[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Global warming is a belief nothing more.
“Scientists” can’t predict the weather reliably for the next 30 days. Assuming they can predict it in 100 years, with certainty, to the degree, is sheer stupidity.
A simple look at who is falling for this belief should be a simple guideline to judge it’s merits.
You are not comparing like with like. They cannot predict what the weather will be like at a specific point in time, but they are pretty good at predicting averages over a period.
And the argument is really not about harming the planet so much as harming the established economies of major coastal cities and the impact on the global economy.
I don’t think they are good at predicting averages over time. The models that have been created have all been found faulty. If they can’t model it, with certainty, it’s a belief.
No, it would be a belief if there were no supporting evidence therefore it is a theory.
Admitidly there are probably too many factors to have a highly accurate model at this stage. One of the big issues for the model is that the oceans buffer C02 in the atmosphere, at higher temperatures they are able to dissolve more C02. This buffering effect is very hard to model on a planet sized scale.[/quote]
Or if the supporting evidence was simply correlated to the data but you believe it has some causation.
Hardly a reason to destroy the economy over…unless you have other reasons to do so?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Global warming is a belief nothing more.
“Scientists” can’t predict the weather reliably for the next 30 days. Assuming they can predict it in 100 years, with certainty, to the degree, is sheer stupidity.
A simple look at who is falling for this belief should be a simple guideline to judge it’s merits.
You are not comparing like with like. They cannot predict what the weather will be like at a specific point in time, but they are pretty good at predicting averages over a period.
bullshit. they can’t even get their models to predict past events.
And the argument is really not about harming the planet so much as harming the established economies of major coastal cities and the impact on the global economy.
This is all a bunch of hoohaa as well. If it was underwater before, why would we think we can keep it from being underwater again? Either grow gills, move or build a sea wall.
[/quote]
Hey I don’t disagree, I am just saying that despite it being dressed up as ‘save the planet’ it’s actually ‘Save London, New York, etc.’ The money would be better spent looking at relocating vital business away from coastal areas and working out how to build up tidal defence for things that you can’t move.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Global warming is a belief nothing more.
“Scientists” can’t predict the weather reliably for the next 30 days. Assuming they can predict it in 100 years, with certainty, to the degree, is sheer stupidity.
A simple look at who is falling for this belief should be a simple guideline to judge it’s merits.
You are not comparing like with like. They cannot predict what the weather will be like at a specific point in time, but they are pretty good at predicting averages over a period.
And the argument is really not about harming the planet so much as harming the established economies of major coastal cities and the impact on the global economy.
I don’t think they are good at predicting averages over time. The models that have been created have all been found faulty. If they can’t model it, with certainty, it’s a belief.
No, it would be a belief if there were no supporting evidence therefore it is a theory.
Admitidly there are probably too many factors to have a highly accurate model at this stage. One of the big issues for the model is that the oceans buffer C02 in the atmosphere, at higher temperatures they are able to dissolve more C02. This buffering effect is very hard to model on a planet sized scale.
Or if the supporting evidence was simply correlated to the data but you believe it has some causation.
Hardly a reason to destroy the economy over…unless you have other reasons to do so?
[/quote]
I don’t disagree with you. Yes, research should continue on it. Yes, minimising polution within reason should be an aim. Yes, renewable energy sources should be investigated. But these should not be done to the detriment of other important issues just because it’s ‘the environment.’
See, this bothers me, because I wasn’t alive in the 1970s, and yet I’d never heard about the global cooling scare until I read about it six months ago. I find it hard to believe that the pendulum swing is seriously supported by scientific fact when just a decade before they got on global warming they thought the shit was freezing over again.
This is all a bunch of hoohaa as well. If it was underwater before, why would we think we can keep it from being underwater again? Either grow gills, move or build a sea wall.
[/quote]
That’s really all it is. It sucks that it’s happening, but again, this planet doesn’t pay much attention to what we want. If anything it should be a vindictive SOB given all the damage we’ve done.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
you’re grasping at straws here. “a very prestigious private school” HAH highly doubtful, your a fucking loon. Or at least ill give you credit for being a great con man if youre correct, why anyone would pay you any amount of money to teach their kids is being duped to the nth degree. Cmon voucher system, HH will be out in the street within a week, probably with an “end is near” cardboard sign around his neck.
and making stupid assumptions, i dont go along with either gore or boxer at all.
of course life will go on merrily with higher C02, it would go on merrily with lower C02, or higher 02 or lower ect, but thats not the point. Things were not exactly the same today as they were 80million years ago in regards to our ecosystem and topography, to simply say increase C02 and things will only get better is stupid, beyond stupid.[/quote]
It has been scientifically shown that men who refuse to use capital letters to begin sentences have very tiny penises.
See, this bothers me, because I wasn’t alive in the 1970s, and yet I’d never heard about the global cooling scare until I read about it six months ago. I find it hard to believe that the pendulum swing is seriously supported by scientific fact when just a decade before they got on global warming they thought the shit was freezing over again.
[/quote]
I was alive in the 70s and i do remember that nonsense. The same “usual suspects” have flipped flopped.
Years ago I read an article about goofy environmentalism in the Reader’s Digest. They had Paul Ehrlich,sp, the author of the “Population Bomb” and another scientist featured. Ehrlich was big on we’re going to have global cooling, famine and such.
The other fellow I do not recall by name, but he did disagree with Ehrlich and made a bet with him on the cost of natural resources adjusted for inflation over 5-10 years. If the cost was up, Ehrlich wins, down, the other guy.
The other guy won and Ehrlich lost. He paid his debt and addressed a large group of people at Earth day. The other serious scientist guy went and lectured a few fellow scientists at a regular academic lecture.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Global warming is a belief nothing more.
“Scientists” can’t predict the weather reliably for the next 30 days. Assuming they can predict it in 100 years, with certainty, to the degree, is sheer stupidity.
A simple look at who is falling for this belief should be a simple guideline to judge it’s merits.
You are not comparing like with like. They cannot predict what the weather will be like at a specific point in time, but they are pretty good at predicting averages over a period.
And the argument is really not about harming the planet so much as harming the established economies of major coastal cities and the impact on the global economy.
I don’t think they are good at predicting averages over time. The models that have been created have all been found faulty. If they can’t model it, with certainty, it’s a belief.
No, it would be a belief if there were no supporting evidence therefore it is a theory.
Admitidly there are probably too many factors to have a highly accurate model at this stage. One of the big issues for the model is that the oceans buffer C02 in the atmosphere, at higher temperatures they are able to dissolve more C02. This buffering effect is very hard to model on a planet sized scale.
Or if the supporting evidence was simply correlated to the data but you believe it has some causation.
Hardly a reason to destroy the economy over…unless you have other reasons to do so?
I don’t disagree with you. Yes, research should continue on it. Yes, minimising polution within reason should be an aim. Yes, renewable energy sources should be investigated. But these should not be done to the detriment of other important issues just because it’s ‘the environment.’[/quote]
Everyone’s research should continue on it. When the facts change so should their opinions. I’m all for reducing pollution and would love to see renewable energy become viable one day.
In the meantime we should not be making long term solutions on speculative theories.
See, this bothers me, because I wasn’t alive in the 1970s, and yet I’d never heard about the global cooling scare until I read about it six months ago. I find it hard to believe that the pendulum swing is seriously supported by scientific fact when just a decade before they got on global warming they thought the shit was freezing over again.
[/quote]
They actually made some scary movies about it. I remember because it was one of the first times my friends and I were allowed to go by ourselves. We were all supposed to be frozen by 1992 if I remember.
The lesson the alarmists learned was to make your predictions much further in the future so that the agenda can be completed before the events are supposed to happen.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Admitidly there are probably too many factors to have a highly accurate model at this stage. One of the big issues for the model is that the oceans buffer C02 in the atmosphere, at higher temperatures they are able to dissolve more C02.[/quote]
No, other way around. Solubilities of gases in water decrease with increasing temperature (opposite to the behavior of solids.)
As the oceans have warmed, from any cause, this has resulted in release of CO2.
CO2 levels – without man doing a thing – have been this high at the end of each interglacial period for about the last 400,000 years or so at least.
On the oceans then cooling with the following Ice Age, CO2 levels again drop. Presumably because the oceans can then dissolve much more CO2 when colder.
Okay, I’ve heard enough… surely kooks (Global Warming Truthers) are not suggesting that Global Warming is a scam?! How is it possible that a global scam of this MAGNITUDE be so easily pulled off? How is it that a 47 story building not hit by a plane just… oh wait, that was something else.
Anyway, I think we’ve reached a consensus… its definitely the liberals and the “liberal media” pushing this scam ; )
Henry Ford, September 11, 1920…
[quote]"The Protocols, which overlook nothing, propose a very definite plan with regard to the Press. As in the multitude of other matters with which these remarkable documents deal, there are the two phases–[i]“what we have done,” and “what we will do.”[/i]
As early as the Second Protocol, the Press comes in for attention…
Says the Second Protocol:
“There is one great force in the hands of modern governments which creates thought movements among the people, that is, the Press. The presumed role of the Press is to indicate supposedly indispensable needs, to register popular complaints, and to create discontent. The triumph of ‘free speech’ (babbling) rests in the Press. But governments are unable to profit by this power, and it has fallen into our hands. Through it we have attained influence while remaining in the shadow. Thanks to it, we have amassed gold, though it has cost us torrents of blood and tears.”
In the same Protocol, “our Press” is spoken of as the agency through which are disseminated “those theories of life which we have induced them (the Gentiles) to regard as the dictates of science.”
"To this end we shall certainly endeavor to inspire blind confidence in these theories by means of our Press."
Then follows the claim made concerning the three most revolutionary theories in the physical, economic and moral realms, namely Darwinism, Marxism and Nietzscheism.
In the Third Protocol the claim is made that this control of the Press is being used to break down respect for authority:
“Daring journalists and audacious pamphleteers make daily attack upon the personnel of the administration. This abuse of authority is definitely preparing the downfall of all institutions, and everything will be overturned by blows coming from the infuriated populace.”
Again, in the Seventh Protocol, discussing the progress which the World Program has already made, the part played by the Press is indicated:
“We must force the Gentile governments to adopt measures which will promote our broadly conceived plan already approaching its triumphal goal, by bringing to bear the pressure of stimulated public opinion, which has in reality been organized by us with the help of the so-called ‘great power’ of the Press. With few exceptions not worth considering, it is already in our hands.”
Thus twice is the claim made to control of the Press. “It has fallen into our hands,” says the Second Protocol. “It is already in our hands,” says the Seventh. In the Second Protocol the Press is represented as furthering revolutionary physical, economic and moral philosophies; while in the Seventh it is used to create the “pressure of stimulated public opinion” for the purpose of “forcing Gentile governments to adopt measures which will promote our broadly conceived plan, already approaching its triumphal goal.”
A word of comment may be made here upon the claim of the Second Protocol that “thanks to it (the Press), we have amassed gold, though it has cost us torrents of blood and tears.”
This is a statement which can be illustrated in many ways. “Though it has cost us torrents of blood and tears” is an admission upon which the Protocols throw light, a light which also shines upon the Jewish argument regarding responsibility for the recent war, namely, that Jewish World Financial Power could not have willed the war seeing that Jews suffered so heavily in Eastern Europe.
The Protocols frankly recognize the possibility of Jews suffering during the establishment of the World Program, but it consoles them with the thought that they fall as soldiers for the good of Israel. The death of a Jew, we are told in the Protocols, is more precious in the sight of God than the death of a thousand “seed of cattle,” which is one of the delicate names applied to the Gentiles.
The reference to the amassment of gold is very clear…"[/quote]
Study: $45 Trillion Investment Needed To Fight Global Warming
A&E tells story of the Jews who built Hollywood
We learn how this vision, this “shadow America” created on screen, eventually overwhelmed “real America” to become everyone’s image of the country. http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/980313/hollywd.shtml
Jewish power dominates at ‘Vanity Fair’
The Jerusalem Post
Oct 11, 2007
It’s a list of “the world’s most powerful people,” 100 of the bankers and media moguls, publishers and image makers who shape the lives of billions. It’s an exclusive, insular club, one whose influence stretches around the globe but is concentrated strategically in the highest corridors of power.
More than half its members, at least by one count, are Jewish.
It’s a list, in other words, that would have made earlier generations of Jews jump out of their skins, calling attention, as it does, to their disproportionate influence in finance and the media. Making matters worse, in the eyes of many, would no doubt be the identity of the group behind the list - not a pack of fringe anti-Semites but one of the most mainstream, glamorous publications on the newsstands…
Feel the power
Jewish World Review
Oct. 10, 2007
The first is its [Vanity Fair] annual list of what it calls The New Establishment, the 100 most powerful, most influential people in American society.
What is absolutely amazing, stunning about the list is how many Jews there are on it. Jews make up about 2.5 percent of the U.S. population so there should be two or three Jews on the list.
Guess again, bubeleh.
The list of the Vanity Fair 100 includes, get ready, 51, yes 51 Jews.
All of this encapsulates the stuff of high drama, of entertainment-and I’m in the entertainment business first. It’s all right to include a pot of message, but that’s not the key ingredient of wide readership. Yes, there are analogs in Dune of today’s events-corruption and bribery in the highest places, whole police forces lost to organized crime, regulatory agencies taken over by the people they are supposed to regulate. The scarce water of Dune is an exact analog of oil scarcity. CHOAM is OPEC.
But that was only the beginning.
While this concept was still fresh in my mind, I went to Florence, Oregon, to write a magazine article about a US Department of Agriculture project there. The USDA was seeking ways to control coastal (and other) sand dunes. I had already written several pieces about ecological matters, but my superhero concept filled me with a concern that ecology might be the next banner for demagogues and would-be-heroes, for the power seekers and others ready to find an adrenaline high in the launching of a new crusade.
Our society, after all, operates on guilt, which often serves only to obscure its real workings and to prevent obvious solutions. An adrenaline high can be just as addictive as any other kind of high.
Ecology encompasses a real concern, however, and the Florence project fed my interest in how we inflict ourselves upon our planet. I could begin to see the shape of a global problem, no part of it separated from any other-social ecology, political ecology, economic ecology. It’s an open-ended list.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
You’re right. It’s really the Jews. duh. What were we thinking.[/quote]
Well, people who don’t buy the Global Warming hype are already convinced its a “liberal” plot on a COLOSSAL scale… ironically, almost the very same people who think 9/11 conspiracies are on the lunatic fringe – either one of which relies solely on the MEDIA to drive majority opinion.
Duh.
Stern’s Aussie odyssey
Sir Nicholas Stern, the man trying to convince governments across the world to go green, is also on a quest to learn more about his Jewish father’s harrowing journey to Australia as a Nazi refugee.
Sir Nicholas Stern is a man on a mission. As the author of the report that finally tipped the lid on the looming catastrophic consequences of unchecked climate change, Stern has become - along with former US vice-president Al Gore - the very public champion of the global push for a cleaner and greener environment.
Having sold his message across the world, the former chief economist at the World Bank was in Australia last week to meet with a government that has largely been deaf to the warnings of a warming planet.
Jewish National Fund woos green advocate for climate-change group
THE Jewish National Fund (JNF) has approached leading climate-change advocate Sir Nicholas Stern to spearhead a push by the agency to become a world leader in the fight against global warming.
The JNF is looking to set up an international board of scientific advisers on climate change and wants Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank, to be one of its experts.
Stern’s much-publicised report last year on the likely economic impact of climate change spelled out the catastrophic consequences of unchecked global warming, highlighting climate change as one of the major challenges confronting governments across the world.
Forecast: Stern on the way
Rarely has a report landed with greater weight than Stern’s 700-page review of the economics of climate change. His conclusion – that doing nothing to stop global warming will prove far more costly to the global economy than taking measures in the next 10 to 15 years to fight it – transformed the terms of the debate.
Governments from Belgium to Bangladesh lined up to endorse it. His speech was the hot ticket at this year’s Davos World Economic Forum. He has spoken in the United States and China – the world’s two highest carbon dioxide emitters – and in India.
He has also earnt that dubious badge of British fame: having tabloid journalists grill his neighbours in search of dirt and print bogus stories about the price of his house. The private man in a grey suit has become what British Environment Secretary David Miliband calls the “international rock star of climate change”.
Climate skeptics love to wail on “ultra-liberal”, Al Gore for “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH”… the “real” inconvenient truth is, Al Gore is just the punching bag – FIVE Jews actually made the movie…
From director Davis Guggenheim comes the Sundance Film Festival hit, ‘AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH’
Featuring Al Gore, the film is produced by Laurie David, Lawrence Bender and Scott Z. Burns. Jeff Skoll and Davis Guggenheim are the executive producers and the co-producer is Leslie Chilcott. http://www.climatecrisis.net/aboutthefilm/
We’ve already established there IS an agenda, one way or the other. The question is, are the “people” pushing this agenda ACTUALLY so concerned about the environment and humanity? The criticism is rightly deserved when they constantly appear at the head of all these issues.
Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution–And How It Can Renew America
is a book by New York Times Foreign Affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman
Lieberman key player on global warming
Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000 pushes landmark bill
Henry Waxman – With the Democrats’ victory in the 2006 midterm elections, Waxman became chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the principal investigative committee of the House. He was the committee’s ranking Democrat from 1997 to 2007. In 2009, he will begin serving as the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as a result of defeating former chairman John Dingell in a 137-122 secret vote of House Democrats on November 20, 2008.
Division of congressional posts seems to favor Jewish issues
Most Jews ever set to enter Congress
“It’s unprecedented that there have been so many [Jews] in so many positions of leadership in both houses,” Bloomfield said, using a Jewish simile for how that fact will affect support for Israel: Like chicken soup, it won’t hurt.
Given that 98% of America (or the world for that matter), ISN’T Jewish – I would hope more people would seriously question what it means that the “division of congressional posts” seems to favor such a narrow group of people. One might say it doesn’t matter… if thats so, they would have just called them “American issues”. They appear to be actively promoting the very “conspiracies” that are charged to anti-Semites.
Good for them that everyone is too PA (pansy-ass) to talk about it openly.
When they say – “It’s unprecedented that there have been so many [Jews] in so many positions of leadership in both houses”– I guess your just supposed to go to your “happy place” and watch in awe as their brilliance elevates us from the brink of despair?
Here are some helpful affirmations…
Top Bush White House posts go to Jews
“He is simply appointing the best people for the job,” said Nathan Diament, who heads the Washington office of the Orthodox Union. Another Jewish activist added that he “wouldn’t read too much into it.”
Iraq: Pro-‘surge’ group is almost all Jewish
Brooks said it would be a mistake to regard the group as having a Jewish direction. “It’s a coincidence that several of the board members are Jewish,” he said… http://jta.org/news/article/2007/08/24/103795/adelsonsembler
So when you more closely examine ALL of Obama’s financial appointees for instance…
Timothy Geithner - Secretary, U.S. Treasury Department
Lawrence Summers - Chairman, National Economic Council
Paul Volcker - Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Jon Leibowitz - Chairman, Federal Trade Commision (FTC)
Jared Bernstein - Chief Economist and Economic Adviser, Vice President
Peter Orszag - Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Gary Gensler - Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Mary Schapiro - Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Sheila Bair - Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Karen Mills - Administrator, Small Business Administration (SBA)
(not to mention Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and Ben Bernake)
… simply repeat the provided affirmation-- “He is simply appointing the best people for the job,” said Nathan Diament, who heads the Washington office of the Orthodox Union. Another Jewish activist added that he “wouldn’t read too much into it.”
[i][quote]"The Jew has been too long accustomed to think himself as exclusively the claimant on the humanitarianism of society; society has a large claim against him that he cease his exclusiveness, that he cease exploiting the world, that he cease making Jewish groups the end and all of his gains, and that he begins to fulfill, in a sense his exclusiveness has never yet enabled him to fulfill, the ancient prophecy he boasts that through him all the nations of the earth should be blessed.
The Jew cannot go on forever fulfilling the role of suppliant for the world’s humanitarianism, he must himself show that quality to a society which seriously suspects his higher and more powerful groups of exploiting it with a pitiless rapacity, which in its wide-flung and long-drawnout distress may be described as an economic program against a rather helpless humanity."[/i][/quote]
–Henry Ford
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
You’re right. It’s really the Jews. duh. What were we thinking.
Well, people who don’t buy the Global Warming hype are already convinced its a “liberal” plot on a COLOSSAL scale… ironically, almost the very same people who think 9/11 conspiracies are on the lunatic fringe – either one of which relies solely on the MEDIA to drive majority opinion.
Duh.
Stern’s Aussie odyssey
Sir Nicholas Stern, the man trying to convince governments across the world to go green, is also on a quest to learn more about his Jewish father’s harrowing journey to Australia as a Nazi refugee.
Sir Nicholas Stern is a man on a mission. As the author of the report that finally tipped the lid on the looming catastrophic consequences of unchecked climate change, Stern has become - along with former US vice-president Al Gore - the very public champion of the global push for a cleaner and greener environment.
Having sold his message across the world, the former chief economist at the World Bank was in Australia last week to meet with a government that has largely been deaf to the warnings of a warming planet.
Jewish National Fund woos green advocate for climate-change group
THE Jewish National Fund (JNF) has approached leading climate-change advocate Sir Nicholas Stern to spearhead a push by the agency to become a world leader in the fight against global warming.
The JNF is looking to set up an international board of scientific advisers on climate change and wants Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank, to be one of its experts.
Stern’s much-publicised report last year on the likely economic impact of climate change spelled out the catastrophic consequences of unchecked global warming, highlighting climate change as one of the major challenges confronting governments across the world.
Forecast: Stern on the way
Rarely has a report landed with greater weight than Stern’s 700-page review of the economics of climate change. His conclusion – that doing nothing to stop global warming will prove far more costly to the global economy than taking measures in the next 10 to 15 years to fight it – transformed the terms of the debate.
Governments from Belgium to Bangladesh lined up to endorse it. His speech was the hot ticket at this year’s Davos World Economic Forum. He has spoken in the United States and China – the world’s two highest carbon dioxide emitters – and in India.
He has also earnt that dubious badge of British fame: having tabloid journalists grill his neighbours in search of dirt and print bogus stories about the price of his house. The private man in a grey suit has become what British Environment Secretary David Miliband calls the “international rock star of climate change”.
Climate skeptics love to wail on “ultra-liberal”, Al Gore for “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH”… the “real” inconvenient truth is, Al Gore is just the punching bag – FIVE Jews actually made the movie…
From director Davis Guggenheim comes the Sundance Film Festival hit, ‘AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH’
Featuring Al Gore, the film is produced by Laurie David, Lawrence Bender and Scott Z. Burns. Jeff Skoll and Davis Guggenheim are the executive producers and the co-producer is Leslie Chilcott. http://www.climatecrisis.net/aboutthefilm/
We’ve already established there IS an agenda, one way or the other. The question is, are the “people” pushing this agenda ACTUALLY so concerned about the environment and humanity? The criticism is rightly deserved when they constantly appear at the head of all these issues.
Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution–And How It Can Renew America
is a book by New York Times Foreign Affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman
Lieberman key player on global warming
Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000 pushes landmark bill
Henry Waxman – With the Democrats’ victory in the 2006 midterm elections, Waxman became chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the principal investigative committee of the House. He was the committee’s ranking Democrat from 1997 to 2007. In 2009, he will begin serving as the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as a result of defeating former chairman John Dingell in a 137-122 secret vote of House Democrats on November 20, 2008.
Division of congressional posts seems to favor Jewish issues
Most Jews ever set to enter Congress
“It’s unprecedented that there have been so many [Jews] in so many positions of leadership in both houses,” Bloomfield said, using a Jewish simile for how that fact will affect support for Israel: Like chicken soup, it won’t hurt.
Given that 98% of America (or the world for that matter), ISN’T Jewish – I would hope more people would seriously question what it means that the “division of congressional posts” seems to favor such a narrow group of people. One might say it doesn’t matter… if thats so, they would have just called them “American issues”. They appear to be actively promoting the very “conspiracies” that are charged to anti-Semites.
Good for them that everyone is too PA (pansy-ass) to talk about it openly.
When they say – “It’s unprecedented that there have been so many [Jews] in so many positions of leadership in both houses”– I guess your just supposed to go to your “happy place” and watch in awe as their brilliance elevates us from the brink of despair?
Here are some helpful affirmations…
Top Bush White House posts go to Jews
“He is simply appointing the best people for the job,” said Nathan Diament, who heads the Washington office of the Orthodox Union. Another Jewish activist added that he “wouldn’t read too much into it.”
Iraq: Pro-‘surge’ group is almost all Jewish
Brooks said it would be a mistake to regard the group as having a Jewish direction. “It’s a coincidence that several of the board members are Jewish,” he said… http://jta.org/news/article/2007/08/24/103795/adelsonsembler
So when you more closely examine ALL of Obama’s financial appointees for instance…
Timothy Geithner - Secretary, U.S. Treasury Department
Lawrence Summers - Chairman, National Economic Council
Paul Volcker - Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Jon Leibowitz - Chairman, Federal Trade Commision (FTC)
Jared Bernstein - Chief Economist and Economic Adviser, Vice President
Peter Orszag - Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Gary Gensler - Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Mary Schapiro - Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Sheila Bair - Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Karen Mills - Administrator, Small Business Administration (SBA)
(not to mention Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and Ben Bernake)
… simply repeat the provided affirmation-- “He is simply appointing the best people for the job,” said Nathan Diament, who heads the Washington office of the Orthodox Union. Another Jewish activist added that he “wouldn’t read too much into it.”
[i]"The Jew has been too long accustomed to think himself as exclusively the claimant on the humanitarianism of society; society has a large claim against him that he cease his exclusiveness, that he cease exploiting the world, that he cease making Jewish groups the end and all of his gains, and that he begins to fulfill, in a sense his exclusiveness has never yet enabled him to fulfill, the ancient prophecy he boasts that through him all the nations of the earth should be blessed.
The Jew cannot go on forever fulfilling the role of suppliant for the world’s humanitarianism, he must himself show that quality to a society which seriously suspects his higher and more powerful groups of exploiting it with a pitiless rapacity, which in its wide-flung and long-drawnout distress may be described as an economic program against a rather helpless humanity."[/i]
–Henry Ford
[/quote]
Excellent post! For some reason, we’ve always been good at handling money. I think old man Ford recanted later in life, btw.
I would add that a lot of Jews perk up if you say or do something that most Gentiles wouldn’t know (like about sitting shiva). Its like a club. I don’t think most Jews are like the one in the links but I DO know that if you give a Jew a lot of money he’ll often use it to some end, rather than enjoying it. Kinda fucking sad.
Let’s take your first claim of how every Obama financial appointee is a Joo, you say:
What is your evidence that the #1 person on your list, Timothy Geithner, is Jewish?
(As opposed to, raised Episcopalian and married in a United Church of Christ ceremony, and presently not observant of anything.)
Can you support it except from linking to some “Joos are the source of all evil and control the world” website?
Or going to your third choice – your second is actually correct – what about Volcker?
With a Lutheran mother and an Episcopalian father, your claim seems unlikely and I’m pretty sure you can’t substantiate it except by linking to a nutjob site that in fact does not substantiate the claim.
Overall I’m not going to debate you on this – I’m just pointing out, via this point, that what you post is more than slightly tinged.