'EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES MUST BE SUBJECTED TO INVENTORY' - Pelosi said! [modified]
-
How about a link to this that isn't a youtube video or a google video? I'd like some context first.
wolfbinary wrote:
How about a link to this
Oh sorry about that. I got caught up in it. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLcZ2jQ4mu4rd7XlB3hetiVn1qbAD98F32AG0[^]
-
How about a link to this that isn't a youtube video or a google video? I'd like some context first.
-
"I do see this opportunity for climate change to be ... a game-changer," she said at Tsinghua. "It's a place where human rights — looking out for the needs of the poor in terms of climate change and healthy environment — are a human right." So in her definition human rights means welfare for the poor when business and the 'rich' are being screwed by carbon taxes (Cap & Trade and what have you) In answering a question from a student about how Pelosi was going to get Americans to cut back on their carbon emissions, the leading Democratic lawmaker said it was important to educate children on how to conserve energy Which means get children to believe all their lies and bullshit. "We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." This makes my NWO conspiracy sound real to non-believers doesn't it? Think about how 20 years from now technology will be used against us. We probably don't have to wait that long. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLcZ2jQ4mu4rd7XlB3hetiVn1qbAD98F32AG0[^]
modified on Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:36 AM
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
"We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." This makes my NWO conspiracy sound real to non-believers doesn't it?
No, it is the same crap it has always been. Let's try to look at Pelosi's comment from a non-paranoid perspective. Let's suppose that she sincerely believes that CO2 emissions are damaging the planet. After all, many scientists claim that is the case. Is it a stretch to think that a lot of people believe what the scientists tell them? Surely not. Given the belief that CO2 emissions are damaging the planet, does it not follow that one would wish to identify the ways in which people are adding to CO2 emissions and the ways in which it may be possible to avoid it? And wouldn't you want to identify this comprehensively? It may not be (and probably isn't) obvious which activities contribute most to CO2 emissions and how CO2 emissions may be minimized. We need reliable information. The non-paranoid would interpret Pelosi as saying just that, and there is nothing intrinsically sinister about it.
John Carson
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
"We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." This makes my NWO conspiracy sound real to non-believers doesn't it?
No, it is the same crap it has always been. Let's try to look at Pelosi's comment from a non-paranoid perspective. Let's suppose that she sincerely believes that CO2 emissions are damaging the planet. After all, many scientists claim that is the case. Is it a stretch to think that a lot of people believe what the scientists tell them? Surely not. Given the belief that CO2 emissions are damaging the planet, does it not follow that one would wish to identify the ways in which people are adding to CO2 emissions and the ways in which it may be possible to avoid it? And wouldn't you want to identify this comprehensively? It may not be (and probably isn't) obvious which activities contribute most to CO2 emissions and how CO2 emissions may be minimized. We need reliable information. The non-paranoid would interpret Pelosi as saying just that, and there is nothing intrinsically sinister about it.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The non-paranoid would interpret Pelosi as saying just that, and there is nothing intrinsically sinister about it.
except that: she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." flies in the face of the 4th amendment [^]to our Constituition, unless of course she can inventoy every aspect of our lives through mere navel gazing.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
"We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." This makes my NWO conspiracy sound real to non-believers doesn't it?
No, it is the same crap it has always been. Let's try to look at Pelosi's comment from a non-paranoid perspective. Let's suppose that she sincerely believes that CO2 emissions are damaging the planet. After all, many scientists claim that is the case. Is it a stretch to think that a lot of people believe what the scientists tell them? Surely not. Given the belief that CO2 emissions are damaging the planet, does it not follow that one would wish to identify the ways in which people are adding to CO2 emissions and the ways in which it may be possible to avoid it? And wouldn't you want to identify this comprehensively? It may not be (and probably isn't) obvious which activities contribute most to CO2 emissions and how CO2 emissions may be minimized. We need reliable information. The non-paranoid would interpret Pelosi as saying just that, and there is nothing intrinsically sinister about it.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Is it a stretch to think that a lot of people believe what the scientists tell them?
Unfortunately not.
John Carson wrote:
The non-paranoid would interpret Pelosi as saying just that, and there is nothing intrinsically sinister about it.
Yeah right, government categorizing and inventory of every aspect of our lives. That doesn't require much more of an explanation.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
"We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." This makes my NWO conspiracy sound real to non-believers doesn't it?
No, it is the same crap it has always been. Let's try to look at Pelosi's comment from a non-paranoid perspective. Let's suppose that she sincerely believes that CO2 emissions are damaging the planet. After all, many scientists claim that is the case. Is it a stretch to think that a lot of people believe what the scientists tell them? Surely not. Given the belief that CO2 emissions are damaging the planet, does it not follow that one would wish to identify the ways in which people are adding to CO2 emissions and the ways in which it may be possible to avoid it? And wouldn't you want to identify this comprehensively? It may not be (and probably isn't) obvious which activities contribute most to CO2 emissions and how CO2 emissions may be minimized. We need reliable information. The non-paranoid would interpret Pelosi as saying just that, and there is nothing intrinsically sinister about it.
John Carson
The premise is wrong to begin with. Any dictator can say "c02 is destroying the planet therefore...", "for the common good, therefore..." "therefore".. coming from the mouth of someone who has the power execute what she says, needs to be paid some attention.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
How about a link to this
Oh sorry about that. I got caught up in it. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLcZ2jQ4mu4rd7XlB3hetiVn1qbAD98F32AG0[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I got caught up in it.
Wow. Now there's an understatement. :cool:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
The premise is wrong to begin with. Any dictator can say "c02 is destroying the planet therefore...", "for the common good, therefore..." "therefore".. coming from the mouth of someone who has the power execute what she says, needs to be paid some attention.
kmg365 wrote:
Any dictator can say "c02 is destroying the planet therefore...", "for the common good, therefore..."
1. Pelosi is not a dictator. She is the duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. 2. People can say what they like, but they can't get the scientific community to agree with them (unless they really have a dictatorial power that Pelosi certainly lacks). Having that agreement makes a difference.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
The non-paranoid would interpret Pelosi as saying just that, and there is nothing intrinsically sinister about it.
except that: she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." flies in the face of the 4th amendment [^]to our Constituition, unless of course she can inventoy every aspect of our lives through mere navel gazing.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
except that: she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." flies in the face of the 4th amendment [^]to our Constituition, unless of course she can inventoy every aspect of our lives through mere navel gazing.
If by "mere navel gazing" you mean people taking inventory of their own lives, then that is certainly one reasonable interpretation of Pelosi's remarks. Another is that she is talking about scientific studies of a few willing subjects from which population data may be estimated, as per standard scientific practice. The interpretation that she is proposing close monitoring of the daily lives of every resident strikes me as certainly false.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
Is it a stretch to think that a lot of people believe what the scientists tell them?
Unfortunately not.
John Carson wrote:
The non-paranoid would interpret Pelosi as saying just that, and there is nothing intrinsically sinister about it.
Yeah right, government categorizing and inventory of every aspect of our lives. That doesn't require much more of an explanation.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Yeah right, government categorizing and inventory of every aspect of our lives. That doesn't require much more of an explanation.
Yeah, it does. Suppose you are right and Pelosi really does care about what color pajamas you wear, wildly improbable though that is. Surely she would never admit it. She would know it is political poison. Accordingly, it is not reasonable to expect her to admit it, even if it is true. That it is not reasonable to interpret her remarks as an admission. She must have meant something else.
John Carson
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
except that: she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." flies in the face of the 4th amendment [^]to our Constituition, unless of course she can inventoy every aspect of our lives through mere navel gazing.
If by "mere navel gazing" you mean people taking inventory of their own lives, then that is certainly one reasonable interpretation of Pelosi's remarks. Another is that she is talking about scientific studies of a few willing subjects from which population data may be estimated, as per standard scientific practice. The interpretation that she is proposing close monitoring of the daily lives of every resident strikes me as certainly false.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The interpretation that she is proposing close monitoring of the daily lives of every resident strikes me as certainly false
The gov already monitors communications. You know that don't you?
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Yeah right, government categorizing and inventory of every aspect of our lives. That doesn't require much more of an explanation.
Yeah, it does. Suppose you are right and Pelosi really does care about what color pajamas you wear, wildly improbable though that is. Surely she would never admit it. She would know it is political poison. Accordingly, it is not reasonable to expect her to admit it, even if it is true. That it is not reasonable to interpret her remarks as an admission. She must have meant something else.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
She would know it is political poison.
You're with it, she doesn't need to hide it because so many people are with it. Its the transparency O was talking about
-
kmg365 wrote:
Any dictator can say "c02 is destroying the planet therefore...", "for the common good, therefore..."
1. Pelosi is not a dictator. She is the duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. 2. People can say what they like, but they can't get the scientific community to agree with them (unless they really have a dictatorial power that Pelosi certainly lacks). Having that agreement makes a difference.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
She is the duly elected Speaker
Right she is the speaker. she speaks for them. She tells everyone what they are going to do or want to do.
John Carson wrote:
but they can't get the scientific community to agree with them
If they pay them enough money they can.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
except that: she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." flies in the face of the 4th amendment [^]to our Constituition, unless of course she can inventoy every aspect of our lives through mere navel gazing.
If by "mere navel gazing" you mean people taking inventory of their own lives, then that is certainly one reasonable interpretation of Pelosi's remarks. Another is that she is talking about scientific studies of a few willing subjects from which population data may be estimated, as per standard scientific practice. The interpretation that she is proposing close monitoring of the daily lives of every resident strikes me as certainly false.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The interpretation that she is proposing close monitoring of the daily lives of every resident strikes me as certainly false.
I would hope you're right.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
John Carson wrote:
The interpretation that she is proposing close monitoring of the daily lives of every resident strikes me as certainly false.
I would hope you're right.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I would hope you're right.
Right, just sit back and hope the change isn't coming when you have the government telling china its right around the corner.
-
John Carson wrote:
She is the duly elected Speaker
Right she is the speaker. she speaks for them. She tells everyone what they are going to do or want to do.
John Carson wrote:
but they can't get the scientific community to agree with them
If they pay them enough money they can.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
If they pay them enough money they can.
It's not called payment, but research grants. :suss:
You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you. - John Simmons / outlaw programmer.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
except that: she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." flies in the face of the 4th amendment [^]to our Constituition, unless of course she can inventoy every aspect of our lives through mere navel gazing.
If by "mere navel gazing" you mean people taking inventory of their own lives, then that is certainly one reasonable interpretation of Pelosi's remarks. Another is that she is talking about scientific studies of a few willing subjects from which population data may be estimated, as per standard scientific practice. The interpretation that she is proposing close monitoring of the daily lives of every resident strikes me as certainly false.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The interpretation that she is proposing close monitoring of the daily lives of every resident strikes me as certainly false.
Later, you suggest that she realises that a blatant statement of her intention to gain more knowledge about how everyone in the U.S. lives would be political poison. I agree. CSS makes the mistake of assuming she is as stupid as he is. On the other hand, because her words are subject to interpretation and can be spun as wholly innocuous but do not have to be taken that way AND because we are talking about a far left politician who has already demonstrated that she believes in the government having great power over its citizens, the possibility that she means exactly what Mike thinks she means approaches nine nines, in my estimation.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
kmg365 wrote:
Any dictator can say "c02 is destroying the planet therefore...", "for the common good, therefore..."
1. Pelosi is not a dictator. She is the duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. 2. People can say what they like, but they can't get the scientific community to agree with them (unless they really have a dictatorial power that Pelosi certainly lacks). Having that agreement makes a difference.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Pelosi is not a dictator. She is the duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives
John, "dictator" is latin for "speaker." ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
If they pay them enough money they can.
It's not called payment, but research grants. :suss:
You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you. - John Simmons / outlaw programmer.
Brady Kelly wrote:
It's not called payment, but research grants.
I know. The money is good, all they have to do is spin the truth a little bit.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I would hope you're right.
Right, just sit back and hope the change isn't coming when you have the government telling china its right around the corner.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Right, just sit back and hope the change isn't coming when you have the government telling china its right around the corner.
and what are you doing other than posting here? I'm involved locally and nationally via several different groups and efforts to push back against much of the crap that is going on.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.