EPA Administrator Says Over Half of Americans are Not ‘Normal Human Beings’
Any further doubts as to where this administration is leading us?
We are officially no longer "normal human beings"
You may not live as one of us,
You may not live among us,
You may not live.
We are officially no longer "normal human beings"
You may not live as one of us,
You may not live among us,
You may not live.
Jan
Furthermore, my abnormally enhanced for hunting allosaur sensory system detected an applauding Obama in one of those empty chairs.
Think Joe Biden was in another.
Or maybe it was just Woodsy Owl.
Give a hoot, don't pollute.
Hey, EPA, the Tea Party is all for that.
Way unlike that Occupy (bowel) Movement.
I just envisioned the EPA filled with Wiccans and led by druid priests who' like to put all man-made climate change deniers inside The Wicker Man.
Carbon trailer Al Gore would approve of the smoke.
She can dwell in the mess that Chaos leaves.
Sometimes I refer to the Marxist Utopia (what the BHO legacy is to help lead us to) simply as "Candy Mountain" here.
I derive the hope and change of Candy Mountain from the first Charlie the Unicorn cartoon to appear on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJFg7gq...
After posting the above, I watched the cartoon all the way through for the first time in maybe two years.
This time the ending caused me to think of Obamacare.
"Oh, the buzzin' of the bees
And the cigarette trees,
The soda water fountain,
All can be found
When you turn around
At the big rock candy mountain."
It's the lazy man's tale of a bum's paradise. Sort of like the promises of the left and Obama, versus reality.
Jan
Let's say that the US adopts all these restrictions are then going to force the whole populated world to do the same? Are the employee's and elected bureaucrats think the weather just resides in the US? The Think Tanks and other organizations have multidegreed individuals researching the enviroment and envision this garbage. I'm beginning to believe Glen Becks idea that we don't want these people in our government. Throw all these high and mighty people in the street. Hire individuals who have some experience and are rational.
It's not gooing to matter! Anyway where is the new type of power that is not going to be non- polluting. The high taxes in this country and special interests styme any inovation.
Hello, BHO we are only one country and no one else is really follow our lead! You have created an America Who!?
This whole administration verbalizing so much Newspeak to sow confusion into the population that individual thought will be scrambled eggs. How can anyone consider beauracrats and elected officials human beings. They are not!
She blames everyone except government, for change, and then things dictating to real people will solved a non-problem of climate change. Is she were genuinely interested in climate change, she would be calling for answers to what the Russian, US governmental and private, little climate control installations are doing to weather. Instead, that is a dirty little secret which is never mentioned. Funny how HAARP's heatingof the ionosphere is okay, but oh, that is so far secret now that you can't even find what is going on. Still, there is Obama's pet HAMP, which reportedly can move storms, especially when politically advantageous. These wackos are all rhetoric and no brains. -
The If the center is Normal and one direction is abnormal what is the antonym?
Where is the fulcrum or pivot point located
Whose to say?
If over half are not normal then it begs the question why not and asks why didn't you move the pivot point so that teeter could totter?
I've always been proud of being an _abnormal_ human being. I think. I question. I don't blindly believe the government is the be-all and end-all of supreme rulership.
.
No one claims that "climate change" is not occurring.
The climate *must* change, it is its nature.
What we "deniers" claim is that
1) The majority of the warming has been caused by the sun, not man.
2) Since the sun started a solar-minimum cycle 10 years ago, there has been no "warming" recorded for the past ten years (supporting the claim made in 1)
3) The 10 million year (or however long it is) data points tracking CO2 and heat are a strong correlation, however logic dictates that correlation is *not* causation (i.e.: the sun could be causing the carbon dioxide through greater evaporated seawater, or a third factor exists which causes both heat and CO2)
4) The "science" is bogus: from Monnett and Gleason's naked plea for funding ("peer reviewed" by Monnett's wife) which gave us Al Gore's polar bears, to East Anglia destroying data which did not fit the climate models, to Mann's hockey stick algorithm being debunked.
5) The "science" is political: the UN, globalist politicians, and even the Pope are pushing the idea in order to implement a global tax through the UN making the UN a de facto world governing body.
6) The "science" is consensus, by their own admission.
7) The "science" is a religion: the theory does not allow a method by which it can be disproved, so, according to Karl Popper (and echoed by Michael Crichton), it is the very definition of a religion. A religion complete with an apocalypse preacher (failed PhD in divinity studies) Al Gore and Papal support.
I may not be normal, but at least I'm not a religious zealot, useful idiot, who thinks Galileo should have shut the fuck up.
8) The "science" is a deliberate fraud. Mann in particular designed and tweaked his so-called model to produce the result he wanted for political reasons. You can read this in his own e-mails in Montford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion".
9) The institutions that control both most scientific funding (research grants) and the "peer review" process, have become controlled by the fraudsters. It's easy to phony up a "consensus" when any scientist who speaks up against you stands to have his career taken away.
10) Even if the most extreme claims of "climate change" were all true, it has yet to be shown that it would adversely affect human beings at all, much less be the catastrophe predicted by IPCC; and
11) Even if you could also prove that catastrophe, there are known, simple ways to reverse that change at a much lower economic cost than the outrageous sacrifices the UN and EPA want to impose on us.
The big problem with the "believers'" whole argument is its reliance on the "precautionary principle," which is exactly backwards. The correct principle is this -- Extraordinary demands on other people require extraordinary proof. (Apologies to David Hume.)
Absolutely nothing like it at all.
Ms. McCarthy is the head of a government agency which wields a ridiculous amount of unconstitutional power.
It is *her job* to wield that power as temperately and fairly as she can, and if the power is too much for her, to step the f*** down.
I am a political satirist.
It is *my job* to ridicule the snot out of those who abuse their power; the more "intemperate" the ridicule, the more temperately I am doing my job.
I wield *no power*, "intemperate" language from me results in a controversial piece.
McCarthy wields *tons of power*, intemperate language from people in similar positions has resulted in gulags and cattle-cars.
Ms. McCarthy attacked people like me as "not normal".
I attacked back that she is a "religious zealot, useful idiot, who thinks Galileo should have shut the fuck up".
She set the terms of the debate... and a political satirist responded in kind.
My response is not intemperance, it is *fair game*... plus, I backup up my attack with relevant claims.
" What percentage of people do you think would indicate approval of those points? The fifty three percent referenced in the article? Of course not."
I will not quibble over the percentage, although I obviously think that it is way closer to 53% than you do.
The real question is "Do we as a people tolerate whatever percentage of people to whom Ms. McCarthy was referring to be chucked into a cattle-car? Even if that percentage is 0.0000001%? And even if that percentage was verified stubborn and wrong?"
My answer is, "Hell, no."
Maybe in another six, I will be an actual satirist, not merely a self-labeled one.
I overstated nothing.
Neither did the article.
Question for someone else. Or a problem for an Objective Satirest. Back to you Eudaimonia! join us again anytime different station and remember Australia Oz1 might be the answer. Cognitive first Communicate 2nd.
Instead of I have no response to that a la Meg try DAMN I''m glad I didn't write that!
Actually i was trying to address the wider issue without purposes of evasion.
As for cattle cars the new buzz word is relocalization which applies to humans, food, and other resources. But especially to humans - with or without consent.
I notice that you have not addressed the wider issue beyond what the actual percentage is.
So, then, cattle-cars?