A Short History Lesson On Earth Day

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The important thing to remember is that caring liberals with a conscience have raised everybodys awareness all these years....lol

That was the altruism that gave rise to the movement but just as with civil rights, the messengers have become too comfortable with the power and money and they morphed the message to maintain an ostensible relevance. Now they are the cause of problems.
Civil rights activists are the new racists and environmentalists are hurting the economies of the world and infringe upon liberty.

 

[R.D.]

Republicans haven't mentioned Earth Day in Congress since 2010 - Liberty Unyielding.

 

[JoeB131]

earth day is a feel good but do nothing day for people who make a mess of the place the other 364 days of the year to delude themselves into thinking they actually did something.

Kind of like a bunch of idiot senators staying up all night and blabbing about global warming.

Actually, we've come a long way from when I was growing up, and we had days over Chicago where the smog was so thick you couldn't see the sun on a summer day.

And the Chicago River was so polluted that Mayor Daley was laughed at when he suggested that one day we'd be able to fish in it.

Or the Cayahuga river used to catch on fire.

But, no, no, being concerned about the environment is just a bunch of hippy stuff.

 

[rightwinger]

earth day is a feel good but do nothing day for people who make a mess of the place the other 364 days of the year to delude themselves into thinking they actually did something.

Kind of like a bunch of idiot senators staying up all night and blabbing about global warming.

Actually, we've come a long way from when I was growing up, and we had days over Chicago where the smog was so thick you couldn't see the sun on a summer day.

And the Chicago River was so polluted that Mayor Daley was laughed at when he suggested that one day we'd be able to fish in it.

Or the Cayahuga river used to catch on fire.

But, no, no, being concerned about the environment is just a bunch of hippy stuff.

I remember a small river by my home as a kid. There was a paper mill on the river that used to dump all kinds of crap into the river. The river had a permanent slime to it. You wouldn't dare fish there. Laws were passed, the paper mill shut down, conservatives whined about lost jobs.....today the river runs clear

 

[ScreamingEagle]

earth day is a feel good but do nothing day for people who make a mess of the place the other 364 days of the year to delude themselves into thinking they actually did something.

Kind of like a bunch of idiot senators staying up all night and blabbing about global warming.

Actually, we've come a long way from when I was growing up, and we had days over Chicago where the smog was so thick you couldn't see the sun on a summer day.

And the Chicago River was so polluted that Mayor Daley was laughed at when he suggested that one day we'd be able to fish in it.

Or the Cayahuga river used to catch on fire.

But, no, no, being concerned about the environment is just a bunch of hippy stuff.

yes we have made progress.....do you see conservatives trying to block clean air and clean water....? of course not....everybody prefers clean air and water....

however the 'greenies' are taking the whole environmental issue to a whole different level.....Agenda 21 and 'sustainability' programs mean a whole new approach to the way we live....basically a form of eco-Marxism with the UN in charge of the world...

like an iceberg....on the surface it looks like good environmental goals which most can agree on....but below the surface the 'green' movement is another thing entirely....

Only a small percentage of Americans have heard about Agenda 21. We need you to help us get the word out about this emerging United Nations initiative that will change the way we “live, eat, learn and communicate.”

Agenda 21 will address every single area of our lives and control agriculture, the ecosystem, our education, our energy and housing options, population, public health, recycling, and transportation. It will affect prices on anything that is manufactured, shipped, stored, eaten, or sold in stores.

The United Nations believes there will be no social justice until people in every part of the world have access to your wealth. After all, you belong to “The Haves” and the only reason the people of the world don’t have is because “The Haves” took it all away!

Justice?

Who’s justice and who will dole out this justice? The United Nations, of course.
...
Right now, Agenda 21’s provisions are probably embedded within your city, county and state ordinances and you may not even be aware of it, unless you have had to face it up close.

Maurice Strong, who was Secretary General of the U.N.’s Earth Summit, said at the 1992 conference, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

And Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman of ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability, formerly the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) said, “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.”
....

Common Core is the “shift in thinking” needed for Agenda 21 to be accepted. It uses “sustainability” as a driver for critical thinking. Race to the Top and Common Core are the foundation for Agenda 21. Common Core approaches education by integrating “green” throughout all courses. For example, a teacher’s video suggests that teachers can “shift thinking” and “change dispositions”, needed in a democracy, by picking topics for discussion to integrate sustainability using informational texts on energy, food systems, world poverty …



Ruling America by Global Authority | Conservative Daily

 

[ClosedCaption]

The important thing to remember is that caring liberals with a conscience have raised everybodys awareness all these years....lol

That was the altruism that gave rise to the movement but just as with civil rights, the messengers have become too comfortable with the power and money and they morphed the message to maintain an ostensible relevance. Now they are the cause of problems.
Civil rights activists are the new racists and environmentalists are hurting the economies of the world and infringe upon liberty.

This is really amazing...The republican machine has managed to make many believe that Civil Rights Orgs are "the real racist", that Enviromental agencies or groups are "the real polluters", the unions "the real labor exploiters" etc etc. Now Earth Day is bad because the founder was a murderer so fuck the earth is the logic?

Its really amazing that before Obama all republicans agreed and gave speaches about the importance of being good stewarts to the earth.

What a 180 they've taken in the last few years.

 

[Wildman]

A short lesson on Earth Day

Woodstock, or Jakarta ?

Jakarta-Water-Pollution.., see all that duck weed ??

 

[rightwinger]

Not a Single Republican Has Mentioned Earth Day in Congress Since 2010 - NationalJournal.com

 

[rightwinger]

House Republicans voted 109 times against environmental protection in*2013

In 2013, the Republican-led House voted for the anti-environment position 109 times. House Republicans voted to block actions to improve air quality and cut carbon pollution; to expedite oil and gas drilling off America’s coasts and on onshore federal lands; to slash funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs; to block federal efforts to improve water quality; and to allow more logging and mining on federal lands with limited environmental review.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

House Republicans voted 109 times against environmental protection in*2013

In 2013, the Republican-led House voted for the anti-environment position 109 times. House Republicans voted to block actions to improve air quality and cut carbon pollution; to expedite oil and gas drilling off America’s coasts and on onshore federal lands; to slash funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs; to block federal efforts to improve water quality; and to allow more logging and mining on federal lands with limited environmental review.

too many 'sticky' details that take control of people and their property by the government....

 

[rightwinger]

House Republicans voted 109 times against environmental protection in*2013

In 2013, the Republican-led House voted for the anti-environment position 109 times. House Republicans voted to block actions to improve air quality and cut carbon pollution; to expedite oil and gas drilling off America’s coasts and on onshore federal lands; to slash funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs; to block federal efforts to improve water quality; and to allow more logging and mining on federal lands with limited environmental review.

too many 'sticky' details that take control of people and their property by the government....

Its my property and I'll do what I want

 

[ClosedCaption]

Before Obama became President Republicans used to believe all types of stuff. Then...Obama

[ame=http://youtu.be/VuBd1atfhQ4]Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich ad About Global Warming - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

A short posting lesson. History threads should go in the history forum. Shouldn't they?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Before Obama became President Republicans used to believe all types of stuff. Then...Obama

Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich ad About Global Warming - YouTube

“First of all, that is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in years,” Gingrich said. “It is inexplicable that somebody used to say, ‘You know, there aren’t enough hay wagons to stand on to get people to understand that.’ You just need to relax and go, that was dumb.”

Panelist Charles Krauthammer asked Gingrich if he was being held hostage when the ad was filmed. Gingrich responded that he just made a mistake.

“No, that was dumb,” Gingrich said. “I was trying to do something I failed to do. I do think it’s important for conservative to be in the middle of the debate over the environment.”

Gingrich then described a book he co-authored, titled “Contract with the Earth,” which he said outlined “a pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative environmentalism.”

He then said, “I don’t know whether global warming is occurring,” noting, “the vast majority of National Academy of Sciences says it is, a minority says it is not. Science is not actually voted on. Science is a function of truth.”



Read more: Gingrich on global warming ad with Pelosi: ?The dumbest single thing I?ve done in years? | The Daily Caller

 

[ClosedCaption]

Before Obama became President Republicans used to believe all types of stuff. Then...Obama

Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich ad About Global Warming - YouTube

“First of all, that is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in years,” Gingrich said. “It is inexplicable that somebody used to say, ‘You know, there aren’t enough hay wagons to stand on to get people to understand that.’ You just need to relax and go, that was dumb.”

Panelist Charles Krauthammer asked Gingrich if he was being held hostage when the ad was filmed. Gingrich responded that he just made a mistake.

“No, that was dumb,” Gingrich said. “I was trying to do something I failed to do. I do think it’s important for conservative to be in the middle of the debate over the environment.”

Gingrich then described a book he co-authored, titled “Contract with the Earth,” which he said outlined “a pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative environmentalism.”

He then said, “I don’t know whether global warming is occurring,” noting, “the vast majority of National Academy of Sciences says it is, a minority says it is not. Science is not actually voted on. Science is a function of truth.”



Read more: Gingrich on global warming ad with Pelosi: ?The dumbest single thing I?ve done in years? | The Daily Caller

LOL....I LOVE IT. LETS KEEP GOING!

Gingrich in 2007
That was in an interview conducted Feb. 15, 2007, for the Public Broadcasting System program “Frontline”:

Gingrich, Feb. 15, 2007: I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.

The questioner then asked Gingrich about the Bush administration’s decision in 2001, ruling out any attempt to cap carbon emission.
Q: Would we be in better shape today if he [Bush] had kept that campaign pledge?

Gingrich: If he had instituted a regime that combined three things I just said — mandatory caps, a trading system inside the caps, as we have with clean air, and a tax incentive to be able to invest in the new technology and to be able to produce the new technology — I think we would be much better off than we are in the current situation.

Later in 2007, Gingrich said publicly that there’s enough scientific evidence of a problem to justify acting “urgently” — a view not popular with many conservatives. This exchange was part of a 2007 debate on climate change with Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Gingrich, April 10, 2007: The evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere

Kerry: And do it urgently — and now…

Gingrich: And do it urgently, yes. . . . I think there has to be a, if you will, a “green conservatism” — there has to be a willingness to stand up and say all right, here’s the right way to solve these as seen by our value system.

Did he mistakenly do this then also? I bet you always believe the revised version of what someone says dont you?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Before Obama became President Republicans used to believe all types of stuff. Then...Obama

Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich ad About Global Warming - YouTube

“First of all, that is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in years,” Gingrich said. “It is inexplicable that somebody used to say, ‘You know, there aren’t enough hay wagons to stand on to get people to understand that.’ You just need to relax and go, that was dumb.”

Panelist Charles Krauthammer asked Gingrich if he was being held hostage when the ad was filmed. Gingrich responded that he just made a mistake.

“No, that was dumb,” Gingrich said. “I was trying to do something I failed to do. I do think it’s important for conservative to be in the middle of the debate over the environment.”

Gingrich then described a book he co-authored, titled “Contract with the Earth,” which he said outlined “a pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative environmentalism.”

He then said, “I don’t know whether global warming is occurring,” noting, “the vast majority of National Academy of Sciences says it is, a minority says it is not. Science is not actually voted on. Science is a function of truth.”



Read more: Gingrich on global warming ad with Pelosi: ?The dumbest single thing I?ve done in years? | The Daily Caller

LOL....I LOVE IT. LETS KEEP GOING!

Gingrich in 2007
That was in an interview conducted Feb. 15, 2007, for the Public Broadcasting System program “Frontline”:

Gingrich, Feb. 15, 2007: I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.

The questioner then asked Gingrich about the Bush administration’s decision in 2001, ruling out any attempt to cap carbon emission.
Q: Would we be in better shape today if he [Bush] had kept that campaign pledge?

Gingrich: If he had instituted a regime that combined three things I just said — mandatory caps, a trading system inside the caps, as we have with clean air, and a tax incentive to be able to invest in the new technology and to be able to produce the new technology — I think we would be much better off than we are in the current situation.

Later in 2007, Gingrich said publicly that there’s enough scientific evidence of a problem to justify acting “urgently” — a view not popular with many conservatives. This exchange was part of a 2007 debate on climate change with Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Gingrich, April 10, 2007: The evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere

Kerry: And do it urgently — and now…

Gingrich: And do it urgently, yes. . . . I think there has to be a, if you will, a “green conservatism” — there has to be a willingness to stand up and say all right, here’s the right way to solve these as seen by our value system.

Did he mistakenly do this then also? I bet you always believe the revised version of what someone says dont you?

Did you know that Gingrich wrote a book called A Contract with Earth....? It's all about improving the environment.....liberals are not the only ones concerned about the environment...

However he is against liberal 'command and control' regulations....instead he suggests tax code incentives to encourage 'green' behavior....

That way you still get good environmentalism but without the nasty Marxism attached to it...

Gingrich has been against the 'cap and trade' scam and also the Kyoto Treaty...

 

[ClosedCaption]

“First of all, that is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in years,” Gingrich said. “It is inexplicable that somebody used to say, ‘You know, there aren’t enough hay wagons to stand on to get people to understand that.’ You just need to relax and go, that was dumb.”

Panelist Charles Krauthammer asked Gingrich if he was being held hostage when the ad was filmed. Gingrich responded that he just made a mistake.

“No, that was dumb,” Gingrich said. “I was trying to do something I failed to do. I do think it’s important for conservative to be in the middle of the debate over the environment.”

Gingrich then described a book he co-authored, titled “Contract with the Earth,” which he said outlined “a pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative environmentalism.”

He then said, “I don’t know whether global warming is occurring,” noting, “the vast majority of National Academy of Sciences says it is, a minority says it is not. Science is not actually voted on. Science is a function of truth.”



Read more: Gingrich on global warming ad with Pelosi: ?The dumbest single thing I?ve done in years? | The Daily Caller

LOL....I LOVE IT. LETS KEEP GOING!

Gingrich in 2007
That was in an interview conducted Feb. 15, 2007, for the Public Broadcasting System program “Frontline”:

Gingrich, Feb. 15, 2007: I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.

The questioner then asked Gingrich about the Bush administration’s decision in 2001, ruling out any attempt to cap carbon emission.
Q: Would we be in better shape today if he [Bush] had kept that campaign pledge?

Gingrich: If he had instituted a regime that combined three things I just said — mandatory caps, a trading system inside the caps, as we have with clean air, and a tax incentive to be able to invest in the new technology and to be able to produce the new technology — I think we would be much better off than we are in the current situation.

Later in 2007, Gingrich said publicly that there’s enough scientific evidence of a problem to justify acting “urgently” — a view not popular with many conservatives. This exchange was part of a 2007 debate on climate change with Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Gingrich, April 10, 2007: The evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere

Kerry: And do it urgently — and now…

Gingrich: And do it urgently, yes. . . . I think there has to be a, if you will, a “green conservatism” — there has to be a willingness to stand up and say all right, here’s the right way to solve these as seen by our value system.

Did he mistakenly do this then also? I bet you always believe the revised version of what someone says dont you?

Did you know that Gingrich wrote a book called A Contract with Earth....? It's all about improving the environment.....liberals are not the only ones concerned about the environment...

However he is against liberal 'command and control' regulations....instead he suggests tax code incentives to encourage 'green' behavior....

That way you still get good environmentalism but without the nasty Marxism attached to it...

Gingrich has been against the 'cap and trade' scam and also the Kyoto Treaty...

So Gingrich says:

Gingrich, Feb. 15, 2007: I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.

And his support for caps to you translates to him being OPPOSED to caps? Holy FUCK!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

LOL....I LOVE IT. LETS KEEP GOING!



Did he mistakenly do this then also? I bet you always believe the revised version of what someone says dont you?

Did you know that Gingrich wrote a book called A Contract with Earth....? It's all about improving the environment.....liberals are not the only ones concerned about the environment...

However he is against liberal 'command and control' regulations....instead he suggests tax code incentives to encourage 'green' behavior....

That way you still get good environmentalism but without the nasty Marxism attached to it...

Gingrich has been against the 'cap and trade' scam and also the Kyoto Treaty...

So Gingrich says:

Gingrich, Feb. 15, 2007: I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.

And his support for caps to you translates to him being OPPOSED to caps? Holy FUCK!

you still don't get it....and to top it off you insult a Republican politician that is willing to work with Democrats to solve perceived environmental problems...

Gingrich does not support the cap-n-trade SCAM....meaning the ideological leftie dictatorial version where the EPA is breathing down your neck controlling your every move....i.e., the 'command and control' version...where noxious marxists dictate to everybody when, why, where, and how to shit...

Gingrich does support a broad market-based version similar to the Sulphur Dioxide cap-n-trade program where companies could decide for themselves from a range of options how to handle things in order to reduce emissions...this was the 'Acid Rain' program and overall that program was a success...

get the difference now....?

(to me the very fact that lefties won't recognize Gingrich's ideas really means they are more interested in ideology than the environment....)

 

[ClosedCaption]

Did you know that Gingrich wrote a book called A Contract with Earth....? It's all about improving the environment.....liberals are not the only ones concerned about the environment...

However he is against liberal 'command and control' regulations....instead he suggests tax code incentives to encourage 'green' behavior....

That way you still get good environmentalism but without the nasty Marxism attached to it...

Gingrich has been against the 'cap and trade' scam and also the Kyoto Treaty...

So Gingrich says:

Gingrich, Feb. 15, 2007: I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.

And his support for caps to you translates to him being OPPOSED to caps? Holy FUCK!

you still don't get it....and to top it off you insult a Republican politician that is willing to work with Democrats to solve perceived environmental problems...

Gingrich does not support the cap-n-trade SCAM....meaning the ideological leftie dictatorial version where the EPA is breathing down your neck controlling your every move....i.e., the 'command and control' version...where noxious marxists dictate to everybody when, why, where, and how to shit...

Gingrich does support a broad market-based version similar to the Sulphur Dioxide cap-n-trade program where companies could decide for themselves from a range of options how to handle things in order to reduce emissions...this was the 'Acid Rain' program and overall that program was a success...

get the difference now....?

(to me the very fact that lefties won't recognize Gingrich's ideas really means they are more interested in ideology than the environment....)

It would be awesome if you backed that up with links, evidence or anything. Instead I have links saying Newt wants caps and you have nothing to say he's against it.

Also Newt has been pro global warming over the past decade or two - then suddenly - when all other repubs are denying - NOW he's against it.

When Republicans believed in climate change | MSNBC

You tell me did they believe what they said then or do they believe their revised "let me explain" selves?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So Gingrich says:



And his support for caps to you translates to him being OPPOSED to caps? Holy FUCK!

you still don't get it....and to top it off you insult a Republican politician that is willing to work with Democrats to solve perceived environmental problems...

Gingrich does not support the cap-n-trade SCAM....meaning the ideological leftie dictatorial version where the EPA is breathing down your neck controlling your every move....i.e., the 'command and control' version...where noxious marxists dictate to everybody when, why, where, and how to shit...

Gingrich does support a broad market-based version similar to the Sulphur Dioxide cap-n-trade program where companies could decide for themselves from a range of options how to handle things in order to reduce emissions...this was the 'Acid Rain' program and overall that program was a success...

get the difference now....?

(to me the very fact that lefties won't recognize Gingrich's ideas really means they are more interested in ideology than the environment....)

It would be awesome if you backed that up with links, evidence or anything. Instead I have links saying Newt wants caps and you have nothing to say he's against it.

Also Newt has been pro global warming over the past decade or two - then suddenly - when all other repubs are denying - NOW he's against it.

When Republicans believed in climate change | MSNBC

You tell me did they believe what they said then or do they believe their revised "let me explain" selves?

it'd be awesome if you read the articles you copied and mocked....right in there Gingrich said he'd be for cap-n-trade similar to the Sulphur program that had a market-based trading system.....

Gingrich, Feb. 15, 2007: I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.

some ideas have a way of changing over time....since more truth about 'global warming' has been uncovered there isn't that much urgency to control CO2 emissions anymore...at least for Republicans since they are not interested in the ideological aspect...