and bloggers respond (add yours below):
This is a time to fight. This is a time to stand up. We do not give up. We do not roll over. America is too great of a nation to fall prey to the evils of Socialism. America is too great to roll over to the tyranny of abortion. America is too great to turn in her freedoms for false promises of "prosperity", "change" and "hope"
RightWingNews - You may not read another nice word from me about Barack Obama over the next four years, but today, I'm going to congratulate him, the Democratic Party, and the netroots.
America Rejects Big Government Republicanism
Mr. Obama: Can you make the case for the protection of innocent life in every stage, and face down those who demand the power to kill?
Yes you can.
Welcoming the Culture of Death with Open Arms
The Anchoress - Good luck ... When you’re sworn in, you’ll have my respect, too. It won’t be uncritical - not that you’ll care what this little blogger thinks, for as long as bloggers continue to run free - but I will manage to be respectful and fair, which is more than most lefty bloggers managed for President Bush, so you’re already ahead of the game.
Dr. Melissa - Oh the humanity! Well, I for one want to congratulate President Obama and his voters. He ran well. It is my sincere hope that he’ll preside well.
A very disappointing evening for myself and my family. I fear for this nation more than ever before.
Obama WON! That means our country is going to change in soooo many ways. He is going to make changes for the better in our economy and our country. I have complete confidence in him and knowing he will do so much for all of the different classes of people, not just the members of the higher class. I mean who wants someone leading our country that when asked how many homes he owns he replies basically saying that he doesn't know..TWICE! Thank you Barack for having faith in our country and being willing enough to take a chance on us. We all wish you such GREAT LUCK in your presidency!
Supporting partial birth abortion = Barack Obama
Good job America! The devil is prevailing as we speak!
Maybe I should quit my job so I can reap the benefits that so many others are going to reap under Obama's plan. No, that's right. If the honest, hard-working class quit their jobs, why, where will the money come from to support the lazy, socialistic class? (sarcasm)
Work, work hard, do things the honest way, make carefully planned sound decisions = get punished by having to pay higher taxes
Make poor decisions, take opportunities for granted, be lazy, be sorry, be socialistic = reap the benefits from all the taxes the hard-working people will provide for you
Ponder this:
- A 20 year old with 2 children who is already on medicaid wants to get her tubes tied to avoid having more children and to avoid being a bigger burden on the hard-working tax payers - The results? She is denied. She was told she must be 21 to make this decision. What happened? She ended up getting pregnant for a third time by "accident" and became a heavier burden on the tax payers.
- A 16 year old girl gets pregnant. She wants an abortion at 20 weeks pregnant! She is able to get the abortion without the consent of her parents or the consent of anyone else for that matter! That same 16 year old girl could show up in an emergency room needing some sort of surgery and be denied until her parents can arrive to approve the surgery!
- A married woman gets pregnant, but didn't want to have children yet, although her husband did. She decides she wants to get an abortion. He begs her not to and tells her that it's his baby too. She says to herself, "Oh well." The father of this little baby contacted an attorney only to find that he has no say in whether his son or daughter will live or die. The next day she goes to the doctor and gets an abortion. This same woman could have chosen to have the baby and force the father to provide child support for a baby that he didn't even have a say in whether it would live or die!
What about the voice of the unborn?
The wealthiest of Americans will now pay taxes like all of us. Your first comments were about money, not abortion, this speaks volumes!
Gotta find something to nit pick, huh?
First of all, my "order" in which I wrote about taxes and abortion have no relevance. As they say, "last, but certainly not least". But if you want to get technical about it, I believe my first comment was "Supporting partial birth abortion = Barack Obama". Furthermore, if I had written about abortion first, according to your idea of "first", would you still have thought that to have "spoken volumes" as well? I think not. You'd have just thought of something else to say!
Second, the wealthy HAVE been paying taxes! And not just the wealthy. But just an average middle class family as well. Where in the world do you think all the money comes from to provide pregnancy medicaid, medicaid for children, food stamps, etc.?
I personally know a woman who has medicaid for all three of her children and food stamps, and her and her boyfriend live together both working "under the table".
I also know another girl who has 3 children, all on medicaid, and they receive food stamps. When she got married for the second time, she failed to inform social services. Because of this, she is still receiving food stamps because social services thinks there is only 1 income in the home when there are actually 2.
These cases are just a few examples of the many, many, many people abusing the welfare system which is why hard-working, tax-paying citizens like myself feel the resentment we do. I am perfectly fine with my tax dollars supporting welfare for people who HONESTLY deserve and/or need it. But the truth is, so, so many people who have welfare DON'T need it and DON'T deserve it. Prime example, a lady at the hospital tried to convince me to sign up for medicaid when I went in to register to have my baby who was born last year (my husband was the only one working at the time and she said our income level would qualify). Now, so many people would have been like,
"Well if I qualify, then yeah I'll take it! It's free!"
First of all, NOTHING is EVER free. SOMEONE is ALWAYS paying the price. We opted to not take the pregnancy medicaid offered to us because we felt that if there was a way we could pay for our own medical bills, then it was our duty to do so in order to not contribute to the massive abuse already going on in the welfare system. (Almost a year later, we are still paying on this. So long as we pay something every month, no matter the amount, it will never go against our credit. I feel better knowing that my son's mother and father paid for him to be born, not strangers' tax dollars!) We also opted to pay for our son's health insurance out of pocket, instead of taking the medicaid that we qualified for and was also offered (it's like they're trying to advocate welfare and give it away or something...this disgusts me!) My son's health insurance costs us $237 a month! Yes, it's hard, but with sacrifice, it's not impossible. (That's right, people of this day and time think they shouldn't have to sacrifice, wait, have patience, etc. Instead they are impulsive and impatient, and believe they should be able to have whatever they want RIGHT NOW instead of waiting to save for it like our elders once did.) I know people on welfare who go out to eat all the time, have cable/satellite, cell phones, internet, smoke, drink, go clubbing, etc. Again, just a few reasons why there is so much resentment felt by so many people. We clearly see how many people are abusing the system, and the truth is, if the system was used appropriately, our taxes wouldn't be so high, and the taxes that we would pay, we wouldn't resent paying because we'd know they were for HONEST causes.
But FYI, it wasn't Barack's support of abortion in general, but his support of partial birth abortion that was my main deciding factor in this election. Outside of this factor, I may very well have voted for him regardless of taxes.
Support of abortion up to 20 weeks is bad enough, but support of partial birth abortion! I could not in good conscience vote for someone who supports partial birth abortion! By the way, I got that information directly from his own mouth from his last LIVE debate, not hear say from some ad.
Who wants a president who supports partial birth abortion?
Who wants a president who doesn't know when a human being's life begins?
Ann, the wealthiest of Americans are taxed at--and pay-- a higher tax rate than the wealthiest of any other nation. Check your facts. The top 5%, those wealthy Americans Obama plans to tax more, already pay 40% to 60% of federal income taxes, a percentage higher than their proportion of total income. The wealthy are already paying more in proportion to what they make, than anyone else.
The top 10% income-earners in the U.S. already carry 71% of the country's tax burden.
Also "When all sources of income are included -- wages, salaries, realized capital gains, dividends, business income and government benefits -- and taxes paid are deducted, households in the lowest income quintile saw a roughly 25% increase in their living standards from 1983 to 2005." SOURCE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143692536934297.html
The political right in this country is a farce and a sham that pander to zelots (such as those here). How do you know these people are against abortion? because a politician says so...right. No president Republican or Democrat has made a run at Roe vs. Wade since its inception.
There claim is that they want to protect the unborn child yet cut government funding for childrens healthcare, education and other social programs. Why are you people not worried about the children once they are born? is it because "thou shall not starve and let die" is not a commandment. Why is this the only time in a child's life that people want to protect it?
Maybe it's out of sight out of mind or maybe because standing up against these injustices would seem "too Liberal" and everyone knows that religion and conservatism are synonomis, So walk the party line but remember the child you save today your vote may harm tommorrow.
Did you know about the heinous way unborn children are murdered by partial birth abortion?
They puncture the back of the skull and suck the brain out and deliver the rest of the baby.
This had to be stopped.
Not to mention that these pro-abortionists can only use as an argument are ad hominem attacks or ignoring what abortion. Abortion is a grosteque procedure destroying the unborn human being limb from limb. Then, these people lie and say that we don't care about helping people. The truth is that real Pro-Lifers support healthcare, education, and many social programs. We just believe that the government run all of the assistance programs. Also, we do worry about children after their born. That's another lie. Pro-Lifers are across the political spectrum, so it's a big lie to assume that pro-lifers in general don't care about welfare of children.
Also no one in their right mind accepts the premise of starving people to death. How, about "Thou shalt not covet" should be phrase some people should learn about economic policy. That's the only thing pro-abortionists can come up. Frankily, I do believe in charity, assistance, and other means to help the unborn and children.
Also, no one is walking the Party line. Many pro-lifers have criticized both major parties for not addressing real concerns about Prolife. It's really out of sight and out of mind to see people justify forcing taxpayers to fund abortions here and abroad, to support partial birth abortion, to suck up to radical abortionists, and ignore the dangerous side effects of abortion completely.
Sorry, I don't care if the child will vote against me policy wise or not. I just want the child the same fundamental right to life you enjoy David P. You want to live, yet you want someone to deny others their God-given right to live on this Earth.
I mean to say that we don't believe that the government should run all programs to help children after their born.
David P, you are way off base with your attacks here, and sadly it isn't the first time we've been victims of what the media wants you to think about all who are prolife folks. More like the thousandth time.
We DO NOT just support a baby's well-being when it's in the womb and you prove that you don't think for yourself but just listen to your own zealots who tell you that we don't give a damn about them once they're born. We do MORE THAN "worry about the children once they are born", we HELP THEM, every day. What the hell do YOU do to help them??
Go read how we give a damn and help families after they decide not have an abortion. Go look at the photos of the babies we helped live and how happy they are with their families.
Go read about the Down Syndrome baby we helped live because so many of our readers wanted to adopt the child instead of letting the baby be aborted!
Go read about the thousands of groups giving away free clothes, food, diapers, and many kinds of assistance--all without govt. taxpayer dollars--unlike Planned Parenthood which takes millions of our money to help abort them. They don't take money to give healthcare, they take money to FUND MORE ABORTIONS.
Go read how we analyzed PP's Annual Report and found this out.
Open your closed eyes and mind, for God's sake!
We are against abortion, many of us who HAD one and came to severely regret it, and it isn't because some politician told us to be, or told the press that we are. Good Lord, what an ignorant statement to make!
"THESE PEOPLE" and "YOU PEOPLE" show your condescension and judgmentalism of us. Get your head out of your arse, David P. You're the one being duped into thinking we don't give a crap.
Why is it that YOU only want to snuff out a child's life by supporting abortion and the abortion industry? By voting for BO, that's just what you've done.
FOR YOU, it is "out of sight out of mind", once these children are aborted, you don't have to pay money to help them anymore. "More for the rest of us that managed to escape being aborted" is what we could accuse you of.
I wonder how old you are. College age? 20s? 30? Congratulations! YOU escaped abortion. One-third of your generation, if that's you, DIDN'T.
So YOU do the same thing you accuse us of: "walk the party line". What hypocrisy. Maybe YOU ought to remember that the child you helped abort today won't be around to be either harmed or helped by your vote tommorrow.
Talk about having self-righteous, pandering blindness. You just displayed all that in spades.
Well said Annie B.!
So David P., what's your response to Annie B.?
You probably already know this, but Democrats around the country have been trying to shut down crisis pregnancy centers. The former governor of NY, Elliot Spitzer, became a hero among liberals because of his nasty attacks on CPCs. And Obama has pledged that no federal money will make it to CPC's when he's president.
How awful! You would think they would leave them in operation to help these children. I don't understand their logic in this at all.
Yes, Lou, we outed these shameless attacks on our blog two years ago, and a year before that, and about how this effort has been going on for over 7 years. In 2006, we warned folks to "beware of abortion clinics posing as pro-life crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). At least three abortion clinics in New York have advertised themselves as "Abortion Alternatives" in vying for The Unmitigated Gall Award of the Century. They're now being sued to make them stop it."
Imagine that: they attacked CPCs accusing them of misleading women and then turned around and did it themselves!
We outed their attempts in this post which links to all the previous outings of their attempts in prior posts.
Pro-choice folks, honestly, go read them all. Have your eyes opened.
This is why we can say that "pro-choice" really means, more often than not, "pro-abortion." If they were really so pro-choice, they'd not try to shut down CPCs which offer women a damn choice.
The abortion lobby is so powerful in this country, this is what they can TRY to do. They will continue to fail though.
And Linda, they have no logic in this. Only greed, hate and selfishness. There are a lot of well-paid people in NARAL and Planned Parenthood, I'm talking $400,000 a year at the top, and they don't want to lose their well-paying phony-baloney jobs.
WOW, Annie someone has some anger issues, among others. You claim you guy care about children, but I didn't see you guys marching spewing your hatred when the President vetoed the childrens healthcare initiative or protesting a war where innocent childen are cconsidered collateral damage maybe if there were some teenage girls there to terrorize you could have shown up. As far as opening my eyes and mind, I personally don't agree with abortion, but I also don't agree with imposing my views upon others. When someone else has to go to hell for my sins then they can tell me what to do. If you don't like it have Roe v. Wade overturned but as long as it's legal leave people alone that's something they have to live with.
Here's a tip, stop with the anger, the grotesque stories/pictures the fake pregnacy assistance programs and try compassion, compassion to the mother not just the fetus. Obviously your "the ends justifies the means" policy isn't working because for every 1 girl that turns away another 10 walk in and I know that's 1 baby saved or is it? Did she go back? Did she go to another clinic? you don't know.
The one thing I find so amazing is that you would tell me to open my eye and mind and yet you seem to be the one who can't see all the harm that is being done to unborn and born children right under your nose such as drinking, smoking and drug use during pregnacy, yet I don't see you guys out there displaying pictures of a premie crack babies in the inner cities.
I guess objectivity is to much to ask considering most of the aggresive pro-lifers are either sheltered ultra religious or are trying to right a wrong and take this as their self appointed mission in life instead of trying to make the world a better place as a whole
Amen Dave! Thank you from millions. Annie, anger is eating you up. I'll pray for you.
I don't agree with unnecessary anger. Yet, to criticize many pro lifers as promoting fake images and promoting fake crisis centers is a lie. Pro lifers who are strong have readily shown ration policies to help society for a long time. We Pro Lifer do show compassion unto the mother and the unborn human being. That's the essence of being pro life. Pro-Lifers exist in many backgrounds, many creeds, and other walks of life. Also, many of us don't agree with Bush on every since issue.
Many of us are truly anti-war disagreeing with the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. Tons of pro-lifers have protested against wars and seeked healthcare for children. To assume otherwise is a notorious life. We just believe in health freedom or that the government shouldn't control all facets of our health care. Being prolife isn't about terrorizing teenage girls at all. Being pro life is about compassion, understanding the murder of abortion, and being active to help society in constructive ways. It's speaking our minds and not becoming ashamed of our beliefs at all. Leave people alone? Roe is the essence of destroying people. NO, we have a First Amendment right to express our views. Roe is about messing with people and killing people. It's as simple as that.
The other comments are silly lies as well. Many pro lifers have exposed drug abuse, premies, and other children suffering for decades in America. Your characterization of strong pro-lifers as extremism is the essence of your incorrect opinions about pro-lifers.
How many people realize that Obama has promised many times to escalate the war in Afghanistan? He's not really anti-war. He's pro-war, just different wars.
I realize it Lou. It's annoying to heard the Kool Aid drinkers say pro-lifers are pro-war. I was against the Iraq War since 2003. Pro-Lifers are not monolithic on war at all.
LINDA...what do you fear?
LISA: no Obama does not want nor favor partial-birth abortions...listen again and go back and listen to his other talks.
Right about the prevailing evil, Bush is still President!
Money: yes those making more should pay more, proposal is to put tax back to pre-Bush is all, 3% more on net above 250,000....so on $300,000, added would be 1500.
No, not all folks making under $250,000 are lazy and refuse to take opportunities. Most are hard working people. Lots of folks have health problems, are older, may even have to stay home and care for children.
Complaining about folks on welfare is crap...turn them in if you really believe they are cheating, otherwise, shut up! But why blame Obama because you travel in such circles? Who are you associating with anyway...sounds like everyone taking the system!
People are dieing in the Congo, little kids can't find parents in refugee camps (I'd guess you'd complain they were welfare cheaters too). People are starving, little girls are being raped by drunken soldiers....where is our fearless leader BUSH? Care to guess how many of those kids will get pregnant? Want to deny the 12 year old an abortion?
Are there any "honest causes" left we want to pay taxes for? No bid contractors in Iraq maybe? An illegal war in Iraq? Afghanistan? A prison in Gitmo detaining and mistreating the innocent? Money thrown at Pakistan for help not received? No child left behind...when most were? Maybe just a bridge to nowhere? How about $150,000 worth of clothes for Palin when many kids worldwide have little to eat?
Prolife folks are many times pro Roe v Wade. But life exists outside the woumb as well. Millions starve worldwide and what some fail to realize is that the earth is overpopulated. We are just one good plant killing disease away from disaster because of the way we grow our food.
Obama wants education to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and he wants women to have their rights protected also.
If you'd quit the hate campaign and work with the new government, maybe we can all win. If we don't solve the economic crisis where we are losing thousands of jobs weekly, who will feed the babies?
Roe v. Wade didn't create abortion. They've gone on since the beginning. It just took them off the streets. The problem of preventing unwanted pregnancies exists....help solve that, be constructive. Calling names won't help anyone.
Bush pretended to be pro life then went out and killed hundreds of thousands of people. Obama says he wants to slow down abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies and you bitch.
The many words shown by many pro-abortionists are easily answered. We've addressed these points on plenty of occasions. The world is not overpopulated. That is a Malthusian lie promoted by many elitists. The truth is that 6 billion people worldwide can fit in the state of Texas given 1,000 sq. ft. each. You can say the Earth in some places are overcrowded or that we have a long way to go in helping the environment. Yet, the Earth is not overpopulated at all. There is an underpopulation crisis in Russia, Korea, Western Europe, and other places globally. ONly 46% of the earth's surface is untouched wilderness according to Conservation International's own study. Even the UN depict that world population levels will level off at 9 billion and decline by 2050. True modernization level population growth off. It's extremists like Eric Pianka who believe that the world population is overgrowing just like Paul Elrich. Paul was descredited by his errors. What's needed to help the Third World is modernization, growth, development, etc. I don't agree with population fear mongering.
Obama almost cried when the Supreme Court ruled that bans on partial-birth abortions are legal. He "strongly disagree(d)" with it. The statement is still on his campaing web site.
There is one unifying issue among Democrats, the make-believe right to kill pre-born, partially-born, and in Obama's case, fully born babies. They are the party of death.
50 million dead and they haven't had enough.
TIMOTHY: Of course the earth isn't overpopulated and it's flat too, right?
If you put people into an area, packing them into 1,000 sf each then where do you produce:
- food?
- clean water?
- building materials?
- power even for heating?
- hospitals?
- room for waste?
- schools?
I could pack mice or rats in there, but not for long...you do remember how Oxygen is produced don't you....ah, those trees and the space they take....and yes, no birds, flowers, or other animals.....Are you nuts?
Modernization? Use of more fossil fuels like oil and coal (you are aware of the Chinese problem) equals more global warming...water is running under the Antartic glaciers pushing them into the sea speeding melting and if Greenland sheds its ice, bingo, sea level goes up 23 feet....goodbye island nations, coastlines, and New York City and a lot of other things.
Yep, we are overpopulated and we are rapidly running out of clean water and with climate change of just one degree, farming requires a lot more water per acre.
But look up, population might level due to abortion, starvation, disease and wars fought over land and water and food.
To LOU: I think you are just a wind up toy that spews garbage without knowledge, so I'll ignore the repetitive whir........
NOtice how you haven't refuted a thing on why the Earth isn't overpopulated. Keep on changing the subject. I thank you for it. My example of 1,000 sq ft. was an example and not an actual plan for people. There's a big difference. That proves that the Earth isn't overpopulated and I've cited simple proof of that. You haven't refuted that. Also, I mention nothing of advancing permanent fossil feul usage as a permament modernization solution at all.
TIMOTHY: What is the "that" which in only your narrow mind, "proves" the earth isn't overpopulated?
Everything I wrote proves not only is it overpopulated, starvation and lack of clean water and space, but that it is getting to be more and more of a problem.
Don't you read? Don't you comprehend the content of what you read? When people die because they have to utilize all the trees for fuel to cook or keep warm and therefore run out of places to grow food especially due to lack of water....it is called overpopulation.
If you take a herd of 100 cows, how many acres does it take to provide them with year around food and water and to manage waste? If you cannot answer that question, you've missed the point.
I pointed out the fallacy of your people with 1,000 sf and that they would have no food, water or schools, etc. And, you say it was only a "plan". With your kind of "planning", everyone would starve.
Better minds than ours have studied the population problem and assess it as a PROBLEM. Only because of abortion, starvation and disease is the population not growing faster.
You remind me of someone with limited knowledge trying to bury his head in the sand so he won't have to face the reality of what is really going on. Yes, the earth is overpopulated. Yes, there is global warming, and yes people are starving. Get used to it, it is a fact. You throw out "plans", then back off saying they aren't actual. A "plan" should have merit if you are using it as an argument, which you tried to do. But, yours had no merit.
So, the earth is overpopulated. If I put plants in my little jar and enough water, and things start to die, I can assume my little closed system has too little of something to sustain what I'm trying to grow in there. It is overpopulated with plants for the amount of resources needed to guarantee their sustainability. I.e. OVERPOPULATION. Same with earth: we don't have the means to provide the people on earth with what they all need to live (not always do you want to equate survival with living, think about it), and they die by the millions. That is proof.
Don't try the church crap about it just being that we don't have a supply system. Remember that takes a lot of fuel, and that causes global warming which means less food grown, etc. etc. etc. Please try to think it through and answer the questions. Instead of just closing your eyes and ears and saying no one has proven you wrong.....just about anyone can prove you wrong....but that isn't my intent. Just to wake you up and get you to investigate and read and think and learn is all.
Really, your words outline no refutation about my views at all. You only list hypothetical sceanarios all of time. Many of those sceanarios have nothing to do with the subject at all. Additionally, you use ad hominem attacks. Really, the truth of Barack Obama's policies being pro-war on terror wasn't refuted (along with his supporting of banning the commonsense Mexico City policy) by you. The truth about Obama supporting an expanded war in Afghanistan or Obama agreeing with the Patriot Act wasn't refuted by you. The truth about the real nature of abortion was definitely not refuted by you. Also, my evidence that the Earth isn't overpopulated, yet we have serious environmental issues wasn't refuted by you at all. You need to comprehend my words and comprehend your own words. With your run on sentences, I pretty much assume you will list the same diatribe. You have the nerve to lecture on grammar and basic comprehension, yet I see tons of grammar errors in all of your responses. I don't have a narrow mind at all. That's a lie. I study numerous subjects daily. If you say that again, you're a liar. You are already a big liar since you haven't used a single example to refute the overpopulation myth (despite claiming that you refuted the sources that I give). We need solutions to water problems, food problems, and other things. Yet, this doesn't involve agreeing with the lies of human overpopulation. The fact remains that Conservation International's own study revealed that 46% of the earth's surface is untouched wilderness and the UN predicts that population growth will level off at 9 billion and decline by 2050. You ignore a lot of information since that' typical of you. You especially ignore how underpopulation crises are coming about in Japan, North Korea, Western Europe, Russia, and other nations globally. That's a real problem.
Your comments about food and water signify environmental crises in the world, not that humans are overflowing the Earth's total land surface. There's a difference. Yet, you seem to not comprehend that difference. Not to mention, the 1,000 sq ft. example as I've mentioned was an example of how humans aren't overpopulated. It was never a solution to solve our environmental problems at all. Do you get that? I guess you don't since you use base emotion (not sources) to attempt to devise your responses. Anybody can prove you wrong. You've been proven wrong about Obama's radical abortion positions, about Obama's support for the status quo on many issues, and the Malthusian link to the overpopulation lie (that is promoted by the same elitists that many liberals rail against. These elitists include Prince Philip, Henry Kissinger, etc).
There's nothing more to say by me on this issue. I've made my points.
TIMOTHY; I see you are back to your name calling and telling people they lie, and being unable to discern fact from fiction. Too bad!
As to grammar: I'll hold mine to yours any day. I do a lot of writing and find it is well understood. I've overlooked some of your unfinished sentences, thinking English wasn't your first language. The problem is that when you don't finish a sentence, sometimes one doesn't know where you're headed.
A bit of definition: a fact can be proven, or at least references (real ones) cited for it.
Since you wander, let's keep it clear and on track. I'll number and reference this, and if you have the intestinal fortitude to answer, please stick to the numbers.
1. ad hominem attack....sorry you're insecure, but no one is attacking you as this implies. I have carefully shown how the world does and doesn't work in relation to your statements. It is you who keep calling me a liar. If you think so, show me one instance where I've lied.
2. (the following from your 11/15, 4:24 comments) You say: "the world is not overpopulated". "truth is 6 billion people worldwide can fit in the state of Texas given 1,000 square feet each.....earth is not overpopulated at all."
LOOK UP OVERPOPULATION It has little to do with standing room only....get it?
3. You say..."there is an underpopulation CRISIS in Russia, Korea....." Well, not in Korea, unless they have all starved in N. Korea by now. But, underpopulation is an artificial term and has nothing to do with the carrying capacity of the area. It might be a problem for things like Social Security where wage earners pay for the retired. Otherwise it is an economic idea for a country only. (ref UN, Wiki)
4. You mention the UN and world population leveling off in 2050 at 9 billion. Careful, it has been revised by them to about 9.5, and US is up there also. (ref UN, CIA)
5. You refer to Malthus and Paul Erlich. Well, both right as I pointed out above, famine, starvation you see, lack of water, and disease, just as he said are out there. Also, the only reason it didn't come big and fast was the "green revolution". But that depends on fossil fuels for fertilizers and brings with it the problem of genetic tinkering for plants. Like I said above, one big bug, rust, or whatever and a vast amount of the earth's food goes away. (these are statistical refutes in case you don't recognize them....look them up)
6. Areas of wilderness: Wildlife Conservation Society says 26%, UCN/UNEP says 10.9%....qualifications for WCS:
- 70% + more of original vegetation
- covers at least 3,861 Sq. miles
- fewer than 5 people per sq. kilometer
These include things like the tundra, taiga, Amazon rain Forest, Tibetan Plateau, Australian Outback, deserts like the Sahara and Gobi
Which means a lot of these places are not where man can live nor where he can grow his food. (ref W, CS)
7. So, including your 11/17 comments, you say I'm not refuting your views and what I say is hypothetical. For those mastering comprehension, I've refuted your view of Overpopulation and nothing I said was hypothetical.........
- glaciers are melting
- seas are rising, some areas are already covered in sea water
- Malthus was correct, and there has been and is mass starvation, millions of deaths due to that, war, lack of clean water and disease. That news is out there for anyone who can read.
8. "...Obama being pro-war on terror..." you had not mentioned it, but maybe you should define "terror". A drunken driver on the highway? Kill 20,000 plus a year in the US! Al Qaeda? Do their share of terrorizing.
" Obama supporting banning Mexico City Policy..." I spoke to that, go back and read it.(ref G, MCP)
"...Obama agreeing with Patriot Act..." think you said FISA, not the same.
" .. my evidence earth isn't overpopulated..." YOU HAVE GIVEN NO EVIDENCE JUST AN OPINION USING THE TEXAS THING AND THEN WITHDRAWING IT??????
"...yet we have serious environmental issues wasn't refuted by you at all." I brought up the environmental issues, what's to refute?
Your last paragraph was a babble of prevarications and I have no idea what you're really trying to say.
So, answer the question I posed on the cows and you will understand Overpopulation.
When you resort to calling people liars, it just means you have no facts. So go get some!
I've listed a big response. It was gone because of an error.
Yet, this is my last response to you on this issue though in a fast fashion.
I don't name call. I've called you a liar for plenty of reasons. The reasons are that you falsely accuse me of being narrow minded and lacking comprehension skills. It's as simple as that. That isn't too bad.
My grammar is fine. Your run ons is typical for you. I don't make too many unfinished sentences at all. English is my first language. This is more of you slick ad hominem attacks. My ideas are concrete and my words are foreright.
I know the definiton of a fact. I don't need a thorough clarification of it at all. This is going to be interesting.
1. I'm not insecure at all about my abilities or my personal beliefs. You have attacked me by classifying me as being not able to comprehend words. Calling someone a liar with evidence is hardly a personal attack in my eyes. One instance where you lied is by saying that I have limited knowledge about vital issues going on in the world.
2. The world is not overpopulated and I've cited more than just about Texas situation to back my statements up. The Texas situation was an example about people fitting in the Earth's surface. It was never a means to describe a solution to answer all of our environmental crises. Overpopulation may be bigger than simply living space (i.e. survival of people and resources deal with populations as well). Yet, one aspect of overpopulation is living space. Population in essence deals with living space.
3. It's a fact that underpopulation exists in the world. Underpopulation is not an artifical term at all. Underpopulation refers to a radical decrease of populations, especially if the population's growth is radically below normal fertility levels. Overpopulation deals with issues beyond just Social Security. It deals with retirement and other economic problems related to underpopulation.
4. Other people may cite 9.5 billion in 2050. Ok, but still the UN predicts a leveling off and a decrease of world population growth in the decades to come.
5. I refer to Malthus and Paul Erlich. Paul Erlich made many false predictions of course. Erlich wrote the Population Bomb book in 1968. In it, he falsely said that the battle to feed all of humanity is over. He falsely said that population growth will be so bad that only 1.5 billion people would exist by 1985. Now, we live in 2008 without that number of people remotely existing in the world. He falsley written that American life expentacy will drop to 42 by 1980 because of pesticides. He's a deciever using half truths in promoting a radical anti-population growth agenda. He promotes environmental hysteria. Malthus was similar to Erlich. He believed that population growth would grow rapidly. Malthus also falsley believed that higher wages in an economy will increase birth rates. The truth is that economic development can stabilize birth rates. Malthus bashed the poor as well. You do know that researchers have proven that poverty isn't necessarily related to population growth at all. Also, much of our high food prices have been caused by ethanol subidies. Every single food problem is also not always a problem of scarcity as well.
6. The Conversation International group found that 46% of the Earth's surface is wide open wilderness. Those other percentages you cite apparently came from wikipedia. Since they come from accredited agencies, I will take your word for it.
7. Sorry, you didn't refute my views on overpopulation. You've cited environmental crises. These crises occur by a whole list of factors. Many of these factors have nothing to do with population growth at all. These factors include bad leaders, environmental factors, repressive governments, and other reasons. Mass starvation, wars, disease, and the other things you have cited existed for eons before 1900. Therefore, these things occur. No one denies that these things occur. Malthus is wrong in trying to promote possible population catastrophe in his models. The fact is that modern technology, real assistance, and other means can temper radical population growth in any society. As for global warming, many scientists have expressed dissent with certain aspects of man made global warming. Even the IPCC was caught using false data to overexaggerate October 2008 temperatures. Now, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest ever temperatures for the month. The Arctic Sea ice has expanded by 30 percentage since the summer of 2007 (according to Dr. Michael Coffmann and satellite data). The reality is that climate change is a natural cycle in the Universe. Man does impact the environment, but not every part of the Earth. The sun, volcanoes, sunspots, and other natural forces have a huge impact in the environment as well.
8. This is the fun part. Obama is pro-war on terror and that is true. I define terrorism as the intentional murder of an innocent human being (without a legitimate reason at all). It's funny that you mention Al-Qaeda since Afghanistan never attacked us on 9/11. Obama have desired to send more troops in Afghanistan to fight the war on terror. Obama even threatened to attack Pakistan at certain circustances. Bush is doing some strikes in Pakistan, but Obama is wrong on Pakistan as well. The war on terror is readily used as a justification to strip much of our civil liberties in America. Barack Obama supports the Mexico City Policy. That policy prevents taxpayers to fund abortions internationally. There is no justification for the government to force taxpayers to pay something destructive like abortion overseas. Therefore, that policy should stay. I've mentioned in other places that the Patriot Act and the FISA law are 2 seperate things. I don't agree with the Patriot Act or FISA.
I've cited plenty of evidence to prove that the Earth isn't overpopulated. That's another falsehood by you again. Here's simple examples yet again: The population growth percentage per decade has decreased since 1960 (i.e. From 1960-1970, the population growth percentages was from 22.0 to 20.2%. From 1990 to 2000, the population growth percentages were 15.2 to 12.6%). There has been consistent declining fertility rates the world over in Russia, Western Europe, Italy, and other nations. According to Stewart Brand, over a third of all countries have birthrates below replacement levels. All humans now can easily fit in the Earth's land mass. Environmental crises have nothing to do with population growth, but either nature or bad policies done by human beings. Legitimate modernization of society can stabilize population rates as well.
If you can't understand my last paragraph, you need to really know how to read other people's words. I just said that the same establishment you rail against, advance your Malthusian ideals. Anti-population paranoia is apart of the establishment's agenda. If you want Obama's change of pro-war on terror, pro-Patriot Act, Pro-FISA, and pro-FOCA (which even NARAL admits that FOCA can potentially end every abortion restriction in America), then you have a right to embrace. These are all facts. I rather respect Barack Obama as human being. Yet, I have a right to disagree with much of his CHANGE AGENDA.
This is my last response to you on this issue. I don't care if you make a 100 pages in a response. The reason is that I've made my point concisely.
TIMOTHY: I wouldn't expect you to answer. You HAVE NO FACTS, you cannot BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY with anything except it is your "view".
- you talk about my run on sentences, but asked for one example, you could not give one
- you say "this is more of you sick ad hominem attacks" (the word should have been "your")
- you say words are "foreright", did you mean FORTHRIGHT?
Unlike you, I can point out that you do not write clearly.
1. But, you do have limited knowledge...not a lie.
2. Wrong. Population deals with living and YOU HAVE NOT CITED ANYTHING. Anyone reading this blog (and I write for them, not you), knows that.
3. Check W. on underpopulation, and the UN, it is an artificial issue relating to economics, not CARRYING CAPACITY. It has to do with immigration, birth rates and a host of other things. But you say not Social Security, but retirement???????You listed no references.
4. It WAS THE UN FIGURE I gave you, look it up. They revise these a lot. Facts won't bite, let a few more in.
5. A little misquoting eh? "..he falsly written.." (did you mean "has written"?) You say Erlich was a "...deceiver, using half truths" Perhaps you see yourself in him? You say "economic development does stabilize birth rates..." Actually, it lowers them.
Drinking the Kool Aid again saying "ethanol subsidies" caused food shortages. Remember, we wanted to use corn, but Brazil uses something else, and the majority of the third world isn't using anything. The chinese are using fossil fuels. Know of no one using rice, which is the staple food source for much of the world.
Actually, Malthus believed that if man didn't check himself, he would overpopulate beyond his ability (or carrying capacity) to provide for himself. The brake on this was the Black Death, and a couple major wars of course. Later, the brake was the GREEN REVOLUTION which I brought up, but you didn't answer. It uses fossil fuels for fertilizer and limited genetic diversity in plants which could go bust easily.
6. You wrote "Conversation International" don't think this is what you meant. Was it?
Facts prove you wrong, but you will hold your "views" in spite of facts. "Views", like "faith", don't carry weight except to the holder. And if your mind is made up, no one should confuse you with facts! Right?
If you checked your FACTS you'd know why specific areas had low temps....try ocean turnover, ocean currents, globally changing wind patterns due to global warming....I'd suggest checking Science Daily for some links.
The artic sea ice is melting and dropping off, one about 25 sq. miles. The latest, about the underice rivers melting the glaciers even faster than first thought, is a recent addition...you can even find that through Yahoo. No hypotheticals here as you claim, just the facts.
8. I've said much of the same as you do here except the Mexico City Policy which goes out with Rep. Presidents and in with Dems. It has caused abortions by also limiting prevention.
TAXES, ours were used to kill in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Latin America and elsewhere. This with both parties in office.
We went to Afghanistan because of Bin Laden (9/11), Al Qaeda, training camps, saving the infringed upon, you name it.
YOU HAVE CITED NO EVIDENCE THE WORLD ISN'T OVERPOPULATED, and you haven't refuted my evidence that mass starvation over the years and lack of water and denuded portions of the earth due to hungry and cold humans, isn't a sympton of overpopulation.
The change in percentage of increase in population, has little to do with overpopulation. If I put 10 cows on a pasture, and at the end of year one, half the pasture is gone, at the end of year 2 all the pasture is gone, then when did the overpopulation of that pasture take place? What is the carrying capacity of that pasture? How much rainfall hits it? What is the mean temperature around the pasture? Figure it out, it will come to you....take your time.
Don't know what "establishment" you're talking about at the end. Bush?
Boy, you've got Obama as pro-everything. Wasn't it Bush with FISA, illegally listening? Didn't Bush push the Patriot Act to begin with? Wasn't it Bush's Ex. Order 51? Isn't it Bush bombing Pakistan? Starting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Lowering the taxes on the rich? Demanding seven hundred billion from the taxpayers to give to.....well, we really don't know who.
I wouldn't want you to answer this, it might be a little deep for you. And next time you read a book, read all of it, then plug in changing world facts from when it was written. Here's an upside, I wasn't following Malthus or Erlich...sorry to disappoint you.