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.

 

Chris Dodd's last act: 'Control the people'

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Chris Dodd's last act: 'Control the people'


www.wnd.com

Alarms are being raised over what probably is retiring Sen. Christopher Dodd's last major piece of legislation – the Livable Communities Act, which has been approved by the Senate Banking Committee and now is heading to the Senate floor – for its likely U.N. inspiration and goal of controlling people.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
And we continue to see how Progressives are trying to "change" the United States into another draconian Socialist dictatorship.

These people want to claim "it is for the good of all" yet in fact they are using this sort of claim to "protect everyone" to control us even more and turn these United States, which once a long time ago was a great country, into another Socialist dictatorship.

This "Progressive" movement to transform the United States must be stopped. People should get off their lazy chairs, stop drinking bear and watching football, or American idol believing this will not affect them, and instead every American should be writing letters to every Senator, and even to the White House to tell them exactly how we feel about these draconian polices they want to implement to control us even more...

People, wake up and act now before it is too late...

www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 8-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I had to post this before adding other links showing what the 'Progressives" are trying to do but when i went to the government website it gave me an error message that it was going to shutdown my windows so I had to post the thread.

Here is the link to the "Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities"



The mission of the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities is to create strong, sustainable communities by connecting housing to jobs, fostering local innovation, and helping to build a clean energy economy.

In order to better connect housing to jobs, the office will work to coordinate federal housing and transportation investments with local land use decisions in order to reduce transportation costs for families, improve housing affordability, save energy, and increase access to housing and employment opportunities. By ensuring that housing is located near job centers and affordable, accessible transportation, we will nurture healthier, more inclusive communities – which provide opportunities for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to live, work, and learn together.

portal.hud.gov...

You would think this sounds good until you realise that they are trying to force people to live in these "sustainable housing neighborhoods" and people would not be able to live outside these "enclosed neighborhoods". Not to mention that people living in these "enclosed neighborhoods' would have to abide by the "green laws" which most of us know will not help the environment but are meant to control us by making people feel guilty...

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves" Wlliam Pitt


edit on 8-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Reading further down in the op you can find the following.


It's a "socialist trap," DeWeese said.

"The Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities would end up overseeing development in every community," he said. "They say it's voluntary, but it really isn't. The $4 billion in grants will be used by radical green groups, who helped write it, to force your city council to comply. If your city says no to the pressure to take the grant money, the radical greens will tell your citizens that their city officials are losing them millions of dollars that is owed to the community. Then, when the council caves into the pressure and takes the money, it will force compliance. That is not voluntary, it is blackmail."



Homeowners would end up paying exorbitant costs and losing control over their own homes, according to DeWeese.

"To get the money, a community must meet environmental standards," he said.
"That requires houses to be equipped with new roofs, new windows, and efficient appliances. They did this last year in Oakland. It costs an estimated $35,000 to make a house comply with the environmental regulations. They say homeowners can't sell their houses if they don't meet these standards."



All of the above is true, if you read what the official government website says, and use your brain a little, you can see that this eventually won't be voluntary, but people and communities will be forced to accept these draconian laws.

We are in a time of economic crisis, which was created by these same people who want to implement these draconian laws. People are losing their houses, they are losing their jobs, and here come the Progressives with this bill to implement it before they lose power.

Remember what Progressives like Rham Emanuel have said... "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.


edit on 8-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
That sounds like slavery. To live at our workplace so that we can slave even longer hours for less pay. Then, our very lives could be under the watchful eyes of not only our employers, but also the government schill commissioned to ensure that these companies "aren't breaking the rules", though it will really just be to ensure that mom & pop can't compete.


--airspoon



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I have read both of those links and what you have said but i fail to see proof of the new green laws and that people cant leave the community? I just seems like a rouse to put people in "green" housing so that they can make more money from building these places



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by getinout?
 


I posted the evidence, and even what it says in the government website. People will be put in these neighborhoods, and these draconian laws will be forced upon people.

i also posted the following comment already.


It's a "socialist trap," DeWeese said.

"The Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities would end up overseeing development in every community," he said. "They say it's voluntary, but it really isn't. The $4 billion in grants will be used by radical green groups, who helped write it, to force your city council to comply. If your city says no to the pressure to take the grant money, the radical greens will tell your citizens that their city officials are losing them millions of dollars that is owed to the community. Then, when the council caves into the pressure and takes the money, it will force compliance. That is not voluntary, it is blackmail."

Homeowners would end up paying exorbitant costs and losing control over their own homes, according to DeWeese.

"To get the money, a community must meet environmental standards," he said.
"That requires houses to be equipped with new roofs, new windows, and efficient appliances. They did this last year in Oakland. It costs an estimated $35,000 to make a house comply with the environmental regulations. They say homeowners cant sell their houses if they dont meet these standards."

www.wnd.com...



edit on 8-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: to add comments



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by getinout?
 



I also already posted the following. If you read it i don't think you understand the consequences of this bill.



The mission of the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities is to create strong, sustainable communities by connecting housing to jobs, fostering local innovation, and helping to build a clean energy economy.

In order to better connect housing to jobs, the office will work to coordinate federal housing and transportation investments with local land use decisions in order to reduce transportation costs for families, improve housing affordability, save energy, and increase access to housing and employment opportunities. By ensuring that housing is located near job centers and affordable, accessible transportation, we will nurture healthier, more inclusive communitieswhich provide opportunities for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to live, work, and learn together.

portal.hud.gov...

The above excerpt and link are directly from the government website...

You think it is going to be voluntary when they want to "nurture more inclusive communities"?...

Women NURTURE their children... In this case the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities will NURTURE people and communities into compliance with their draconian laws.

I don't know how much clearer I can show this.


edit on 8-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
BTW, here is some information about "Freedom Advocates", the people who are trying to fight this sort of bill.


Freedom Advocates represents a cross-section of people from all political parties and backgrounds who are united in the principles of individual liberty, equal justice and the constitutional administration of government. People are born with unalienable rights and government exists to protect those rights. Rather than bureaucrats mandating indoctrination programs, parents should direct the terms of their child’s education. Rather than bureaucrats taking the use of private property, the ideals of private property should be protected by government.

www.freedomadvocates.org...

The following information is also shown at the "Freedom Advocates" website.


ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability and the U.N. Connection
By Freedom Advocates
ICLEI, now known as Local Governments for Sustainability is in the process of purging their website of United Nations references despite an abundant history of association. There are now over 600 cities and counties within the United States that have contracts with ICLEI. The following quotation was found on the ICLEI.org website in 2009:



"During the Local Government Session at the World Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa (August 2002), local government leaders from around the world, as well as representatives from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UN-HABITAT and the World Health Organization (WHO), joined ICLEI in launching Local Action 21 as the next phase of Local Agenda 21
(LA21)."
www.freedomadvocates.org...


edit on 8-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Now, want to see what ICLEI is all about?...


CITIES FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION
An International Campaign to Reduce Urban Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
Jeb Brugmann, Secretary General
Philip Jessup, Director, The Urban CO2 Reduction Project

www.iclei.org...

These people do not care about the real gases which are toxic and are bad for people and the environment, instead they are focusing on CO2 which is known to be benefitial, and needed by all life.

In other words, this group is still following the initial plan by world organizations to use "the need to reduce CO2 gobally" to control people and communities around the world.




edit on 8-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I'm a bit confused why you chose WND as a source for something like this? Do you not think that a CONSERVATIVE news source will have a BIAS when it comes to reporting on a bill brought up by Dodd, a LIBERAL....




WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American web site that publishes news and associated content from a U.S. conservative perspective.[1] It was founded in May 1997 by Joseph Farah with the stated intentions of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power"[2] and is headquartered in Washington, D.C.[3]


WIKIPEDIA SOURCE

So.....now that we've established there's a CHANCE of their being some bias....let us get into the ACTUAL TEXT of the proposed bill.

Which isn't even recent might I add....It was sponsored by Dodd back in 2009 and came out of the commitees just now.

LISTED IN THE BILL: PURPOSES OF THE ACT



SEC. 3. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to facilitate and improve the coordination of housing, community development, transportation, energy, and environmental policy in the United States;
(2) to coordinate Federal policies and investments to promote sustainable development;
(3) to encourage regional planning for livable communities and the adoption of sustainable development techniques, including transit-oriented development;
(4) to provide a variety of safe, reliable transportation choices, with special emphasis on public transportation and complete streets, in order to reduce traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and dependence on foreign oil;
(5) to provide affordable, energy-efficient, and location-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities, and to make the combined costs of housing and transportation more affordable to families;
(6) to support, revitalize, and encourage growth in existing communities, in order to maximize the cost effectiveness of existing infrastructure and preserve undeveloped lands;
(7) to promote economic development and competitiveness by connecting the housing and employment locations of workers, reducing traffic congestion, and providing families with access to essential services;
(8) to preserve the environment and natural resources, including agricultural and rural land and green spaces; and
(9) to support public health and improve quality of life for the residents of and workers in communities by promoting healthy, walkable neighborhoods, access to green space, and the mobility to pursue greater opportunities.


actual bill source

FULL BILL TEXT



In conclusion, I believe that the original SOURCE (WND) and the OP have grossly misinterpreted the bill, and perhaps read into it a bit much. To be brutally honest, the article by WND seems more like an attempt at FEARMONGERING than an attempt at providing UNBIASED reporting on a bill making it's rounds through Congress....

PS: Honestly...I have no idea where you came to the conclusion that "were all going to live our lives in a single building, our offices, companies, and homes all located in one building complex"

READ THE BILL!




(9) to support public health and improve quality of life for the residents of and workers in communities by promoting healthy, walkable neighborhoods, access to green space, and the mobility to pursue greater opportunities.


Your idea of "Draconian Laws" preventing citizens from "leaving their neighborhoods" is either A) Ignorance/ Reading into the contents of the bill too much (ex. You assume the word "inclusive" means you gotta stay in the neighborhood, as opposed to ACTUALLY meaning neighborhoods that are "self-dependent" meaning more things can be found LOCALLY instead, like energy,food, things you need to LIVE) or B) You realize what the ACTUAL BILL means and you choose to "twist" and "misrepresent" the meaning of the bill in order to FEARMONGER.....

P.S.S: READ THE FREAKING BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



edit on 9/8/10 by ElijahWan because: spelling



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Now, want to see what ICLEI is all about?...


These people do not care about the real gases which are toxic and are bad for people and the environment, instead they are focusing on CO2 which is known to be benefitial, and needed by all life.

In other words, this group is still following the initial plan by world organizations to use "the need to reduce CO2 gobally" to control people and communities around the world.




edit on 8-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments



Ummm....I'm not sure how well you understand CO2..... CO2 DISPLACES both Oxygen and Nitrogen, which are two gases that we do in fact NEED (Oxygen especially). If you have HIGH levels of CO2 it equates to LOWER levels of Oxygen which can cause SEVERE HEALTH PROBLEMS.




High levels of CO2 can displace oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2), potentially causing health problems.





WILL EXPOSURE TO CARBON DIOXIDE RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS? Exposure to CO2 can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, coma, asphyxia to convulsions and even frostbite if exposed to dry ice. The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are: * 250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level * 350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange. * 1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air. * 2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present. * >5,000 ppm – Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma and even death.


SOURCE


edit on 9/8/10 by ElijahWan because: spelling



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
People should get off their lazy chairs, stop drinking bear and watching football, or American idol believing this will not affect them,



Heck, if sombody out there is drinking bear, I don't know if I'd have the guts to tell them to do anything.


How do they even fit it into the blender in the first place?


Or maybe they're so darn tough, they just squeeze the juices right out of the poor animal.





edit on 9/8/10 by FortAnthem because: Add pic of guy squeezing the juices out of a bear.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

And we continue to see how Progressives are trying to "change" the United States into another draconian Socialist dictatorship.


C'mon please don't call it socialism. I tell ya this does my head in lol.

Things will never change unless people can learn what it is that is actually bad for us.

By calling this a 'draconian Socialist dictatorship' [sic] completely misses the point and only does those in power a service by helping to confuse people as to who the real enemy is. Real socialism, that socialists actually want, has nothing to do with draconian laws or dictators. It is the complete opposite, to us it is the answer to all that, whether you agree or not. By blindly believing that is what socialism is you have just simply bought into the state propaganda machine, and helps them to continue exploiting you by the diversion they have created through confusion. The proof is most people automatically assume socialism/communism is China or Russia, or wherever, when the reality is they were and are capitalist and not examples of socialism or communism at all.

You have to realise that you are told these things to keep us divided and from organizing again, due to the massive uprising in the 1930's and the almost world wide organisation of labour, that spawned the Spanish revolution and WWII. If the PTB had allowed that to continue they would have lost their power and control over us. We are easier to exploit if we are 'individuals' isolated from one another, than if we were a strong organized world wide community.

Divide and rule.


edit on 9/8/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElijahWan
I'm a bit confused why you chose WND as a source for something like this? Do you not think that a CONSERVATIVE news source will have a BIAS when it comes to reporting on a bill brought up by Dodd, a LIBERAL....


I am even more confused... First of all wikipedia is a LIBERAL source, and one that has been shown to have bias against many topics including CONSERVATIVE sources... Yet you want to use wikipedia to somehow claim wnd is not reliable?...

Second of all, I showed proof that what the WND article says is true...




WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American web site that publishes news and associated content from a U.S. conservative perspective.[1] It was founded in May 1997 by Joseph Farah with the stated intentions of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power"[2] and is headquartered in Washington, D.C.[3]


WIKIPEDIA SOURCE



Originally posted by ElijahWan
So.....now that we've established there's a CHANCE of their being some bias....let us get into the ACTUAL TEXT of the proposed bill.


... I gave a DIRECT LINK TO THE GOVERNMENT WEBSITE and showed a description of this bill... and then I showed (in their own words might I add) how they intent to "NURTURE" people and communities to follow their plans, and I even showed through the "Freedom Advocates" website that this is directly taken from the UN socialist agenda and they are implementing it in the U.S.

Perhaps you don't understand what "nurture" is.. Obviously they think we are children who need to be taught and indoctrinated into their green agenda...



Originally posted by ElijahWan
Which isn't even recent might I add....It was sponsored by Dodd back in 2009 and came out of the commitees just now.


And?....




Originally posted by ElijahWan
In conclusion, I believe that the original SOURCE (WND) and the OP have grossly misinterpreted the bill, and perhaps read into it a bit much. To be brutally honest, the article by WND seems more like an attempt at FEARMONGERING than an attempt at providing UNBIASED reporting on a bill making it's rounds through Congress....


You obviously did not bother to read the information I posted... I even gave a link to the "Freedom Advocates" and there are many links in there that also show EXACTLY what this is about...

The only FEARMONGERING is being done by you trying to dismiss this as some "rightwing propaganda"....



Originally posted by ElijahWan
PS: Honestly...I have no idea where you came to the conclusion that "were all going to live our lives in a single building, our offices, companies, and homes all located in one building complex"


Where did i say they are going to put us all into one building?... I mentioned neighborhoods... and yes that is EXACTLY what they want to do, and they want to force people to meet THEIR environmental standards which have been shown in these forums to be nothing more than a SCAM...


Originally posted by ElijahWan
READ THE BILL!


I READ THE BILL.... Obviously either you haven't or you have drank so much of their cool-aid that you believe every word that "is for the good of us all"....

This bill is part of the UN Local Action 21, which I showed proof is part of the next stage of the UN Local Agenda 21... and YES THEIR INTENTION IS TO IMPLEMENT DRACONIAN LAWS TO CONTROL US...

We have shown in these forums SEVERAL TIMES links from the UN and other global groups that all these plans are part of their One World Government...




Originally posted by ElijahWan
Your idea of "Draconian Laws" preventing citizens from "leaving their neighborhoods" is either A) Ignorance/ Reading into the contents of the bill too much (ex. You assume the word "inclusive" means you gotta stay in the neighborhood, as opposed to ACTUALLY meaning neighborhoods that are "self-dependent" meaning more things can be found LOCALLY instead, like energy,food, things you need to LIVE) or B) You realize what the ACTUAL BILL means and you choose to "twist" and "misrepresent" the meaning of the bill in order to FEARMONGER.....


NO, the ignorance comes from people like you... I didn't assume anything, but you are trying to dismiss the fact that this bill will be forcing people, and their entire communities to embrace the green agenda of "CO2 is evil" when it has been shown several times in these forums that such a claim is nothing but a lie...


Originally posted by ElijahWan
P.S.S: READ THE FREAKING BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.... I READ the FREAKING BILL....and I SHOWED EXACTLY what they want to do... I even gave the links to the global group, and the government website which clearly shows their agenda...

If you can't add 1+1 because of your own liberal bias and you want to BELIEVE they are doing it for your own good there is obviously nothing I or anyone else can show that will make you change your mind...

I have to wonder why you TRIED and FAILED to claim that the article has no merit just because it is CONSERVATIVE....


Perhaps we should not believe any word you are saying simply because it is obvious you are a LIBERAL...



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
i don't how many laws there were yesterday.
i won't know how many laws there are tomorrow.

what is the difference. i'm just trying to conform to the mandatory expectations (laws), and others are just paying more people to make more laws. sounds sane to me


when are the law makers just going to admit they have already made more laws than anyone can learn, and stop making more of them? too many laws to know, too many laws to learn, what is the difference between that and martial law? compare martial law laws with the laws we have now. how many laws are there?

i dunno.

-et



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElijahWan

Ummm....I'm not sure how well you understand CO2..... CO2 DISPLACES both Oxygen and Nitrogen, which are two gases that we do in fact NEED (Oxygen especially). If you have HIGH levels of CO2 it equates to LOWER levels of Oxygen which can cause SEVERE HEALTH PROBLEMS.


lol... I understand CO2 and the EXAGERATIONS, and FEARMONGERING of the GREEN AGENDA such as the one you mentioned above...

Global amospheric CO2 LEVELS ARE NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO CAUSING HEALTH PROBLEMS... If you leave your truck running in a closed garage yes CO2 levels, AND OTHER REAL TOXIC GASES will cause you health problems and could even kill you... But the atmosphere IS NOT A CLOSED GARAGE...

It has been shown SEVERAL TIMES that HIGHER LEVELS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 ARE BENEFITIAL FOR ALL LIFE ON EARTH...

Environmentalists like yourself are too naive to understand that by you attacking atmospheric CO2 you want to deprive the Earth and ALL GREEN BIOMASS of Earth of it's food...

It is known to people who own greenhouses, and research has demonstrated that plants, trees and all green biomass grows and produce more harvest with CO2 atmospheric levels at 1,200-1,500 ppm, and right now the global atmospheric CO2 level content is 380ppm....


Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

If you are an environmentalist, and you are against higher levels of atmospheric CO2, and want to even lwoer the current global levels of atmospheric CO2 you are a hypocrite because plants, trees, and all green biomass of Earth thrive with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 concentrations than at present...

It has also been shown in these forums that if atmospheric CO2 levels drop too much plants, trees and the entire green biomass stops growing, and stop producing. Plants, trees, and the entire green biomass stops growing and producing if atmospheric CO2 levels drop to 200ppm or below, and even at the levels that it exists on Earth the growth of all green biomass on Earth is stunted/slowed down.

People with greenhouses increase the atmospheric level of CO2 from 1,200-1,500 for OPTIMUM growth, and these levels are not harmful to humans in any way.

Perhaps you don't know that right now atmospheric CO2 levels are at 380ppm and it is NOWHERE close to being a health concern...

We have shown in these forums that Earth has had MUCH HIGHER LEVELS of atmospheric CO2 and all life on land, and the oceans THRIVED...

We can see very clearly who is now really trying to use FEARMONGERING PROPAGANDA....

I can also see why you don't think there is anything wrong with this bill... Obviously you like to drink the "cool-aid" propaganda which has indoctrinated people like you into believing lies and the SCAM that is AGW...




edit on 9-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

C'mon please don't call it socialism. I tell ya this does my head in lol.
...


Sorry but you are the one falling for and drinking the cool-aid of the rich elites...

I showed that this bill is directly connected to the socialist UN agenda...

But people like you seem to fail to understand that since in socialism all power is given to the state, all your rights do not matter at all "for the good of everyone"....

socialism = MORE government control "FOR THE GOOD OF EVERYONE"...

I call it EXACTLY for what it is...

This bill is part of the socialist UN Local Agenda 21...



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Heck, if sombody out there is drinking bear, I don't know if I'd have the guts to tell them to do anything.


... If you don't understand that i was talking about beer but was in a hurry and wrote bear instead I really don't know what to tell you...

and what the heck does this have to do with the bill?...



edit on 9-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


While I understand your worries about increasingly powerful government (a worry for anyone who enjoys any measure of freedom) I cannot abide your inability to recognise the difference between Socialism and dictatorship.
Unfortunately America has a historical dislike and distrust of socialism, because of the terrible examples set by Russia and China, (among others) of what they claim is a Socialist government. However, the American view of socialism is biased, and further it is utterly incorrect.
Socialism , when practiced correctly has no downsides. Everyone is worth the same, everyone has something to do , and no one is left out. Thats the basic principle. Its a good idea. The ONLY problem with it, is the same problem you get with capitalism and that is greedy corrupt persons, taking more than they are truely worth, and more than they need by a long way, which has the effect of reducing the whole nations ability to function, and means hardship for those who follow honestly the principles of such a society.
Now, these proposals made by this senator fellow. I actualy understand your concerns here I really do. Its quite obvious that these measures will actualy do NOTHING to offset the carbon problem, and the creation of these renewable source homes , business premises and so on, will require massive amounts of resources,and funding which frankly doesnt exist anywhere but in the heads of bankers and on paper in some vast idiot machine churning out extra dollars as required from seemingly no where.
Its a gimmicky way of avoiding the real issue, and that is renewable ,cheap or better yet FREE (and I dont just mean exhaust free or waste free I mean FREE) energy for vehicles, powerstations, homes and businesses. Its a pathetic attempt to look as if the American government is fulfilling its climate goals and progressing toward a greener future. In actual FACT the US is (aside from recent events in the Gulf of Mexico) addicted to oil, and will remain so unless or until rich folks stop getting rich by selling it. It is only a select few powerful persons in the world , holding the human race back from energy prodcution which involves no fossil fuel, and can be achieved without massive expensive and vunerable grids to carry energy from town to town.
Until it is the case, that fossil fuel is buried forever there will be no point in massive complex housing of this nature, because it will acheive nothing, other than to create massive overcrowding, and concentrate material waste in one place, which will no doubt have disasterous and as yet unforseen consequences. I predict rats put it that way.

One last thing. There is nothing wrong with being left wing . It is the antithesis of right wing agenda after all, and it is right wing politics which lead to the Nazi party gaining power. Alot of Americans seem confused about that as well , but lets face it folks, Hitler was not a liberal. He was a right wing fascist xenophobe. Being out on the left merely means that a person would rather cut their gonads off than be associated with his sort of BS , unlike for instance George Bush and his mate Cheney who , if your honest with yourself about it, were as extremist in thier pursuit of wealth , as Hitler was in his pursuit of the twisted goals of his party .



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join