Obama's new science Czar is a totalitarian eugenicist fascist

What made him "right for you"? And why do you focus on who is "right for you" as opposed to who is right for the country?

He was right for me because I get to spend more than six months on US soil, dont get me wrong, I enjoy my job, I just got tired of losing stuff, like my wife. I feel pulling out of Iraq is right for the country, being over there is causing nothing but lost for our military, and putting this country further in debt. Do you know what it cost to send one soldier member overseas? think about the cost to train a service member, send them overseas, and if something happens, pay life insurance, not to mention injured service members. I did what was right for me and my military family.
 
I voted for the man who was right for me, just as you voted for the person who was right for you.
You still believe he's right for you? You really think your job is safe? What about your retirement, when the government goes bankrupt?
 
I honestly believe you will loose your retirement, before I loose mine.
You're dodging the question. This isn't between you and me. It's about whether or not you still believe Obama is doing the right things for this country. You seem incapable of giving a straight answer to that question.
 
You asked me what I was going to do when I loose me retirement? Shag asked why did I focus on who is right for me, rather that who is right for the country? Who said anything about what Obama was doing for the country?

I think I need to tell you about me. I am 26, divorced, and been in the Military for seven years, majority of that time overseas, my wife left me because I deployed too much, the military is my life, my family, my world. Obama is protecting my life, my family, my world by ending operations in Iraq.
 
He was right for me because I get to spend more than six months on US soil, dont get me wrong, I enjoy my job, I just got tired of losing stuff, like my wife.

I don't agree with those reasons, but I can appreciate that. Though I should point out that we would probably be pulling out of Iraq regardless of weather McCain or Obama won. Bush pretty well had that locked down before he left office.

Still, in general, do you vote based solely or chiefly on your self interest or more on what you think is best for the country?
 
I don't agree with those reasons, but I can appreciate that. Though I should point out that we would probably be pulling out of Iraq regardless of weather McCain or Obama won. Bush pretty well had that locked down before he left office.

Got that time table on Bush's plan for pulling out of Iraq shag?
 
I don't agree with those reasons, but I can appreciate that. Though I should point out that we would probably be pulling out of Iraq regardless of weather McCain or Obama won. Bush pretty well had that locked down before he left office.

Still, in general, do you vote based solely or chiefly on your self interest or more on what you think is best for the country?

I voted based on reasons that were beneficial to me, Bush and McCain had plans to keep us in Iraq for the next decade or longer, we even got to the point where we were building hard buildings for us to stay in. We did too much for Iraq. 6 years is way too long!
 
I voted based on reasons that were beneficial to me, Bush and McCain had plans to keep us in Iraq for the next decade or longer, we even got to the point where we were building hard buildings for us to stay in. We did too much for Iraq. 6 years is way too long!

We have been in Germany since World War II (though are role has changed). Why is six years to long to be in Iraq in this instance? Do you have some info on the Bush plan for the next decade or so? Was there to be a change in our role there (like in the case of Germany)?
 
We have been in Germany since World War II (though are role has changed). Why is six years to long to be in Iraq in this instance? Do you have some info on the Bush plan for the next decade or so? Was there to be a change in our role there (like in the case of Germany)?

Germany doesnt mind us being there, Iraqi's were blowing us up, the sunni's and the shiite's were fighting eachother then they would blow us up for fun. I have never heard of germans setting up EFP's or IEDs.
 
Germany doesnt mind us being there, Iraqi's were blowing us up, the sunni's and the shiite's were fighting eachother then they would blow us up for fun. I have never heard of germans setting up EFP's or IEDs.

Actually, right after the war ended, there were some Germans conducting guerrilla warfare against Allied troops. I think Bush even cited a NYT story from back then covering those events in one of his State of the Union addresses.
 
Actually, right after the war ended, there were some Germans conducting guerrilla warfare against Allied troops. I think Bush even cited a NYT story from back then covering those events in one of his State of the Union addresses.

The werewolves.
 
Germany doesnt mind us being there, Iraqi's were blowing us up, the sunni's and the shiite's were fighting eachother then they would blow us up for fun. I have never heard of germans setting up EFP's or IEDs.
Wrong, bud. I spent some time in Germany when I was in the Army, and I made quite a few German friends. There was quite a bit of "go home" sentiment.
 
I voted based on reasons that were beneficial to me, Bush and McCain had plans to keep us in Iraq for the next decade or longer, we even got to the point where we were building hard buildings for us to stay in. We did too much for Iraq. 6 years is way too long!
Note this classic example of the dependency class, folks. Here are the symptoms:

1. No apparent ability or desire to obtain private sector employment
2. Dependency on the government for income
3. Total trust of the government for retirement and lifestyle
4. Embracing of the socialist government style because it removes any requirement for personal responsibility and promises to take care of you
 
Wrong, bud. I spent some time in Germany when I was in the Army, and I made quite a few German friends. There was quite a bit of "go home" sentiment.

They want us to go home because every german women wants an American Soldier. Iraqi's are trying to kill us everyday, Germans don't go that far, I dont think!
 
Note this classic example of the dependency class, folks. Here are the symptoms:

1. No apparent ability or desire to obtain private sector employment
2. Dependency on the government for income
3. Total trust of the government for retirement and lifestyle
4. Embracing of the socialist government style because it removes any requirement for personal responsibility and promises to take care of you

Is every person who decides to make a career of the military in this so called "dependency class"? It sounds a lot like welfare!
 
They want us to go home because every german women wants an American Soldier. Iraqi's are trying to kill us everyday, Germans don't go that far, I dont think!

From what I understand though, their economy is pretty dependent on our troops over there...
 
Is every person who decides to make a career of the military in this so called "dependency class"? It sounds a lot like welfare!
You bragged about your retirement lasting longer than mine, you boasted about voting to take care of your own situation. You have no interest in voting any other issue but your own financial welfare. You are part of the dependency class.
 
You bragged about your retirement lasting longer than mine, you boasted about voting to take care of your own situation. You have no interest in voting any other issue but your own financial welfare. You are part of the dependency class.


Look at post #27, you asked about my retirement not being available when I retire, I said "I honestly believe you will loose your retirement before I loose mine" I never voted based on my financial welfare, I dont make a lot of money, I voted for the guy that made my fellow service members safe, I never said anything about money, and I take offense to you claiming I made a decision based upon money. I will loose money by voting for Obama, while in Iraq, I made 1300 extra every month, my pay check was not taxed, and they offered a deployment savings program that paid 10% on whatever you saved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Harsanyi: Science fiction czar
By David Harsanyi

Dr. John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy — better known as the "science czar" — has been a longtime prophet of environmental catastrophes. Never discouraged, but never right.

Thanks to resourceful bloggers, you can read excerpts online from a hard-to-find book co-authored by Holdren in the late 1970s called "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment."

In it, you will find the czar wading into some unpleasant talk about mass sterilizations and abortions.

It's not surprising. Holdren spent the '70s boogying down to the vibes of an imaginary population catastrophe and global cooling. He also participated in the famous wager between scientist Paul Ehrlich, the now-discredited "Population Bomb" theorist (and co-author of "Ecoscience), and economist Julian Simon, who believed human ingenuity would overcome demand.

Holdren was asked by Ehrlich to pick five natural resources that would experience shortages due to human consumption. He lost the bet on all counts, as the composite price index for the commodities he picked, like copper and chromium, fell by more than 40 percent.

Then again, it's one thing to be a bumbling soothsayer and it's quite another to underestimate the resourcefulness of mankind enough to ponder how "population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution . . .," as Holdren did in "Ecoscience" in 1977.

The book, in fact, is sprinkled with comparable statements that passively discuss how coercive population control methods might rescue the world from ... well, humans.

When I called Holdren's office, I was told that the czar "does not now and never has been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive measures to limit fertility."

If that is so, I wondered, why is his name on a textbook that brought up such policy? Did he not write that part? Did he change his mind? Was it theoretical?

No straightforward answer was forthcoming.

No big deal. Even today, many environmentalists and anti-immigration activists believe in the myth of population disaster. In this world, human spammers are a disease, not a cure.

And Holdren has never ceased peddling calamity as science.

Today, for instance, though Holdren has publicly tempered his aversion to population growth, he still advocates that government nudge us toward fewer children.

Instead of coercion, though, he is a fan of "motivation."

When, during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren was asked about his penchant for scientific overstatements, he responded, "The motivation for looking at the downside possibilities, the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction, is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time."

"Motivation" is when Holdren tells us that global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion people by 2020. Or when he claimed that sea levels could rise by 13 feet by the end of this century when your run-of-the-mill alarmist warns of only 13 inches.

"Motivating" — or, in other words, scaring the hell out of people — about "possibilities" is an ideological and political weapon unsheathed in the effort to pass policies that, in the end, coerce us to do the right thing, anyway.

Holdren's past flies in the face of Barack Obama's contention, made on the day of the science czar's appointment, that his administration was "ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology."

Holdren embodies the opposite, actually.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top