Shared publicly  - 
Josh Dickerson's profile photoDan Riffell's profile photoAndrew Filipczak's profile photoJohn Poteet's profile photo
It's hypocritical if anything.

Albeit there are some people out there like this, the article attempts to paint all republicans in the same color, calling them people of hatred when the writer does nothing but sling around negative, combative accusations the entire article. I dislike Obama, not as a person, but as our president. I don't entirely disagree with all the things he's done. He has had a positive impact in some ways. However, he's done some things I just can't look past.

He paraded getting us out of the middle east last election. Yet now we find ourselves staring down Iran.

He signed the NDAA, allowing the arrest by military force of 99% of US residents without charge or right to timely trial.

He signed ACTA, which entailed ISP responsibility over the actions taken by their internet users, which would force them to police the internet and block any sites that would be claimed by big companies or our own government as a potential risk of being used in an illegal manner (which is 99.9% of the web).

The use of drones in the US, which as with everything I'm listing, could be used for good, but is purposefully left broad with plenty of room to be abused.

FEMA camps opened. Large prison camps similar to those used in WWII to jail innocent people who were in our country when we went to war with their home nations.

He made peaceful protesting illegal, a felony even, in places currently host to a person or persons accompanied by the secret service, whether the offending protesters know of their presence or not.

These are just some things that come to mind. To me, it all seems like preparation to forcefully reduce internal conflict that would arise due to an event yet to come. One I'd rather not see.

As it is, we the people have very little control over our government. A lot of people make a living making our rules and regulations, and will listen to those with the shiniest coin, presidents included. We've been an recessions (though I don't believe this is nearly as bad as those in the past) before, and each time we came out of them as the result of a major war. The mega wealthy profit off war campaigns, and are also the ones with the coin to get what they want. I feel like we're heading in a terrible direction.

I'm a registered democrat, but wouldn't consider myself one nor a republican. The fighting between parties is so senseless to me. We all have shared goals, but one of the biggest between the two parties in congress is personal profit. It's a huge problem and one of many that are hidden by the constant bickering about which party is better.

I don't hate anyone except those who's hate brings them to harm others in some way. I'd rather people look past fighting with each other to find solutions to the biggest problems we currently face, or may face in the not so distant future.
+Trevor Huffsmith Please provide the addresses of the FEMA prison camps that you say Obama has opened. If they exist, I'll take a photo and put it online, so that this can be put to bed.
If that is what the the lefty libs want to think about me, I am cool with that. I can't change their mind, so they can call me what they want. They can accuse and whine, I can smile and take it. Frankly I find most of them amusing!
+Pete McGowan You missed the point entirely. I never accused Obama of opening the camps himself, but they did open in the past year on his watch. I imagine they were being built before he even took presidency. I only list it because they did open while he's been in charge and he not so much as raised his brow. I don't dislike Obama because I think he's some evil mastermind, I dislike him because, to me, he seems easily swayed by money and the stubbornness of others.

As far as their legitimacy, do some research, there's a number of videos of them, some with locations, online.

But the point that you missed is that we shouldn't be competing with each other, slinging insults just because someones republican or democrat. We need to look past the stereotypes and at the politics beneath the titles. Our government has become a business based on selling power and waging wars. When our government was formed, it wasn't with just the president, left wing, and right wing in mind. The people were also suppose to be a part of it, but it's become closed off and hidden from the general public. While we sit around bickering about party stereo types, the other branches of government found ways to take the majority of our power away.
It's harsh but I believe there is some truth to this. I think Fox News is definitely out of line though.
+Robert Hirsch Not at all. To be honest, I've never even heard of Amerindo currency.

And the article seems awful weak. His claims for their lack of existence (or more so, their lack of importance) rides on the fact that some skeptics make wild claims about them such as multi million person staffs, gas chambers, Illuminati ties, etc. All I claim is that they exist and could be used in the same fashion as they were in WWII. And even that he goes on to say, oh well that won't happen to us. The "It won't happen to me/us" mentality is so incredibly irresponsible and flat out a terrible way to look at things.

People have had no problem hiding things in plain sight in the past and present; modern day moonshiners, zones where technology is prohibited, chains of safehouses, even things like Indian reserves and mennonite camps are things we only know to exist because other people say they do (unless you live next door to one.) With the edition of multiple bills that could be used very easily to hide information from the public eye, I don't think FEMA Camps are that far-fetched.
"not far fetched" is far away from the existence claim you are making. I guess your definition of a FEMA camp would be a good start. Maybe you just mean a place covered in a blue tarp. 
It's not nearly harsh enough. They have absolutely no basis in fact when they dismiss climate change or attempt to defund basic medical care for the poor. Do they think the salad they eat in a restaurant is magically protected if the poor schlub preparing it can't see a doctor for his hepatitis? Is it possible for a conservative to address the greater rates of teen pregnancy and divorce in the conservative South without blaming it on non-whites? (no)

My favorite conservative idiocy..... Bush's eight years in office are exempted from the taint of the worst economic crash since 1929. Obama is blamed for not fixing it in three years despite republican obstructionism. Apparently Bush was a passenger on a burning train that instantly turned into a sinking cruise ship with Obama at the helm on Jan. 21st 2009.

How does that work?
I mean I don't think their existence is far-fetched. But once again, I'm not claiming their to be million man staffs, gas chambers, nearly 1000 of these camps, etc. etc. I merely believe that there are a few, that they may have small staffs for maintenance purposes currently, but are not in use currently.

In the end, I'm only trying to bring a bit of skepticism to the people, because that article author isn't the only one with the "it won't happen to me" mentality. IF, caps purposeful, we would go to war with Iran (and possibly Russia and China who have voiced their support of Iran), I would much rather be surrounded by skeptics than people who sit back and accept it.
+John Poteet Just like in the article, you assume all conservatives to be the same and in doing so, you are no better than the criticisms you dish out.

And just to clear things up on your "favorite idiocy" Bush and even Clinton are just as responsible for causing the problems as Obama is for not keeping his word and fixing them, REGARDLESS of who may obstruct his power to do so. If he couldn't get it done in his first four years, there's no reason to think he'll be able to in his next four. As I said before, I don't dislike him as a person, but as a president, he's too easily swayed.
+John Poteet You sound like you believe that the climate changed only as a matter of human existence. I guess the years of Global cooling that we had to be afraid of back in the late 70's and early 80's were a result of global warming. How about the fact that both were championed by the same nutcase. What happened to that? The sun hasn't blotted out yet! Oh yeah, and the deep freeze that was the ice age was also a result of our current flawed global warming issue as well. I forgot, the planet never had global climate change prior to the existence of humans, and in the last 100 years to boot.

When the science is no longer flawed I may listen, but when it is Al Gore and his mega watt household and the imagined sciences of those willing to create charts that fit their desires as opposed to an actual science, then yeah, some of us are going to see the climate change that you champion as quackery.

And maybe the establishments that prepare the food should be liable for providing healthcare for it's employees, rather than a government program. Hey, I have an idea. If you eat a salad at an establishment and can prove that your hepatitis came from a worker at that facility, as opposed to your lifestyle, then you can sue the eatery! We don't need government intervention. They can not protect you from everything, including yourself. If you want healthcare, maybe you ought to figure out to get it, rather than holding your hand out and expecting the rest of us to take care of you!
+Jim Clark Here's the response to your climate change talking point: Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.

Also, I'd note that your comment is #1 on a list of over 100 false climate claims currently being made. If you want to see the response to the other 99, see here:
Oh Cripes +Jim Clark who are you refering too? What name are you talking about. Al Gore? Micheal Mann? Neither of them promoted global cooling. Global cooling (the kind that tried to make the case we should be worried about) was promoted by a single book in the 70s (the great cooling) which almost no scientist paid attention too. But the media jumped all over it, just like they did for the possibility of a black hole being created at CERN.

Are you going to be writing someday "hey well back in the 2000's all the scientists thought that CERN was going to end the earth with the creation of a black hole!"

But +Pete McGowan beat me to the rest of my comment
+Pete McGowan Actually, it is not a talking point. If you think that I give any credit what so ever to anyone else's opinion regarding climate change you would be seriously incorrect. I do not need a talking point to realize that this is to some else's financial end. Anyone who is a thinking individual would realize that climate change is something that has been happening for some time, long before we became a part of the equation.

It is dribble, just like it was in the '70's. We never saw a day in which the smog blanketed the skies and blotted out the sun. We never experienced global cooling to the extend that they were teaching it in schools, and we will not see the earth melt from global warming.

Now I am not saying that we should not better ourselves, and make an effort to work towards being cleaner, but people who push this the hardest are the ones that are capitalizing the most from it. Follow the money and you find the root to the hysterics. These are not talking points, this is the truth.

I see folks who buy into this just as they see me, full of $^(@.
+Robert Hirsch If you actually read my response you would note that Al Gore is mentioned in a separate paragraph from the comments about the Global Cooling. It was the same nutcase at NASA that started the comments regarding Global warming.
I can't remember his name as it has been some time since I paid any attention to the topic as I believe it to be dribble.

Once we have real facts, as opposed to those that have been created to suit your cause, I may start paying attention. But they lost me when it came out that most of the data is either flawed or created to make a point. And when Al Gore admits in an interview that some of it was embellished to create more of a serious attitude toward the topic it also weakens your case.

Actually, I am not so sure that I believe that global cooling was a comment from a book. I remember it being a part of science class in Jr. high school here in Illinois. It was also talked about with the same level of seriousness that we are discussing global warming today. But it is convenient to overlook any of that when we have decided to change our theory and strut out the new "science", now isn't it?
Nonsense. Pick your three top things that makes you think thousands of scientists have it wrong or are part of the greatest and most well kept conspiracy since the dawn of man. I'll quickly show you how, when you look at the actual claim and data available the conclusion points to globals warming or how the contention is based on a logical fallacy. Pick any three.
There is not a single scientist that can tell you with absolute certainty that mankind has caused even a sliver of the current climate situation that we now experience on a daily basis. Not one. And anyone who believes that they can or have even done so is either full of themselves or completely blind to the fact that mankind has yet to unravel the secrets that nature holds.
The jury is still out on global warming. If the science was even close to perfect scientists could predict the weather, and we all see how accurate a science that is.
It is all speculation, and until they weed out the bad seeds, I am not going to buy any part of it.

I am not trying to knock our science community, but they are not as spot on as they would like you to believe. Theories change daily, that is why they are theories and not facts.
Absolute certainty!?! There is no absolute certainty that you aren't a brain living in a jar of nutrients and imagining your reality. There is no absolute certainty in any science and never has been. No wonder you are dissatisfied with the science, your expectations are completely wrong for science. Want absolute certainty (no matter how misguided)? try religion.
+Jim Clark Your argument betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable and climate which is weather averaged out over time. While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. Or expressing that in weather terms, you can't predict the exact route a storm will take but the average temperature and precipitation will result the same for the region over a period of time.
Well, speak of the devil and who should appear. In a sad way we should be thankful to +Jim Clark for showing up and illustrating the attitude referenced in the OP's article.

Jim doesn't bother to refer to a peer-reviewed article that agrees with him, which is what any scientist would do, because there aren't any. He references a bunch of blather prompted by Fox news and execrable anti-science blogs like WUWT.

He's telling us that the sky-blocking pollution that was a concern in 1970 isn't evident when that is exactly what is happening in China where they don't enforce pollution controls. He even uses an almost perfect "Gish Gallop" throwing out garbage talking points one after the other without referencing them.

Finally +Jim Clark uses an obvious sockpuppet account with no public posts, no pictures with a real face, three whole people circled and zero credibility. Hey Anon, if you want invisibility try #chan. #reported
+John Poteet heh, I didn't notice the sock puppet account. Had three more follow up posts. You saved me a bunch of time. My thanks.
It's sad that you have to do this but before you type and edit a comment for ten minutes it's always a good idea to click through and make sure you're talking to a real person.
You guys are funny. I'll be the sock puppet, no problem with that. I know that you need to label me, because someone having an Independent opinion that does not fall in line with yours can not possibly happen. (sarcasm)

As for the followers on Google plus. I think that it is sad that you along with others here feel the need to attract hundreds of followers and "friends". Frankly, having "relationships" with people over an electronic devise does not rank high on my list of important life experiences. It is sad that you feel the need to be accepted by people that you don't know or will almost never meet in person. The relevance of those "friends"is not going to mean anything at the end of the day. So when you look at the two or three people that are circled here on Google + by my name, they are people that I actually know, deal with personally, and have meaning to me as they are "real" friends. So I feel sorry for you, that you take such pride in being able to label me "The Sock Puppet" based upon your total lack of knowledge about me. Congratulations on your following of fictitious friendships, I live to be as popular as you one day. (LOL)
I say all of this because this is the second or third time that Mr. Poteet has tried to use this as his means of belittling me.
More so because he has nothing else to offer as an argument. Aren't you witty!

Yours truly, The NON-BELIEVING SOCK PUPPET!!!!!!!!
(laughing out loud!)
Ok. Read. This. Slowly.

Most of us circle other people because we are interested in what others have to say. When I've circled somebody like Pete McGowan here it's because I've read something he wrote and decided that reading more will teach me something important.

As to the 600-odd people who have me in circles; I'm assuming they have some reason or other. I don't post lolcats.
+John Poteet guess if some of us spent enough time here to follow others that may be a good thing to do. I don't circle people because I am not here anywhere near enough for it to be worth the effort. Some of us look just to see what is going on. I was gone for 2 1/2 months. I really don't place a huge value on following people on the computer. If you do, good for you. Do what works.
Anyway, I pay attention to the people in my life that matter, the ones that I can sit across from at the dinner table and actually spend quality time with.
That is why I find it funny that you think for some reason that I must be a plant, or towing the party line. I could give a damn about the Republican position. I just find it amusing that you are challenged by the notion that if someone does not agree with you they must be anything other than a person with an individual view of the world. And you must feel that way, this is the second or third time that you have tried to pin down my profile with the observation that I do not have 500 people circled and 500 don't have me circled.
Circling people is not my goal.

Also notice, I don't go after you with even half of the vigor that you go after me. Are you aware that I have not looked at your profile. I am sorry if you are intimidated by the fact that I don't agree with you. But that is a part of life. I certainly won't go out of my way to place any labels on you, but that is called respect for another's opposite opinion.

Sincerely, The Sock Puppet!
It's not that you disagree. We love differing opinions and debate. It's that your so called arguments are really old, tiredly debunked ideas that have been trotted out for literally decades. You have not spent a single minute checking your own facts and then you declare everyone else wrong and you are an independent thinker, as of you are Galileo. It's preposterous. Galileo was actually right and had evidence to support his facts.

So, as I said, lay it out there Mr. Independent thinker. Give us your three so called best arguments against against agw. But how about you save us all a lot of time and check you breathtakingly novel ideas at, because that's all we are going to do to show you that your amazing ideas have already been covered.

Oh and before you start in with how that website is the product of a liberal plot to take over the world and force everyone I to communism, how about you respond to the actual arguments and data posted there. 
There's also the matter of reputation. Low-post accounts or accounts with "light-weight" post histories are notoriously used as vehicles for disruptive comments on boards clearly committed to serious conversation. This observation goes back to Usenet and IRC chat boards. Your backlist matters.

If a person isn't committed enough to have an account history, public posts or previous scientific interest perhaps it might be a waste of time to detail a response. The "sockpuppet" label doesn't exclusively apply to fake or deceptive accounts but can also refer to low-reputation accounts.
Add a comment...