How Liberals, the Green Movement, Abortion, Gay Marriage are all connected

[squealpiggy]

WTF is that supposed to mean???? Mussolini was very popular, so was Hitler. Doe that mean they were great candidates? It is totally ridiculous to talk about better candidates based on popularity because popularity is determined by the mainstream, driveby media. Thank you.

I was talking about getting elected which is about popularity. Hitler was very popular hence was elected chancellor. Popular doesn't mean good. It does however mean that unpopular candidates like Ron Paul don't get elected, no matter how great their policies.

True, but if you hold a general election then they both get significant airtime and then the popularity becomes more relevant. Right now it is an ad-populum.

Obama is more popular hence will be more likely to win a popularity contest like the elections are. QED.

[ILLuminato]

Obama is more popular hence will be more likely to win a popularity contest like the elections are. QED.

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000

[them_apples]

In reality, Global Warming is a hoax and its a great thing there is a great number of people these days opening their eyes to the "inconvenient truth" (to liberals like Gore). Like most of the Left's policies, Environmentalism is not a matter of what works or what is, it is a matter of advancing the liberal agenda and controlling the citizens.

In a nutshell, here is the argument from liberals whether they admit it or not. Our world is overwhemingly overpopulated and we are the enemy. More humans= more carbon footprints. In order to reduce our carbon footprints, we must shrink our population. This can be accomplished through: A) Abortion (this is the most common). The less people born means less carbon footprints, this is quite obvious. B) Gay Marriage. Not only does this encourage gays to not make babies, gays reduce carbon footprint even further because they also live together, share cars and homes. This is why the gays' biggest fans are the green hippies. C) High taxes.. First of all, if taxes are high, less gas is consumed. The government also subsidizes energy for companies who fit their environmental standards.


With that said, the Environmentalists biggest opponents are the Conservatives and religion. Obviously, Christianity doesn't support Gay Marriage or abortion. Now whether you are Christian are not religious at all, if you're a Constitution fan, there are a few words which greatly oppose this. They are actually two word. Life and liberty. We live in a country where we pride ourselves on never leaving a soldier behind in combat no mater how dead they are, yet we never give the unborn a child a chance (this goes much deeper, like how irresponsible we've become about the act of sex, that's a different discussion).

On the strength of that, these are not the only ways environmentalists and especially liberals are trying to control the way you live. Al Gore recently came up with a "low carbon diet" (or so I've heard), they want to force you to drive a car they choose, and the way you live. One must question the popular opinion and create their own opinion in these uncertain times. Censorship is coming too, by the way.

http://frontpagemagazine.com/readArt...px?ARTID=30790
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...s-predict.html
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/com...ent.news.109.3

I agree with what you say, I'm sick of these new age Liberals...every kid these days i talk to thinks he knows the answer for world peace.

[BmoreBrawler]

I was talking about getting elected which is about popularity. Hitler was very popular hence was elected chancellor. Popular doesn't mean good. It does however mean that unpopular candidates like Ron Paul don't get elected, no matter how great their policies.



Obama is more popular hence will be more likely to win a popularity contest like the elections are. QED.

Obama is popular because of media coverage..

Ron Paul would achieve similar media coverage if a Presidential candidate of a major party.

[squealpiggy]

Obama is popular because of media coverage..

Ron Paul would achieve similar media coverage if a Presidential candidate of a major party.

But he wouldn't be popular.

[BmoreBrawler]

But he wouldn't be popular.

Relative to that fraud, sure he would. Obama would get everyone tied in some way to the government financially: welfare recipients, corporate welfare recipients, grant recipients, affirmative action recipients, and government workers. The biggest problem I would see is the neo-cons backing Obama because he is more of a hawk.

[ILLuminato]

Does anybody remember when Barack Obama ridiculed John McCain for wanting to take $17B out of the budget's earmarks? He said that "ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT does not matter". Now all of the sudden he decides to make that cut and asks the question, "you ask the American people if 17 bill is a lot of money!"

[Dr.Depravity]

Because it's summer, it happens every single year. Plus it was following a period in which the bottom fell out of the energy market. Last summer gas (and oil) was at a record high. Even trying to pull tis one is evidence of your utter preposterousness.

Incidentally Al Gore is making "hundreds of millions" out of the green movement? Don't become an accountant.

Al Gore's wealth went from 2 million to 200 million since he left congress.

[ILLuminato]

Al Gore's wealth went from 2 million to 200 million since he left congress.

He wanted to start his own TV channel too. I wonder what he wanted to put on that channel!

[BmoreBrawler]

Does anybody remember when Barack Obama ridiculed John McCain for wanting to take $17B out of the budget's earmarks? He said that "ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT does not matter". Now all of the sudden he decides to make that cut and asks the question, "you ask the American people if 17 bill is a lot of money!"

haha was it actually 17 billion both times? that would just be eerily hypocritical.