Mission Statement: This blog reviews the news of the day in light of 242 years of American history. "Nationalism," a modern day pejorative, has been our country's politic throughout history, until 2008. Obama changed that narrative. Trump is seeking a return to our historical roots. Midknight Review supports this return to normality.
Take six minutes and listen to this excellent discussion on how it is, that we lost the peace in Iraq after winning the war.
Nixon won the Viet Nam war !!!???? And the Right accuses the Left of rewriting history. Bush won the Iraq war??? !! After all those years (from Viet Nam to now), you all are still making up your own history.
So you are saying that Reagan gave chemicals to Saddam (yet to be a proven fact) with the hope and intention of Saddam using them on his own people? Is that what you are saying? Are you telling us that Obama and Biden did not view the Iraq War as a winner, that Bush did not leave the country strong and free as everyone in the American Marxist camp has admitted? You're the expert and they are not?
McCarthy was a drunk, but he was correct about the continuing, post WW II, communist/domestic threat. Now these social reforming roaches are everywhere. Heck, I am making comment to one, at this very moment.
The KKK was a Democrat invention and was manned by Southern Democrats through the 1960's, moron. During that time, Democrat "operatives" murdered more than 4,000 black preachers, men, wives and children and these historical facts are written in stone. ALL of Jim Crow was written and enforced by Democrats. The Civil War and its 580,000 dead was caused by a refusal of Southern Democrats to respect the changing law of the land. Their resistance to racial equality was the reason for the war. I bring all this up, again and again, because you want folks to believe the lie that the KKK was Republican, so too Jim Crow and the deaths of blacks during the slave days that extended into the mid-sixties. Never an apology from your anarchist side of the aisle. William, YOU are the liar, here, with no regard for the historicity of this great nation and not a single international example of Marxist/Collectivist success. You flunked Personal Faith 101 which somehow makes you an authority on God, and [you] give credence to the most comprehensive slave-masters of all time (Marx/Stalin/Castro/Chavez/Moa/Putin/Jenping. You are as self-absorbed and mentally whacked out as anyone coming to this blog, over the past 7 years. You and those you represent are the "enemy within" Khrushchev bragged about years ago . . . . now you have arrived. Go to hell.
I reached out to this moron. He and I have some similar competitive interests, but, in the end, he does not care about have a civil relationship. He only cares about parroting the BS coming out of the Left with no thought as to critical thinking. He is no more a proud American than is the whiny Obama or the traitor, John Kerry. And I am done with this moron. He wants to use this site to foster his very stupid arguments for destroying this country and replacing it with some existential crap that has never worked. Problem with existentialism as a national. politic is that it is of positive consequence ONLY if the dictator type, in charge, is capable and efficient. In Obama . . . . . both Obama's . . . we have two very immature individuals when it comes to leadership. In fact, Obama is so inept, educationally, that he refuses to do, what his predecessors have done, and that is to open up his educational records. There are some of us who will never tire of exposing this absolute phony for what he is, and his "doctrine."
"Anonymous" is a jerk, pure and simple, with no personally held values that extend beyond his own self-centered arrogance.
Personal attacks are what you are all about, so I find it sadly humorous that you would dare to criticize me for your "strong suit" in debate strategy - the ad hom and, especially, the personal attacks.
We have lost the women's vote? You make it sound as if women, in mass, do not vote "GOP." Of course, that is not true. Are they your primary voting block? Well, when it comes to single women, the answer is "yes." Your percentages as to the women's vote were pathetic in 2010 and diminishing in 2012.
Critically thinking???? There are so many things that stand at odds with "thinking," much less "critical thinking." You push for a collectivist system that enslaves the population and has not prospered a single nation, historically speaking. Your "science" includes men claiming to be women and effecting biological change based on rhetoric, alone. Your "science" has included the hunger bomb, acid rain, the ozon "crisis," a coming "mini-ice age," and a global warming theory that is neither global, nor predictable. Intellectually , you are a joke. You offer nothing to our debate except misinformation, and this response proves the point. Again, you have deliberately (apparently) misrepresented the facts of the report you quote. Pathetic.
All this crap about Rumsfield ignores my question: Are you saying that Reagan expected Saddam to use these chemical weapons to kill others or his own people? And why are you misrepresenting the facts of the report you cite? The items listed in the report, were not shipped to Iraq in large quantiies, and were part of the policies of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bill Clinton's Administration. The fact of the matter is this: experimenting with these chemical weapons, many of them created in our country, does not mean that entities performing such experiments intend to use these chemicals to kill others or their own population. There is no evidence that "we" thought Saddam had sordid purposes in mind . . . . . no evidence whatsoever. What we have, here, folks, is a perfect example of how an anti-American Marxist uses "facts" to effect a lie. Your motives are obvious and easily defeated.
What, your google isn't working? Readers - google: 'reagan saddam chemical weapons' - read what you come up with.
The receipt of chemical and biological weapons from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan Administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.
After the Al-Anfal campaign where Saddam killed up to 100,000 Kurds with chemical weapons, Reagan remained totally silent. Further, the Reagan administration did nothing to assist Iran in its attempts to bring proof of illegal Iraqi chemical attacks to light.
It was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost. So, Reagan assisted Saddam in committing war crimes.
"Your "science" includes men claiming to be women"
'My' science? Show me one example of where I commented on this subject, Smithson lies. I never did.
The he says, "You offer nothing to our debate except misinformation"
I live by facts. Cite facts. Smithson cherry picks facts.
For example, "proves" science is bogus by citing previous predictions of coming "mini-ice age" or global cooling.
Classic cherry pick.
By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age are used by Smithson to generate doubt, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that Smithson cites. It's a lie:
The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyze, we've reached a clear scientific consensus. A survey of 68 papers on the subject from '65 to '79 show 62% predicted warming, while 10% predicted cooling.
Yet Smithson goes with the 10% to make his point. It's either divisive and dishonest, or ignorant. Take your pick.
I just read the report, moron. You might try doing the same. Again, the chemicals in question and described in the report itself, show relatively small quantities and a policy extended to the Bush 41 and Clinton Administration. THAT's public record, jack and it from the record you submitted. Reagan is no more a war criminal than Obama is a Christian or you, an intellectual.
The reader needs to understand that this is what Marxist oriented anti-Americans do - they constantly attempt to degrade this great country, its documents, his evolving history and its heroes. This will be the last time I allow the kind of false accusations mentioned in the above comment. Because the opponent can quote from other, anti-American writers, makes little difference to me.
Again, we are not having a discussion about Reagan or Bush 43's alleged war crimes. If the reader wants to pursue such unfounded claims, she can do so elsewhere.
Good try, but only more misinformation. The "ice age" was as big a scare tactic as Utopian Science has produced, along with the ozone thingy, the hunger bomb, acid rain, the beginning of the end following Katrina, 2005, and all the other "scientific" crap your side has produced over the years. As far as "men into women," that is the product of your side of the aisle. And what are we told about this farce of a “reality?” That when a man claims to be a woman, even before he cuts off his pecker and adds plastic to as many body parts as possible - you know, like a real woman - then I have to address him as a her, or risk criminal complaint and lawsuits. Your side tells my side, “He REALLY is a woman,” so, I assume that is a product of your science, if not biological science, then psychological science, something about which I know a good deal. You are wedded to that nonsence, all of it, as far as I am concerned. After all, you attach my personal beliefs to creation science, faux evolution and the ChristianKKK, Jim Crow and all all the other Democrat crimes against humanity. Back at you on that one, fella.
Funny how you Marxist Utopians think: if it is an example of the "truth," it is history. If it illustrates my point of view, it is "cherry picking," the only difference being, you can’t refute my arguments - soooooo, off into the ad hom weeds you go.
"they constantly attempt to degrade this great country" - like calling the president "an uneducated traitor"?
where does this hate come from? just evil.
When confronted with evidence ... even from the US Military... he responds by even denigrating them - the US Military! He even said in reference to a military document I quoted, "they are everywhere, like maggots"
Smithson constantly attempt to degrade this great country, its documents, his evolving history and its heroes.
Give us all that quote, the one in which I call the military "maggots." Would you do that for me, Saul?
Hate? Not exactly. My brother fought in WW II, on the beaches of Normandy. I never put a ring in my nose, not a single tatoo, never wore sandals although none of that is bad, in and of themselves. I am not the one who calls our founders "slave masters," and the like. That is your side. I am not the one who glories in Marxism, that is your side. Let's not forget, I KNOW my Marxist claims to be true because I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH THESE MORONs, back in the late 60's and 70's. Back then, they proudly gave honor to anyone who wasn't a part of the founding of this great nation, especially Marx and Mao, and have never ceased with their crap, only today, they are in charge.
It is your side that ignores the constitution, practices anarchy ("sanctuary cities" being a prime example of this anarchy) , works against free speech, has its unions attempting to force me to join, or, not work to feed my family. Your side thinks it harmful that I am religious and works against my right to practice my faith, and on and on. Apparently you are about to tell us that you love America, just nothing about its founding, its documents and his evolving history. I call that sort of thing "traitorous," and, believe that ANYONE who supports Marxism to any degree, is an enemy to this country.
Don't get all teary-eyed with the thought that I just insulted H Obama. Let's be clear on that: he is the one who started this most recent fight, and he is in it to destroy my point of view. He is the hater. His elections are opportunities for revenge . . . . ACCORDING TO HIM. But "hate" means I am out of control. I have been a fight coach for 30 years and I know one thing, you fight with passion, but never out of a sense of sheer hatred. Try having a "conversation" with the owner of any other blog and see how long you last. So, I believe you have rights, but that does not include your distain for this country without opposition.
"Your side" ... straw man argument. Calling me "marxist utopian," , "moron" and a host of other names. Did I ever comment on any of the issues like transexuals, global cooling, hunger bomb.... etc., the answer is no.
On the other hand, Smithson has clearly denied evolutionary science and scientific consensus on climate science. My description of him is accurate and factual.
On a personal note, Smithson has commented repeatedly on my education, and socio economic station ... one could easily infer he covets my position in life. Perhaps he needs to be less personal and more professional if he expects people to take his writing seriously, although I'm certain most will see him for what he is.
You want to get this discussion back on a more civil basis, fine with me, but I have had it with you commenting about my weight, my intelligence, and your insidious personal attacks and ridiculous charges, accusing me of rank racisim and insulting my ability to think and debate in critical terms. That is what I have had to put up with. The last two or three post, is me kicking your freaking ass, coming down to your level, getting as personal as you do, and getting it done with a certain degree of expertise. I have practice insults and sarcasm 15 years longer than you and know how to piss people off. So I put up with your insults until . . . I didn't. I can turn it down, but I am done with a man who insults me to my face.
When confronted with an observational report by the US Navy stating that climate change was accelerating far more quickly than projected just 4 years ago, Smithson wrote:
"There are lots of Progressive/Utopian types in the military. They are everywhere. like maggots"
"When confronted with evidence ... even from the US Military... he (Smithosn) responds by even denigrating them - the US Military! He even said in reference to a military document I quoted, "they are everywhere, like maggots"
I asked for the reference in which I called the US military, "maggots" and you gave me a quote in which I branded SOME in the military, the Utopian Progressives WITHIN the military, as maggots. I have the highest regard for our military. I have no regard for military leadership that is Utopian Progressive. For the most part, I do not believe the field soldier fights as an ideologue. However, i know for a fact that several of the military brass lead from an Utopian point of view. Their rules of engagement get our troops killed and their "fairness doctrine" when it comes to waging war, has given us a miserable failure as to the Afghan war. If you can't see the difference, I am certain the readership does.
Yes, military leaders who don't deny science like Smithson are "maggots."
For the record, the quote from "the maggot", Admiral Greenert, 30th Chief of Naval Operations, stated, "Over the past four years, The Task Force in consultation and collaboration with broader government and private scientific communities, has concluded that ice conditions in the Arctic are changing more rapidly than first anticipated ...Due to the significant retreat of sea ice, previously unreachable areas have started to open for maritime use several weeks each year." - Admiral J. Greenert, US NAVY
You can add US Navy's Rear Admiral David Titley to Smithson's list of 'maggots". It just so happens, Titley IS a climate scientist and a former climate change skeptic. In an article published this week, he stated: "Climate change threatens national security. This issue is about science, not politics, and the military is taking it very seriously. ... We worked to evaluate the changing climate like we’d evaluate any other change the Pentagon needs to deal with ... Climate change is an accelerating threat to national security. That’s the finding of a recent report by the CNA Corporation’s Military Advisory Board."
The Navy report described climate change with the term: "certainty." -
There is broad scientific consensus on many climate change topics. These climate certainties include measured or observed higher surface, troposphere, and ocean temperatures; more precipitation and drought extremes; melting of mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice, and ice sheets; and a rising sea level. Each of the four certainties has the potential to impact U.S. naval forces’ operations and installations; if continued as projected, many will have national security implications as well.
Good grief. You have no idea what "Progressive / Socialist" means, do you? In today's political economy, the term has to do with a specific, Marxist related, political world view separate and apart from Utopian Science claims of any kind. More spcifically, the term(s) describe a neo-Marxist view of a borderless world, where the U.N. would be the central government, a societal world view based on wealth redistribution and used to quench the thirst of an elitist, power hungry, oligarchy. And who are the "wealthy" in this circumstance? Well, the same people as defined by Obama's legislation and regulatory accomplished . . . . . . . . . anyone who makes more than $45,000 per year - they are the "rich" ones by comparison.
Your rant has nothing to do with my personal views as to "progressive/socialist." Better luck next.
Doubling down on your little and most recent lie? Is that how you handle correction, Mr "I've got a PhD and know all about critical thinking?" Seriously?
Indeed, I did brand the Marxist leadership within the military? My family has a proud military tradition. So, get this one correct. I Didn't avoid the issue at all, just restated what I said.
Let's continue our debate, such as it is, on another post/site.
Nixon won the Viet Nam war !!!???? And the Right accuses the Left of rewriting history. Bush won the Iraq war??? !! After all those years (from Viet Nam to now), you all are still making up your own history.
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying that Reagan gave chemicals to Saddam (yet to be a proven fact) with the hope and intention of Saddam using them on his own people? Is that what you are saying? Are you telling us that Obama and Biden did not view the Iraq War as a winner, that Bush did not leave the country strong and free as everyone in the American Marxist camp has admitted? You're the expert and they are not?
ReplyDeleteMcCarthy was a drunk, but he was correct about the continuing, post WW II, communist/domestic threat. Now these social reforming roaches are everywhere. Heck, I am making comment to one, at this very moment.
The KKK was a Democrat invention and was manned by Southern Democrats through the 1960's, moron. During that time, Democrat "operatives" murdered more than 4,000 black preachers, men, wives and children and these historical facts are written in stone. ALL of Jim Crow was written and enforced by Democrats. The Civil War and its 580,000 dead was caused by a refusal of Southern Democrats to respect the changing law of the land. Their resistance to racial equality was the reason for the war. I bring all this up, again and again, because you want folks to believe the lie that the KKK was Republican, so too Jim Crow and the deaths of blacks during the slave days that extended into the mid-sixties. Never an apology from your anarchist side of the aisle. William, YOU are the liar, here, with no regard for the historicity of this great nation and not a single international example of Marxist/Collectivist success. You flunked Personal Faith 101 which somehow makes you an authority on God, and [you] give credence to the most comprehensive slave-masters of all time (Marx/Stalin/Castro/Chavez/Moa/Putin/Jenping. You are as self-absorbed and mentally whacked out as anyone coming to this blog, over the past 7 years. You and those you represent are the "enemy within" Khrushchev bragged about years ago . . . . now you have arrived. Go to hell.
Kind of tough on the guy.
ReplyDeleteI reached out to this moron. He and I have some similar competitive interests, but, in the end, he does not care about have a civil relationship. He only cares about parroting the BS coming out of the Left with no thought as to critical thinking. He is no more a proud American than is the whiny Obama or the traitor, John Kerry. And I am done with this moron. He wants to use this site to foster his very stupid arguments for destroying this country and replacing it with some existential crap that has never worked. Problem with existentialism as a national. politic is that it is of positive consequence ONLY if the dictator type, in charge, is capable and efficient. In Obama . . . . . both Obama's . . . we have two very immature individuals when it comes to leadership. In fact, Obama is so inept, educationally, that he refuses to do, what his predecessors have done, and that is to open up his educational records. There are some of us who will never tire of exposing this absolute phony for what he is, and his "doctrine."
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" is a jerk, pure and simple, with no personally held values that extend beyond his own self-centered arrogance.
Personal attacks are what you are all about, so I find it sadly humorous that you would dare to criticize me for your "strong suit" in debate strategy - the ad hom and, especially, the personal attacks.
ReplyDeleteWe have lost the women's vote? You make it sound as if women, in mass, do not vote "GOP." Of course, that is not true. Are they your primary voting block? Well, when it comes to single women, the answer is "yes." Your percentages as to the women's vote were pathetic in 2010 and diminishing in 2012.
Critically thinking???? There are so many things that stand at odds with "thinking," much less "critical thinking." You push for a collectivist system that enslaves the population and has not prospered a single nation, historically speaking. Your "science" includes men claiming to be women and effecting biological change based on rhetoric, alone. Your "science" has included the hunger bomb, acid rain, the ozon "crisis," a coming "mini-ice age," and a global warming theory that is neither global, nor predictable. Intellectually , you are a joke. You offer nothing to our debate except misinformation, and this response proves the point. Again, you have deliberately (apparently) misrepresented the facts of the report you quote. Pathetic.
All this crap about Rumsfield ignores my question: Are you saying that Reagan expected Saddam to use these chemical weapons to kill others or his own people? And why are you misrepresenting the facts of the report you cite? The items listed in the report, were not shipped to Iraq in large quantiies, and were part of the policies of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bill Clinton's Administration. The fact of the matter is this: experimenting with these chemical weapons, many of them created in our country, does not mean that entities performing such experiments intend to use these chemicals to kill others or their own population. There is no evidence that "we" thought Saddam had sordid purposes in mind . . . . . no evidence whatsoever. What we have, here, folks, is a perfect example of how an anti-American Marxist uses "facts" to effect a lie. Your motives are obvious and easily defeated.
What, your google isn't working? Readers - google: 'reagan saddam chemical weapons' - read what you come up with.
ReplyDeleteThe receipt of chemical and biological weapons from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan Administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.
After the Al-Anfal campaign where Saddam killed up to 100,000 Kurds with chemical weapons, Reagan remained totally silent. Further, the Reagan administration did nothing to assist Iran in its attempts to bring proof of illegal Iraqi chemical attacks to light.
It was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost. So, Reagan assisted Saddam in committing war crimes.
CIA files recently declassified show all this to be true. Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, said: "The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew."
It's public record.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran
Look at how Smithson writes: he says:
ReplyDelete"Your "science" includes men claiming to be women"
'My' science? Show me one example of where I commented on this subject,
Smithson lies. I never did.
The he says, "You offer nothing to our debate except misinformation"
I live by facts. Cite facts. Smithson cherry picks facts.
For example, "proves" science is bogus by citing previous predictions of coming "mini-ice age" or global cooling.
Classic cherry pick.
By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age are used by Smithson to generate doubt, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that Smithson cites. It's a lie:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyze, we've reached a clear scientific consensus. A survey of 68 papers on the subject from '65 to '79 show 62% predicted warming, while 10% predicted cooling.
Yet Smithson goes with the 10% to make his point. It's either divisive and dishonest, or ignorant. Take your pick.
I just read the report, moron. You might try doing the same. Again, the chemicals in question and described in the report itself, show relatively small quantities and a policy extended to the Bush 41 and Clinton Administration. THAT's public record, jack and it from the record you submitted. Reagan is no more a war criminal than Obama is a Christian or you, an intellectual.
ReplyDeleteThe reader needs to understand that this is what Marxist oriented anti-Americans do - they constantly attempt to degrade this great country, its documents, his evolving history and its heroes. This will be the last time I allow the kind of false accusations mentioned in the above comment. Because the opponent can quote from other, anti-American writers, makes little difference to me.
Again, we are not having a discussion about Reagan or Bush 43's alleged war crimes. If the reader wants to pursue such unfounded claims, she can do so elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteGood try, but only more misinformation. The "ice age" was as big a scare tactic as Utopian Science has produced, along with the ozone thingy, the hunger bomb, acid rain, the beginning of the end following Katrina, 2005, and all the other "scientific" crap your side has produced over the years. As far as "men into women," that is the product of your side of the aisle. And what are we told about this farce of a “reality?” That when a man claims to be a woman, even before he cuts off his pecker and adds plastic to as many body parts as possible - you know, like a real woman - then I have to address him as a her, or risk criminal complaint and lawsuits. Your side tells my side, “He REALLY is a woman,” so, I assume that is a product of your science, if not biological science, then psychological science, something about which I know a good deal. You are wedded to that nonsence, all of it, as far as I am concerned. After all, you attach my personal beliefs to creation science, faux evolution and the ChristianKKK, Jim Crow and all all the other Democrat crimes against humanity. Back at you on that one, fella.
ReplyDeleteFunny how you Marxist Utopians think: if it is an example of the "truth," it is history. If it illustrates my point of view, it is "cherry picking," the only difference being, you can’t refute my arguments - soooooo, off into the ad hom weeds you go.
"they constantly attempt to degrade this great country"
ReplyDelete- like calling the president "an uneducated traitor"?
where does this hate come from? just evil.
When confronted with evidence ... even from the US Military... he responds by even denigrating them - the US Military! He even said in reference to a military document I quoted, "they are everywhere, like maggots"
Smithson constantly attempt to degrade this great country, its documents, his evolving history and its heroes.
Give us all that quote, the one in which I call the military "maggots." Would you do that for me, Saul?
DeleteHate? Not exactly. My brother fought in WW II, on the beaches of Normandy. I never put a ring in my nose, not a single tatoo, never wore sandals although none of that is bad, in and of themselves. I am not the one who calls our founders "slave masters," and the like. That is your side. I am not the one who glories in Marxism, that is your side. Let's not forget, I KNOW my Marxist claims to be true because I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH THESE MORONs, back in the late 60's and 70's. Back then, they proudly gave honor to anyone who wasn't a part of the founding of this great nation, especially Marx and Mao, and have never ceased with their crap, only today, they are in charge.
It is your side that ignores the constitution, practices anarchy ("sanctuary cities" being a prime example of this anarchy) , works against free speech, has its unions attempting to force me to join, or, not work to feed my family. Your side thinks it harmful that I am religious and works against my right to practice my faith, and on and on. Apparently you are about to tell us that you love America, just nothing about its founding, its documents and his evolving history. I call that sort of thing "traitorous," and, believe that ANYONE who supports Marxism to any degree, is an enemy to this country.
Don't get all teary-eyed with the thought that I just insulted H Obama. Let's be clear on that: he is the one who started this most recent fight, and he is in it to destroy my point of view. He is the hater. His elections are opportunities for revenge . . . . ACCORDING TO HIM. But "hate" means I am out of control. I have been a fight coach for 30 years and I know one thing, you fight with passion, but never out of a sense of sheer hatred. Try having a "conversation" with the owner of any other blog and see how long you last. So, I believe you have rights, but that does not include your distain for this country without opposition.
"Your side" ... straw man argument. Calling me "marxist utopian," , "moron" and a host of other names. Did I ever comment on any of the issues like transexuals, global cooling, hunger bomb.... etc., the answer is no.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Smithson has clearly denied evolutionary science and scientific consensus on climate science. My description of him is accurate and factual.
On a personal note, Smithson has commented repeatedly on my education, and socio economic station ... one could easily infer he covets my position in life. Perhaps he needs to be less personal and more professional if he expects people to take his writing seriously, although I'm certain most will see him for what he is.
You want to get this discussion back on a more civil basis, fine with me, but I have had it with you commenting about my weight, my intelligence, and your insidious personal attacks and ridiculous charges, accusing me of rank racisim and insulting my ability to think and debate in critical terms. That is what I have had to put up with. The last two or three post, is me kicking your freaking ass, coming down to your level, getting as personal as you do, and getting it done with a certain degree of expertise. I have practice insults and sarcasm 15 years longer than you and know how to piss people off. So I put up with your insults until . . . I didn't. I can turn it down, but I am done with a man who insults me to my face.
ReplyDeleteWhen confronted with an observational report by the US Navy stating that climate change was accelerating far more quickly than projected just 4 years ago, Smithson wrote:
ReplyDelete"There are lots of Progressive/Utopian types in the military. They are everywhere. like maggots"
http://jds-midknightreview.blogspot.com/2014/06/history-earths-history-is-problematic.html
DeleteThis is the accusation. In your words:
"When confronted with evidence ... even from the US Military... he (Smithosn) responds by even denigrating them - the US Military! He even said in reference to a military document I quoted, "they are everywhere, like maggots"
I asked for the reference in which I called the US military, "maggots" and you gave me a quote in which I branded SOME in the military, the Utopian Progressives WITHIN the military, as maggots. I have the highest regard for our military. I have no regard for military leadership that is Utopian Progressive. For the most part, I do not believe the field soldier fights as an ideologue. However, i know for a fact that several of the military brass lead from an Utopian point of view. Their rules of engagement get our troops killed and their "fairness doctrine" when it comes to waging war, has given us a miserable failure as to the Afghan war. If you can't see the difference, I am certain the readership does.
Yes, military leaders who don't deny science like Smithson are "maggots."
DeleteFor the record, the quote from "the maggot", Admiral Greenert, 30th Chief of Naval Operations, stated, "Over the past four years, The Task Force in consultation and collaboration with broader government and private scientific communities, has concluded that ice conditions in the Arctic are changing more rapidly than first anticipated ...Due to the significant retreat of sea ice, previously unreachable areas have started to open for maritime use several weeks each year."
- Admiral J. Greenert, US NAVY
You can add US Navy's Rear Admiral David Titley to Smithson's list of 'maggots". It just so happens, Titley IS a climate scientist and a former climate change skeptic. In an article published this week, he stated: "Climate change threatens national security. This issue is about science, not politics, and the military is taking it very seriously. ... We worked to evaluate the changing climate like we’d evaluate any other change the Pentagon needs to deal with ... Climate change is an accelerating threat to national security. That’s the finding of a recent report by the CNA Corporation’s Military Advisory Board."
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2014/07/06/Climate-change-threatens-national-security-by-David-Titley/stories/201407060071
The Navy report described climate change with the term: "certainty." -
There is broad scientific consensus on many climate change topics. These climate certainties include measured or observed higher surface, troposphere, and ocean temperatures; more precipitation and drought extremes; melting of mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice, and ice sheets; and a rising sea level. Each of the four certainties has the potential to impact U.S. naval forces’ operations and installations; if continued as projected, many will have national security implications as well.
Certainties.
Maggots! They are everywhere! - J.D. Smithson
Good grief. You have no idea what "Progressive / Socialist" means, do you? In today's political economy, the term has to do with a specific, Marxist related, political world view separate and apart from Utopian Science claims of any kind. More spcifically, the term(s) describe a neo-Marxist view of a borderless world, where the U.N. would be the central government, a societal world view based on wealth redistribution and used to quench the thirst of an elitist, power hungry, oligarchy. And who are the "wealthy" in this circumstance? Well, the same people as defined by Obama's legislation and regulatory accomplished . . . . . . . . . anyone who makes more than $45,000 per year - they are the "rich" ones by comparison.
DeleteYour rant has nothing to do with my personal views as to "progressive/socialist." Better luck next.
Just defining for your readers who qualifies as a 'maggot' in your view and why.
DeleteYou avoid the issue.
Readers judge for themselves.
Doubling down on your little and most recent lie? Is that how you handle correction, Mr "I've got a PhD and know all about critical thinking?" Seriously?
DeleteIndeed, I did brand the Marxist leadership within the military? My family has a proud military tradition. So, get this one correct. I Didn't avoid the issue at all, just restated what I said.
Let's continue our debate, such as it is, on another post/site.