Ted is always looking for ways to minimize his ecological footprint. Professionally, Ted is working to gain the skills necessary to turn his passion for sustainable development into action, as an entrepreneur or financing sustainable businesses.
Ted studied economics and international business at Saint Louis University’s campus in Madrid, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude and was honored as the Distinguished Student in International Business for his class. As the founder and president of the SLU Madrid Business Club, Ted focused the club’s activities on sustainability.
While working for commercial real estate multi-national Jones Lang LaSalle’s Madrid office, Ted strove to implement sustainable practices both within the firm and for its clients. He proposed and designed an Environmental Sustainability Action Plan for JLL Spain. Green Building and Environmentally Sustainable Development remain a passion for Ted: he believes that the intersection of sustainable infrastructure and sustainable attitude is where we’ll find a sustainable society.
Ted currently works for a private equity firm in Madrid, learning skills that he hopes to apply to finance Environmentally Sustainable Development in the United States and around the world.
Tracy is the CEO and Founding Partner of Technical Green - a green industry career site focused on clean tech and green research and development.
Tracy's professional experience are in the recruitment advertising and non-profit sectors and she has for many years maintained a sustainable lifestyle.
Marie Oser is a best-selling author, columnist, and host/producer of VEG TV. A vegan lifestyle expert, and environmental advocate with a focus on nutrition and its role in disease prevention, Oser specializes in creating original gourmet recipes with a solid nutritional bottom line.
Many prominent medical and nutrition professionals endorse her work, including Dr. Colin Campbell, Professor Emeritus, Cornell University and principal researcher of the groundbreaking CHINA STUDY, and Neal Barnard, M.D. founder and president of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in Washington, DC.
Marie is president of VEGTV, Inc., a video production company producing content for TV and new media. VEGTV streams hundreds of lifestyle videos to more than 1,000 sites globally. In her role as Director of Product Development at Smart Planet Kitchen, she has created, Marie Oser’s Lean & Green, a new line of vegan and Fair Trade Certified products. Marie has appeared on CNN, ABC, National Public Radio, QVC, WUSA, WNBC, KCAL, KOVR, Home & Garden Television (HGTV), FINE LIVING, TECH TV, and Discovery Channel.
Vegetarian since 1971; vegan since 1990, Marie left a career in TV advertising to pursue her interest in food, health, and nutrition. Born and raised in Philadelphia, PA, she studied psychology at St. Joseph’s University. Marie is a gourmet cook and organic gardener living in California, writing her 5th book and hiking every day with Travis, her Yellow Lab companion.
Cherl Petso is the Associate Editor at Disaboom.com, an online magazine for people with disabilities. Her writing expertise includes articles about the environment and sustainable living, and vegan/vegetarian issues. A vegetarian for 16 years and a recent vegan, Cherl is passionate about animal rights and issues. She enjoys writing about simple ways to lessen the impact on the Earth.
Cherl recently moved to Denver, Colorado from Bellingham, Washington. She enjoys hiking and hanging out with her puppy.
Nathanial Manning works for the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) as a Regional Analyst for Asia. He focuses on two programs for CCI, the Green Building Retrofit program and the Waste Management program. Nathaniel recently graduated from Brown University as an Environmental Studies Masters student, specializing in sustainable design and international carbon policy. Nat also completed a Bachelor of Arts in World Religions at Brown, focusing on the philosophy of ethics and the intersection between religion and politics. He is completing his Masters thesis on clean-technology-transfer within the UN's carbon credit mechanism (the CDM), which allows developed countries to invest in carbon mitigating technologies in developing countries with the purpose of promoting sustainable development.
Nathaniel has a long history of involvement in environmental development work ranging from waste-to-energy entrepreneurial ventures to designing sustainable homes for the Guatemalan chapter of Habitat for Humanity, to working for a tidal energy engineering firm in Singapore. Nat's passion is in how intelligent innovative solutions and technologies can be applied to create a sustainable and free world. When Nat thinks of the word "green" he does not just think of the word "environment" but how we as humans can design systems and solutions that create win-win situations.
Robert Cowin is a political consultant for environmental NGOs. His nomadic childhood reveals a world-class carpetbagger, but he masks as a Texan-New Yorker hybrid. Formerly with the National Environmental Trust (now the Pew Environment Group) in DC, he’s spent time on Capital Hill advocating for Kyoto ratification, clean air, renewable energy technology, and green energy policy.
Robert has also worked on marine conservation issues, directing the Conserve Our Ocean Legacy coalition in the Mid-Atlantic States which successfully worked to help strengthen and reauthorize the Magnuson Steven’s Act. He now happily lives in Southern California, flying back east often as he finishes his Masters in International Relations at Tufts University’s Fletcher School.
Dayanti Karunaratne is a freelance journalist based in Canada's capital city, Ottawa.
Since graduating from Carleton University's journalism program in 2006, Karunaratne has worked on the news desk at the Port Hope Evening Guide, the Ottawa Citizen, and the Molokai Times. Karunaratne's writing appears in the Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Magazine, the Globe and Mail, and other lifestyle publications.
Heather O'Neill is the founder of Eco to the People, a green living blog.
Before founding Eco to the People, Heather O’Neill wore so many hats in the field of journalism that even the Queen Mother would envy her collection. She has worked as the managing editor of a beauty trade magazine; as a copy editor for an online tech magazine; as the associate editor of a city magazine and as a newspaper reporter and columnist, and as the senior editor at the popular online newsletter ecofabulous.
Her work has appeared in many publications, including Parenting, Alternative Medicine, Natural Solutions, Marin Magazine, Greenwich Magazine and HOME.
Heather earned a Master of Fine Arts in creative writing from California College of the Arts. She lives and works in San Francisco.
Our country has sent an unmistakable signal that we want change, but moreover, we have sent an unmistakable signal that we have changed. America has just proven that it has moved past the obstacle of race in favor of a new agenda. This agenda is born out of our shared values as a nation and that which is common to all mankind, the hope for a better future. Let us all hope that this election is the first step towards giving ourselves and our children the gift of that better future.
So what are we likely to see in an Obama administration?
We are likely to see more spending on education, including greater accessibility of student loans and large investments in early childhood education. We are likely to see increased funding for renewable energy technology development (wind, solar, geothermal), bio-fuels, and energy efficient technology. We are also likely to see a large investment in energy infrastructure, including updating America’s power grid to a digital smart grid and building more nuclear power plants. Spending on public works projects like new roads, bridges, and public transportation will also increase.
As far as national security and foreign policy, we should see a reduction in military spending in an Obama administration, starting with a timely withdrawal from Iraq. We should see less of a US military presence in Iraq and more of a presence in Afghanistan. I think there will be more emphasis placed on human intelligence, covert activity, and international cooperation. I see less saber rattling and less of an emphasis on large, standing armies. Our relationship with Pakistan could change significantly under Obama as he has advocated for a more aggressive approach towards Waziristan. I’ll also make a bet that Guantanamo is closed within the first 180 days.
Health care costs should go down to the tune of $2,500 a year for the average person. Small business should also get some relief in the form of tax breaks for employee healthcare coverage.
His tax policy favors the middle class with a tax cut for people making less than $200,000 a year (applies to small businesses), and a tax increase for people making $250,000 or more (applies to small businesses). We’re sure to see more regulation of the financial and real estate sectors, but that would have happened regardless of who was president.
Of course, these were campaign promises, and we all know how candidates always keep their campaign promises, right? (Hopefully this guy will be different)
A couple of parting shots; wild speculation for fun really:
Rumor has it that Rahm Emanuel has been tapped as Obama’s Chief of Staff. If that’s the case, the President will indeed have a very smart man watching his back.
If I had to put money on it, I’d say Bill Richardson will be our new Secretary of State.
And last, but not least, I see Bill at the World Bank and Hillary as the new “Lion of the Senate”.
Socialism doesn’t work. We have enough history to understand that and if you don’t want to accept the fact, you are going to have to live with the reality of which you are volunteering me for. Global warming is a scam that helps create the socialist state fabricated for a liberal agenda. We have been in a cooling and proven since 1998. So how can you even stick with your story. How about listening to everything the other side has to say and if you have an ounce of logic, you will succumb to this “evil fascist” right-wing thinking. Emotions not logic rule the liberal mentality. I don’t care honestly what you think. Think it until you are blue in the face. But when it disrupts my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not the guarantee of happiness but pursuit, then I will have to call you out on it. WAKE UP PEOPLE! We are living in a state of idiocracy.
Stacey
November 7, 2008 5pm EST
Robert- I’d love to see those predictions come true. Great post
matias- I have 3 questions for you
1) What scientific evidence proves that we have been in cooling since 1998? Please include a link
2) Even if global warming doesn’t exist, are the byproduct of fighting global warming create good?: US economic competitive advantages in clean tech, energy independence, healthier lifestyles…it goes on
3) What is Obama suggesting that is more socialist in nature than what Bush administration has already done with the banks?
Stacey
November 7, 2008 5pm EST
to be clear- the “great post” was for Robert
matias
November 10, 2008 4pm EST
Alright let me answer your questions Stacey. 1) http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ now that will show you the real inconvenient truth. I implore you to not ignore the facts because of pride. That is just one of many sites, but it gets more technical there. You have so many scientists that claim it doesn’t exist, and many that make that claim, lose their job. I wonder why. I use to buy into the global warming rhetoric because that was what I was taught. I decided to question and look at both sides instead of accepting things at face value. Now I am a conservative for that very reason, because I questioned everything and what I believed didn’t make sense. 2) The link for question one will explain question two. Besides, I am not against new methods of energy. I am all for cleaner and more affordable energy. But we can’t just cut the source of energy that we depend on for cleaner energy that has yet to be invented or even conceptualized for efficiency. Bottom line, global warming isn’t manmade and us taxpayers are going to have to pay for it out of our pocket for the liberal agenda which leads to question three. 3) First off, Obama is a radical, Bush isn’t by any stretch of the imagination. Obama is the most liberal national leader we have and his ideas are anti-capitalism. Nationalized healthcare, wealth distribution, don’t seem to capitalist friendly to me and socialist in nature with the idea that we all deserve to be equal in wealth. We aren’t guaranteed happiness in way of wealth, but we have the opportunity to get their if we work hard enough. In way of the banks, don’t blame Bush. Funny how people have a tendency to blame the current president for the current problems. It was Allen Greenspan and Clinton in the 90s that started this mess with lower rates, seperating commercial and investment banking and Greenspan even admitted to his error in aiding to the subprime crisis. And all those liberals that were pushing for housing loans to people that don’t even deserve them, Obama being one of them, for the sake of showing that we are being “fair” to minorities, that is where you will find the problem. The Democratic ran congress has a lower approval rating than Bush himself, why don’t you blame them for a change. Yet Bush has to take the blame for everything because he is the boss. Well, he certainly is not a dictator, so I wonder who else is making decisions, hmmmm…..Let us see 20 years from now how history will write Bush. He certainly won’t be looked at in such a negative light as he is today I think. Not saying I agree with everything he has done, especially the last bail out plan he approved. Bottom line, cut fiscal spending, less government, protect the borders, national security and let the free market reign.
matias
November 10, 2008 5pm EST
Can’t forget energy independance.
edward
November 12, 2008 3pm EST
@ matias: wow, someone’s an angry conservative. i think the one thing you said that pretty much renders everything else you said comically useless is the “i don’t care what you think” comment from matias’ first post. that’s a really great attitude, matias. i’ll bet you have a lot of successful relationships. bottom line? if you don’t care what other people think, then why should anybody care what you think?
so it seems like you love “facts,” haha me too! you refer to a site (junkscience.com) run by a lobbyist for exxon and phillip morris on an anti-environment crusade. talk about reliable information. I guess money buys the “truth.”
so wait, didn’t you say you “look at both sides?” i’m sure you do, but in case you forgot to read anything reputable that makes the case for global warming being caused by human activity, check a summary of the 2007 report by the IPCC (that’s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a large, nonpartisan, international group of scientists),: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.
I’m betting you won’t read it though, since you’re clearly a scientist yourself who already knows pretty much everything there is to know and anyone who has an opinion that differs from yours is “emotional” “liberal” “radical” and/or “socialist,” which means they’re wrong, right?
on another note, it’s so funny to hear the conservative bulls**t about Obama. it’s like watching one of those old reefer madness movies. oooh guys “he’s a RADICAL!” “he’s MUSLIM!” “he’s a TERRORIST!” he’s a “SOCIALIST!” “he’s gonna make CAPITALISM ILLEGAL!” “he’s gonna take away your WAL-MART and sell your house to BLACK PEOPLE with NO JOBS!”
hahahaha i crack myself up sometimes. enjoy the next four years matias
matias
November 14, 2008 4pm EST
@edward. Apparantly I wasn’t clear enough for you that you have to rip into a comment to fit your argument. But I don’t have to justify myself to you. But I will say the meaning behind it is that we have the freedom to think what we think, just don’t push it on me if it is going to affect me negatively. In any event, it wouldn’t negate the facts at hand if what you were saying is true about me. Second, just like a liberal, you have to go bash my personal life when you don’t know me and it clearly wasn’t part of the dialogue. Grow up why don’t you. Thirdly, yes I actually did read the article and knew about it before you posted it you naive lib and yes I’ve heard of the IPCC. If you were rational in your thinking and understood that for me to believe what I believe, I would have had to come across the IPCC in my readings at some point. Sound good so far. Well here is something even better about that article. Now I did not come up with this, so yeah I know I am not a scientist, but you can take a scientist’s word at this little fact. “The report does say there is a 90 percent chance that the one-degree increase in the temp was caused by greenhouse gas emissions. “But what you don’t realize is that the 10 percent remaining in scientific terms represents a massive uncertainty. For example, in a medical study trying to find whether a disease was caused by certain bacteria, the study would not be regarded as convincing unless there was less than a 5 percent chance of there being another explanation. These sorts of uncertainties exist throughout the science.” Makes you want to question truly is what you are thinking real? Or maybe you don’t and can’t fathom actually agreeing with the other side. Remember, I use to be a lib like yourself. Not quite like the fire-breathing lib you are. That was roughly quoted from, not comments following the quotes, Iain Murray’s The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don’t Want You To Know About-Because They Helped Cause Them. A lot of goodies in there. I know the title alone isn’t a turn-on to you. But if you honestly want to know the truth, and you did say you loved facts, give that book a shot. Or should I assume that you won’t read it. And I say that libs are emotional because they don’t like looking at facts like I just stated. They want to believe (using their emtions here) that because there is a possibility to something, that it is concrete without analyzing through and through and accept everything at face value. Now the radical part I was referring to Obama. If you can’t see that in comparison to his liberal counterparts that his policies are extreme to the typical liberal ideology, well sir you might need to get another education. And yes they are socialist in nature. His ideas are rooted from past thinkers. Do you not know your history? Does Marx, Lennin, Stalin ring a bell? The Communist Manifesto? Wealth distribution, nationalizing private enterprises? I mean come on it is hitting you square in the face and you just want to ignore it. Denial it is. You are making asinine comments, especially that last portion of your last post which isn’t going to be dignified with a response, which is a byproduct of emotional thinking. You come up with one article to prove your case for global warming, a weak attempt at that, and then you feel you have the right to bash me. I’ve come to the conlusion that I’m most likely wasting my time with you.
matias
November 18, 2008 3pm EST
LOL the lengths that libs go to to suppress any truth never ceases to amaze me. Pathetic. Don’t know if you saw my last post Edward, but it didn’t help your argument out too much and the liberal agenda since it was worth deleting by the moderator. Apparantly the moderator doesn’t like the idea of letting free speech reign and allows dialogue to become biased just like the media. I can see why you, the moderator, like Obama. Just wanted to say good luck to all you denial loving libs. In all honesty, I hope I’m wrong about Obama and hope he uplifts this country to its full potential and gets us out of this financial fiasco first created by the libs. But if conservatives are correct, God help us all for the next four years. The only good thing that will come from that will be a conservative elect in 2012. The global warming thing, the libs are just foolishly wrong about that one. Either your smart, and know it is wrong and using it to just push your agenda forward, or just plain…tried my best to think of a nice word but ignorant will do. I probably shouldn’t bring this back up because then this post might get deleted since this whole website is dedicated to the environmental cause, which don’t get me wrong, I am for. Just don’t deceive people into believing something that isn’t true. Edward, because you post one article on manmade carbon emmissions, certainly doesn’t qualify to be a valid arguement. I already stated my points about the article in the last post which explains the flaws with the global warming argument. So I am going to allow the moderator to keep in the dark and not repost what I had previously stated. Keep it real and God bless!
matias
November 18, 2008 3pm EST
You know I take it back. Glich in my computer and it didn’t have that post I made uploaded. I apologize for my accusations.
edward
November 18, 2008 4pm EST
dude. let’s call most of my post “sarcasm,” which i think is a little different from personal bashing, it’s really all in good internet fun so don’t take it personally. it just pisses me off when people assume that the entire spectrum of political thought can be fit into simplistic “liberal” and “conservative” categories. when you say things like “libs are emotional and don’t like looking at facts” it’s like you’re saying that ALL liberals believe the same things or think the same way, which is patently ridiculous and i dont see any rational justification for it. anyway, i’ve got a short one for you now. wtf is this “liberal agenda” you’re talking about? and please, don’t say that liberals want a communist state because 1. that’s an oxymoron and 2. i (and most people you slur as “liberals”) take great pride being american precisely because of its free market principles and the guarantee of individual liberties.
oh and you compared obama and stalin? for real? that’s like comparing bush to mussolini.
Rob
November 18, 2008 5pm EST
looks like i may be wrong on Richardson and Hillary.
Stay current on the latest policies and progress government is making on addressing green issues. Find out what is going on off-camera and in the discussion chambers of government. Advocate your thoughts and ideas.
![[ X ]](http://www.ecomii.com/blogs/wp-content/themes/WP-Ecomii/images/close_btn.gif)
Our country has sent an unmistakable signal that we want change, but moreover, we have sent an unmistakable signal that we have changed. America has just proven that it has moved past the obstacle of race in favor of a new agenda. This agenda is born out of our shared values as a nation and that which is common to all mankind, the hope for a better future. Let us all hope that this election is the first step towards giving ourselves and our children the gift of that better future.
Socialism doesn’t work. We have enough history to understand that and if you don’t want to accept the fact, you are going to have to live with the reality of which you are volunteering me for. Global warming is a scam that helps create the socialist state fabricated for a liberal agenda. We have been in a cooling and proven since 1998. So how can you even stick with your story. How about listening to everything the other side has to say and if you have an ounce of logic, you will succumb to this “evil fascist” right-wing thinking. Emotions not logic rule the liberal mentality. I don’t care honestly what you think. Think it until you are blue in the face. But when it disrupts my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not the guarantee of happiness but pursuit, then I will have to call you out on it. WAKE UP PEOPLE! We are living in a state of idiocracy.
Robert- I’d love to see those predictions come true. Great post
matias- I have 3 questions for you
1) What scientific evidence proves that we have been in cooling since 1998? Please include a link
2) Even if global warming doesn’t exist, are the byproduct of fighting global warming create good?: US economic competitive advantages in clean tech, energy independence, healthier lifestyles…it goes on
3) What is Obama suggesting that is more socialist in nature than what Bush administration has already done with the banks?
to be clear- the “great post” was for Robert
Alright let me answer your questions Stacey. 1) http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ now that will show you the real inconvenient truth. I implore you to not ignore the facts because of pride. That is just one of many sites, but it gets more technical there. You have so many scientists that claim it doesn’t exist, and many that make that claim, lose their job. I wonder why. I use to buy into the global warming rhetoric because that was what I was taught. I decided to question and look at both sides instead of accepting things at face value. Now I am a conservative for that very reason, because I questioned everything and what I believed didn’t make sense. 2) The link for question one will explain question two. Besides, I am not against new methods of energy. I am all for cleaner and more affordable energy. But we can’t just cut the source of energy that we depend on for cleaner energy that has yet to be invented or even conceptualized for efficiency. Bottom line, global warming isn’t manmade and us taxpayers are going to have to pay for it out of our pocket for the liberal agenda which leads to question three. 3) First off, Obama is a radical, Bush isn’t by any stretch of the imagination. Obama is the most liberal national leader we have and his ideas are anti-capitalism. Nationalized healthcare, wealth distribution, don’t seem to capitalist friendly to me and socialist in nature with the idea that we all deserve to be equal in wealth. We aren’t guaranteed happiness in way of wealth, but we have the opportunity to get their if we work hard enough. In way of the banks, don’t blame Bush. Funny how people have a tendency to blame the current president for the current problems. It was Allen Greenspan and Clinton in the 90s that started this mess with lower rates, seperating commercial and investment banking and Greenspan even admitted to his error in aiding to the subprime crisis. And all those liberals that were pushing for housing loans to people that don’t even deserve them, Obama being one of them, for the sake of showing that we are being “fair” to minorities, that is where you will find the problem. The Democratic ran congress has a lower approval rating than Bush himself, why don’t you blame them for a change. Yet Bush has to take the blame for everything because he is the boss. Well, he certainly is not a dictator, so I wonder who else is making decisions, hmmmm…..Let us see 20 years from now how history will write Bush. He certainly won’t be looked at in such a negative light as he is today I think. Not saying I agree with everything he has done, especially the last bail out plan he approved. Bottom line, cut fiscal spending, less government, protect the borders, national security and let the free market reign.
Can’t forget energy independance.
@ matias: wow, someone’s an angry conservative. i think the one thing you said that pretty much renders everything else you said comically useless is the “i don’t care what you think” comment from matias’ first post. that’s a really great attitude, matias. i’ll bet you have a lot of successful relationships. bottom line? if you don’t care what other people think, then why should anybody care what you think?
so it seems like you love “facts,” haha me too! you refer to a site (junkscience.com) run by a lobbyist for exxon and phillip morris on an anti-environment crusade. talk about reliable information. I guess money buys the “truth.”
so wait, didn’t you say you “look at both sides?” i’m sure you do, but in case you forgot to read anything reputable that makes the case for global warming being caused by human activity, check a summary of the 2007 report by the IPCC (that’s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a large, nonpartisan, international group of scientists),: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.
I’m betting you won’t read it though, since you’re clearly a scientist yourself who already knows pretty much everything there is to know and anyone who has an opinion that differs from yours is “emotional” “liberal” “radical” and/or “socialist,” which means they’re wrong, right?
on another note, it’s so funny to hear the conservative bulls**t about Obama. it’s like watching one of those old reefer madness movies. oooh guys “he’s a RADICAL!” “he’s MUSLIM!” “he’s a TERRORIST!” he’s a “SOCIALIST!” “he’s gonna make CAPITALISM ILLEGAL!” “he’s gonna take away your WAL-MART and sell your house to BLACK PEOPLE with NO JOBS!”
hahahaha i crack myself up sometimes. enjoy the next four years matias
@edward. Apparantly I wasn’t clear enough for you that you have to rip into a comment to fit your argument. But I don’t have to justify myself to you. But I will say the meaning behind it is that we have the freedom to think what we think, just don’t push it on me if it is going to affect me negatively. In any event, it wouldn’t negate the facts at hand if what you were saying is true about me. Second, just like a liberal, you have to go bash my personal life when you don’t know me and it clearly wasn’t part of the dialogue. Grow up why don’t you. Thirdly, yes I actually did read the article and knew about it before you posted it you naive lib and yes I’ve heard of the IPCC. If you were rational in your thinking and understood that for me to believe what I believe, I would have had to come across the IPCC in my readings at some point. Sound good so far. Well here is something even better about that article. Now I did not come up with this, so yeah I know I am not a scientist, but you can take a scientist’s word at this little fact. “The report does say there is a 90 percent chance that the one-degree increase in the temp was caused by greenhouse gas emissions. “But what you don’t realize is that the 10 percent remaining in scientific terms represents a massive uncertainty. For example, in a medical study trying to find whether a disease was caused by certain bacteria, the study would not be regarded as convincing unless there was less than a 5 percent chance of there being another explanation. These sorts of uncertainties exist throughout the science.” Makes you want to question truly is what you are thinking real? Or maybe you don’t and can’t fathom actually agreeing with the other side. Remember, I use to be a lib like yourself. Not quite like the fire-breathing lib you are. That was roughly quoted from, not comments following the quotes, Iain Murray’s The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don’t Want You To Know About-Because They Helped Cause Them. A lot of goodies in there. I know the title alone isn’t a turn-on to you. But if you honestly want to know the truth, and you did say you loved facts, give that book a shot. Or should I assume that you won’t read it. And I say that libs are emotional because they don’t like looking at facts like I just stated. They want to believe (using their emtions here) that because there is a possibility to something, that it is concrete without analyzing through and through and accept everything at face value. Now the radical part I was referring to Obama. If you can’t see that in comparison to his liberal counterparts that his policies are extreme to the typical liberal ideology, well sir you might need to get another education. And yes they are socialist in nature. His ideas are rooted from past thinkers. Do you not know your history? Does Marx, Lennin, Stalin ring a bell? The Communist Manifesto? Wealth distribution, nationalizing private enterprises? I mean come on it is hitting you square in the face and you just want to ignore it. Denial it is. You are making asinine comments, especially that last portion of your last post which isn’t going to be dignified with a response, which is a byproduct of emotional thinking. You come up with one article to prove your case for global warming, a weak attempt at that, and then you feel you have the right to bash me. I’ve come to the conlusion that I’m most likely wasting my time with you.
LOL the lengths that libs go to to suppress any truth never ceases to amaze me. Pathetic. Don’t know if you saw my last post Edward, but it didn’t help your argument out too much and the liberal agenda since it was worth deleting by the moderator. Apparantly the moderator doesn’t like the idea of letting free speech reign and allows dialogue to become biased just like the media. I can see why you, the moderator, like Obama. Just wanted to say good luck to all you denial loving libs. In all honesty, I hope I’m wrong about Obama and hope he uplifts this country to its full potential and gets us out of this financial fiasco first created by the libs. But if conservatives are correct, God help us all for the next four years. The only good thing that will come from that will be a conservative elect in 2012. The global warming thing, the libs are just foolishly wrong about that one. Either your smart, and know it is wrong and using it to just push your agenda forward, or just plain…tried my best to think of a nice word but ignorant will do. I probably shouldn’t bring this back up because then this post might get deleted since this whole website is dedicated to the environmental cause, which don’t get me wrong, I am for. Just don’t deceive people into believing something that isn’t true. Edward, because you post one article on manmade carbon emmissions, certainly doesn’t qualify to be a valid arguement. I already stated my points about the article in the last post which explains the flaws with the global warming argument. So I am going to allow the moderator to keep in the dark and not repost what I had previously stated. Keep it real and God bless!
You know I take it back. Glich in my computer and it didn’t have that post I made uploaded. I apologize for my accusations.
dude. let’s call most of my post “sarcasm,” which i think is a little different from personal bashing, it’s really all in good internet fun so don’t take it personally. it just pisses me off when people assume that the entire spectrum of political thought can be fit into simplistic “liberal” and “conservative” categories. when you say things like “libs are emotional and don’t like looking at facts” it’s like you’re saying that ALL liberals believe the same things or think the same way, which is patently ridiculous and i dont see any rational justification for it. anyway, i’ve got a short one for you now. wtf is this “liberal agenda” you’re talking about? and please, don’t say that liberals want a communist state because 1. that’s an oxymoron and 2. i (and most people you slur as “liberals”) take great pride being american precisely because of its free market principles and the guarantee of individual liberties.
oh and you compared obama and stalin? for real? that’s like comparing bush to mussolini.
looks like i may be wrong on Richardson and Hillary.