conservative has DONE it already...



Florida's ban on using the words "climate change" and "global warming" in official communications goes beyond just the state's Department of Environmental Protection to other government agencies under Gov. Rick Scott (R), according to a new report by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.


Source


Yep, and I bet you are against that!

But when someone who shares an ideology with you does the same?

*crickets*



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
This is a pre-emptive strike to butter people up for the upcoming EPA regulations that will put big pressure on the entire coal industry.

The Progressives have a strategy and they are really afraid of being exposed as frauds.




posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Was there a law passed criminalizing denying climate change?

I must have missed it.

I thought 1984 was 31 years ago. Weird.


I am referring to the classic book

1984 by George Orwell


Sorry you never heard of it, I highly recommend you read it. It is referred to frequently on ATS and is necessary to read to participate logically in many threads on ATS.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Bottom line;

Are you for or against punishment of "incorrect thought".

It shouldn't ever carry a caveat of who effing said it.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

LOL

no proof at all that "directive" even exists.

the whole thing is "in thought"




edit on Mar-16-2015 by xuenchen because: ;;[__ext__]245



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: beezzer

The difference being in Florida an elected official did.

Here, it's FORMER elected official with no say in government dealing anymore beyond what words his money can buy him.

Big difference. If a democrat in congress has suggested this, I'd be right there with the angry conservatives.


Alot of people say that, but I doubt it, sorry, but I do.

People are more apt to defend someone of their own ideology than to defend an abstract term like freedom.


Exactly the point I was trying to make with the title of the thread.

You really get the subtle.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Define "punishment." As far as I can tell the only punishment suggested was paying attention and voting for the other guy. Isn't that exactly the sort of punishment we're supposed to be doing?
edit on 2015-3-16 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But his opinions aren't law nor are they even being considered to be laws. The OP is a lie. 1984 isn't here, because the opinions in it are just opinions of one man who REALLY takes climate change seriously.

Though this shows an interesting case study. Al Gore presents an opinion, and the right freaks the f out like it is being implemented tomorrow. Why does it look like the right wants to silence Al Gore while at the same time screaming that their right to deny science is going to be suppressed? At the end of the day, I just seem two groups of people saying opposing opinions. Oh and a thread full of hyperbole.


So if being an elected official is all that matters, then we should expect the progressive left to shut about the Koch brothers right?


Quoted for truth. I hear some saying he's not a politician so shut up. But then spout some BS about the Koch bros. Sad times when all the majority wants to do is scream, "GO TEAM"!!!

We are doomed if that mentality doesn't change soon.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Yep, and I bet you are against that!


I am against science denial.
I am against elected officers banning words. I don't care who it is.

I am NOT against voting out people whose ideals I disagree with, as Gore said. He didn't suggest we "punish" people.

All I'm suggesting is that you have the REAL information (and not some sensationalistic headline) before coming to a conclusion.

Too much to ask?



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Except Al Gore didn't say to punish just anyone for denying climate change. He suggested not funding political candidates who deny climate change. Big, HUGE difference there. People fund or not fund political candidates based on pushing a certain agenda. This is NO different.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Was there a law passed criminalizing denying climate change?

I must have missed it.

I thought 1984 was 31 years ago. Weird.


I am referring to the classic book

1984 by George Orwell


Sorry you never heard of it, I highly recommend you read it. It is referred to frequently on ATS and is necessary to read to participate logically in many threads on ATS.
I've read it. Sorry, I guess you didn't get my sarcasm. Anyone who took even High School english should have read that book.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But his opinions aren't law nor are they even being considered to be laws. The OP is a lie. 1984 isn't here, because the opinions in it are just opinions of one man who REALLY takes climate change seriously.

Though this shows an interesting case study. Al Gore presents an opinion, and the right freaks the f out like it is being implemented tomorrow. Why does it look like the right wants to silence Al Gore while at the same time screaming that their right to deny science is going to be suppressed? At the end of the day, I just seem two groups of people saying opposing opinions. Oh and a thread full of hyperbole.


So if being an elected official is all that matters, then we should expect the progressive left to shut about the Koch brothers right?


Quoted for truth. I hear some saying he's not a politician so shut up. But then spout some BS about the Koch bros. Sad times when all the majority wants to do is scream, "GO TEAM"!!!

We are doomed if that mentality doesn't change soon.


Good point

I don't recall any Koch brother was ever Vice President of the US
or ran and almost won the Presidency of the US

Like comparing apples to oranges

But, let's be kind, maybe some of the responders are too young to remember that Al Gore was VP and almost POTUS, sign of the current state of education.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: beezzer

Except Al Gore didn't say to punish just anyone for denying climate change. He suggested not funding political candidates who deny climate change. Big, HUGE difference there. People fund or not fund political candidates based on pushing a certain agenda. This is NO different.


When should we speak up?

Before it becomes acceptable to punish people for "incorrect thought" or after?



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: beezzer

The difference being in Florida an elected official did.

Here, it's FORMER elected official with no say in government dealing anymore beyond what words his money can buy him.

Big difference. If a democrat in congress has suggested this, I'd be right there with the angry conservatives.


Alot of people say that, but I doubt it, sorry, but I do.

People are more apt to defend someone of their own ideology than to defend an abstract term like freedom.
I love it when people on the right suggest I won't defend freedom. I also love it when people on the left suggest I don't defend equal rights. Being a centrist makes me so happy. I'm sure Benevolent Heretic would call me a right winger. I've had plenty of arguments with her about gun rights and police brutality. And then here in this thread I'm told I don't defend freedom.

Classic!
edit on 16-3-2015 by ScientificRailgun because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Was there a law passed criminalizing denying climate change?

I must have missed it.

I thought 1984 was 31 years ago. Weird.


I am referring to the classic book

1984 by George Orwell


Sorry you never heard of it, I highly recommend you read it. It is referred to frequently on ATS and is necessary to read to participate logically in many threads on ATS.
I've read it. Sorry, I guess you didn't get my sarcasm. Anyone who took even High School english should have read that book.


Sarcasm is so very hard to read on ATS, misunderstanding it has happened to me before.

Anyway, to those who don't know what (1984) means, now they do!

Bright side of our banter



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

It's simple. Al Gore was saying "don't vote for politicians who deny climate change".

That's like ANY other lobbyist saying "Don't vote for politicians who support abortion." Or is it only punishing "incorrect thought" when the topic isn't "baby killers"?

Same crap, two different sides of the coin.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Not to mention Koch Industries has 100,000 employees.

And they own a pollution control company.




posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
So, Al Gore (a private citizen) and anyone who thinks like him should be punished for speaking his mind?

Freedom of speech is limited to speech we like? Let's insult the man because we disagree with him?

Progressives, Democrats, liberals, et. al. are dangerous and should be silenced whenever possible at every turn, ridiculed and possibly outlawed?

Wow, that kind of thing IS starting to sound like thoughtcrime!

Let's shut down the speech of anyone who wants to shut down speech, right? (Doublethink).

"1984" is always as close as our mirror.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join