–Secretary of State John Kerry, who served
Apparently 300,000-400,000 turned out for the People’s Climate March in New York City, Sunday.
NEW YORK — More than 300,000 people marched through the streets of New York City on Sunday in what organizers called the largest climate-change demonstration in history.
With banners, flags, floats and drums, protesters at the “People’s Climate March” overwhelmed midtown Manhattan in flocks of vivid color, demanding action ahead of the United Nations Climate Summit this week.
And as typically seems to be the case, the aftermath belies the message espoused.
Noah Rothman at Hot Air has the scoop:
“We live in a grotesque era where we have everything we want right now,” one protester told Foster, graciously packaging her entire movement up in one self-hating nutshell.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZlsKvOkHIY[/youtube]
There appear to be two strains of protesters who attended the People’s March. Some cling desperately to the ideals of Marx and who repeat rhetoric and slogans which have largely remained unchanged since the Rutherford B. Hayes administration. These folks ironically consider themselves “progressives.” The other strain of protester who spoke with Foster seemed lost, misplaced, left behind in a world which no longer made much sense.
It is a condition as old as time; the aimless in search of personal meaning complement the ranks of a movement which promises personal purpose. The revolution is over, but the tragically committed revolutionaries persist.
What Foster uncovered in New York City was what so many on the right have known for years, but the public rarely sees. The modern climate alarmism movement has been hijacked by the remnants of those who still adhere to the defunct tenets of revolutionary Marxism. It is no wonder, then, that so few climate change devotees in government and the media go out of their way to make sure you never hear from their grassroots supporters.
And today:
NEW YORK, Sept 22 (Reuters) – Hundreds of protesters plan to risk arrest on Monday during an unsanctioned blockade in New York City’s financial district to call attention to what organizers say is Wall Street’s contribution to climate change.
~~~ Flood Wall Street organizers said they wanted to use the momentum gained by Sunday’s march to “highlight the role of capitalism in fueling the climate crisis.”
I remember attending a couple of anti-war rallies in Los Angeles. These protests were full of fringies spouting all sorts of sideshow agendas that had little to nothing at all to do with what the rally was organized for.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
@retire05#290:
“I’m not that insecure.”
Then why did you whine about being called names in #259?
“all the while they deride our religious beliefs and call us names.”
@retire05 #294:
“You don’t write truth, George, you spew propaganda.”
Much of what I write is simply copied from the public record, INCLUDING judicial decisions AS WRITTEN and scientific assessments AS PUBLISHED, WITH LINKS.
Propaganda? Hardly.
@George+Wells:
I was speaking of those of us (the hated “breeders”) who don’t buy into the whole “Being gay is a normal condition of the human nature” bullshit. You know, like all the Mormons that the gays in California “derided, insulted” and harassed that you claim no responsibility for although you come here and spew your propaganda?
@Redteam #295:
“Has it occurred to you that no straight men wear assless chaps in parades? So if you see someone in assless chaps, you know their sexual proclivities.”
Has it occurred to YOU that a straight man who wants to wear ass-less chaps in public can gat away with doing it in a gay parade?
You DO understand that “gay” parades don’t check to make sure that everyone in them is gay… right?
@George+Wells:
I don’t think there is such a thing as a ‘hate crime’. If someone takes another person, violates that person, such as rape or sodomy, ‘does some other unimaginable evils to them, such as cutting them or starving them. Just how is it different if they do it because they are queer and ‘hate them’ than it is if they just do it for no reason at all? What does the word ‘hate’ have to do with the reason the person did it? Would you rather have a person ram a hot poker up your ass that didn’t hate you vs one that did? Would it feel worse or make a difference? Evil people do evil things, they don’t have to ‘hate’ someone to do those things.
@retire05 #296:
“Proof?”
Proof that they’re not?
@George+Wells:
I’m sure of that also. I personally know of at least 2 cases. But I don’t think it had to do with ‘hate’. I think it was just plain evil.
@George+Wells:
Is that true of all gay parades, or just the ones you are involved with?
@retire05 #300:
You addressed this post to me, but it was authored by Smorgasbord.
You may readdress your comment to him and refrain from misquoting me.
@George+Wells:
Are you playing stupid now?
How about proof that
@retire05 #301:
“You love that word persecuting, don’t you? And what do you know about being a Christian except for not being one?”
Well, when the word applies, I use it. You love that word “sodomy,” don’t you? You sure use it enough. So?
I believe in Jesus Christ and I believe in God. Your attempt to denigrate my faith violates my freedom of religion. Are you now attempting to persecute me for my religious beliefs as well?
@retire05 #304:
Say what?
@George+Wells: Smorg said and you agreed:
That is patently false. Normal would be the persons on a scale from 0-100 that lie in the range of 2.5- 97.5. Gays are outside that range, therefore are abnormal. Otherwise the study of statistics is meaningless. It can be proven that 95% plus or minus of all people are normal. The others fall outside that 95% normal range and are therefore ‘abnormal’.
@Redteam #306:
“I don’t think there is such a thing as a ‘hate crime’.”
Well, your “thinking” runs counter to that of the courts. People are being convicted of “hate crimes” and are receiving extra jail time for them because of what legislatures have placed into the Law regarding the punishment of “hate crimes.”
You would be well-advised to steer clear of statements that indicate a disconnect between your “thinking” and reality, as that path leads to a declaration of your mental incompetence.
@Redteam #308:
“I know beyond a doubt that gay people are often murdered simply because they are gay.”
“I’m sure of that also. I personally know of at least 2 cases. But I don’t think it had to do with ‘hate’. I think it was just plain evil.”
Thank you for that, Redteam. Perhaps you might share that with Retire05, who at the moment has her head buried rather deeply in…
@Redteam #309:
“Is that true of all gay parades, or just the ones you are involved with?”
I wouldn’t know. I’ve never had the pleasure of attending one, either as a participant or as a spectator. They are never close by. None in Tidewater, Virginia that I’ve ever heard of. There isn’t any local gay newspaper, and until quite recently, the “normal” newspaper refused to cover anything “gay”, so how would I even know if there WAS a gay parade? I think that they’re something that goes on in places where there is a large gay community.
@George+Wells:
But since you don’t follow Christ’s teachings, you obviously don’t believe in Him all that much.
@George+Wells:
finish that sentence.
@George+Wells:303
And much more is total bullshit.
@Redteam #314:
“They are NORMAL people who just prefer same sex partners.”
“That is patently false.”
What ever you say, boss.
If you can’t pick up on the TRUTH that Smorgasbord INCLUDED in his post, you missed the important point that most gays aren’t noticeable as being anything other than “normal.”
They AREN’T wearing ass-less chaps in parades.
In fact, they ARE intentionally blending in with the rest of “normal” people, INTENTIONALLY not rubbing all of your straight faces in their differences. Just as you want us to. I’m one of those normal-behaving gays. I don’t HAVE a pair of chaps, ass-less or not. I’ve NEVER been to a gay parade. So how are we thanked for that? We get OUR faces rubbed in the fact that a very few gay people DO behave badly in public.
And you wonder why some gay people are hostile?
Pppppfffftttt!
@Redteam: #314
I agree with you on almost everything. This is one thing I don’t. How is NORMAL figured out. Who decides the parameters, and sets up the test standards. Since I don’t belong to any religion, or political party, I don’t have to defend any of their teachings, and I disagree with a lot of the teachings. That is why I don’t belong to them.
I have a simple philosophy: I have my opinions about things, but those opinions can be changed if I have enough proof to show I was wrong. When a person belongs to a religion, political party, or any other thing, they try to defend their thinking. As far at the Bible goes, it says somewhere in it that if one part of it is false, then all of it is false. That would mean that if a person doesn’t CHOOSE to be gay, then the rest of the Bible could be wrong.
I finally figured out that if a person has to CHOOSE to be gay, they also must choose to be straight, bisexual, etc. This is why I ask straight people who hate gays, “At what age did you CHOOSE to be straight?”
I have my opinion on things, and when I disagree with someone, and neither of us will change our minds, I prefer to change the subject, and talk about something we agree on.
@retire05 #318:
“But since you don’t follow Christ’s teachings, you obviously don’t believe in Him all that much.”
So I don’t follow every last Biblical instruction perfectly. Who does? You?
You’ve chosen to call me out on my “sins.”
Don’t I have the same right to call you out on yours?
Or should you just shut your trap and turn your cheek like a GOOD Christian?
Is our government to begin MEASURING exactly HOW Christian we all are?
Soon?
@Redteam: You switched your picks overnight? Swishy er wishy washy. Didn’t realize you were so lacking in conviction RT.
@George+Wells: George, you said to Retire:
Retire apparently uses the correct English word for the act she is talking about. Do you have an objection to it? Is that correct usage objectionable to you? Is there a preferable word for that act for you? That’s kinda like objecting to using the word Redskins for the Redskins. Call a spade, a spade. Sodomy is sodomy.
All:
Good night!
P.S. @ Redteam:
I didn’t ask Retire not to use the word “sodomy.” In fact, I did not include that word in my previous list of slanderous terms for gay people. I simply noted that she liked to use the word “sodomy” just as she noted that I liked to use the word “persecution.” In both cases, the words were in fact being used correctly. So what was your question?
@George+Wells: #321
As far as I am concerned, the more gay MEN there are, the better for me. I am hoping to find someone to settle down with, but there are a lot better looking men out there than me, so the more gay men there are, the better chance I have of a woman settling for me.
@Richard+Wheeler:
Actually I didn’t, I made those picks back about last Monday when the new weekly games on the “Pickem” came out. I stuck with those picks on that form because I was attemting to get more points by being correct. Which was right because as of now, I’m ahead in my league. My feeling was that Miss State would likely beat T A&M so I picked them. The odds were, that A&M would win based on rankings so I thought they might prevail. The MSU pick was for points,, the A&M was not.
I’m glad the SC-Kentucky game wasn’t on the sheet, I would have missed it. Ditto SC-ASU.
@George+Wells:
Not exactly, try to get it right. People are being convicted of something that some liberal do gooders have attempted to flim flam the public with as a ‘feel good’, buy votes set of activities. There is no ‘legal definition’ of ‘hate crime’ that will ever hold up to legal interpretation. Don’t spend your time looking, it ain’t there.
@George+Wells:
Why didn’t you accuse them of a ‘hate’ crime? That’s odd since all newpapers are lib and all gays are libs.
@George+Wells:
Nope, I don’t.
@Smorgasbord:322
In statistics (and my intention is not to teach a statistics course) the normal distribution is figure out by taking a sample and testing what the normal distribution is. Lets say the test is to determine what is the normal sexuality of persons. To keep it simple, lets say that the test is: Do you have sex with only persons of the opposite sex, same sex, or both? After asking 100 persons, the likely result would be that (assuming truthfulness) about 93 would say only opposite sex, about 5 would say both, about 2 would say only the same sex. Then if you classify these results, you would have 93% that are Normal and and about 7% that are not Normal, therefore Abnormal. Normal therefore being defined as basically what almost everyone is or does. Let’s face it, if almost no one has sex with the same sex, then that must be the norm.
@George+Wells:
So I don’t follow every last Biblical instruction perfectly. Who does? You?
Where did I ever mention “sins?” Freudian slip, George?
Sure, if you can find any that are as severe as sodomy.
“Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.”
“And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.”
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men”
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
@Smorgasbord: 322 again:
I don’t think I agree with that. Making a choice to do something does not mean that you ‘choose’ an alternative also.
If a person is ‘born straight’ then if they become gay, it is likely that some event occurred that caused them to choose that life style. If that event did not occur, then they wouldl not have had to make a different decision to ‘not be gay’. Say that a 13 years old boy is offered, by some gay guy, some money to let him give him a BJ. The kid discovers a source of money and it doesn’t even hurt to earn that money so after deciding he likes the income, he has by default entered into a lifestyle. Had he never been offered, no decision point would ever have existed therefore no decision to ‘remain straight’. I personally believe that some gays are born that way and some choose to be that way. I think that a gay that is ‘born that way’ would be in the opposite position as what I described. He would have to decide that he wanted to live a ‘straight life’.
@George+Wells: 326
325
Wow, finally caught up
@Redteam #239:
You said:
http://www.fbi.gov/about…/hate_crimes/overview (Federal Bureau of Investigation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
You said:
“There is no ‘legal definition’ of ‘hate crime’ that will ever hold up to legal interpretation.”
WHAT?
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. They upheld Wisconsin’s hate crime law. What else are you arguing about?
@Redteam #334:
“( a kid born gay) would have to decide that he wanted to live a ‘straight life’”
That’s a fantasy of yours. If the kid is really gay, he can’t get it up for a female, any more than you could get it up for another male, UNLESS YOU’RE GAY!
The kid who gave bj’s for money isn’t gay, he’s a male prostitute. There IS a difference.
@George+Wells:
I didn’t say he became ‘gay’, I said:
Not a fantasy of mine. But I have a relative male, about 65 years old now that was ‘born gay’, had all the desires and feelings that you say a born gay guy has (at least that’s what he said) but back in his lifetime, it was actually dangerous for him to be gay and he ‘didn’t want to be gay’ so he got married and has 3 children, all grown now. According to him, he has never had a gay relation with a man even tho he has desired to all his life. He is a religious person and wanted to be true to his wife and children. I’m assuming he ‘got it up’ when he had relations with his wife or she wouldn’t have gotten pregnant. So George, speaking in generalities is not always accurate in some cases.
@Redteam:
The 2012 FBI statistics show that of hate crime “incidents”, 19.6% were from sexual orientation bias (54.6% anti male homosexual). 19.0%, just 6/10th of a percent less, were from religious bias. Most of those of “religious bias” were against Jews (59.7%).
Funny how the liberal press doesn’t report that Jews are as “persecuted” as homosexual men.
@retire05 #333:
And right back to the BIBLE we go.
OH LET THE GROUND SHAKE!
RETIRE05 IS QUOTING SCRIPTURE AGAIN!
SHE HAS IMPALED THE EARTH BEFORE ME WITH HER STAFF OF RIGHTEOUSNESS,
AND I FEEL MYSELF BEING DRAWN DOWN INTO THE FIREY DEPTHS!
AGGGGGHHHHH!
@George+Wells:
Show where I have ever quoted Scriptures before, you sad old weasel.
@retire05 #340:
“Funny how the liberal press doesn’t report that Jews are as “persecuted” as homosexual men.”
Funny how you are now acknowledging that homosexuals ARE being persecuted….
I haven’t brought up religious persecution for the same reason that I haven’t brought up spousal abuse, or rape, or abortion, or animal cruelty or genetically engineered crops. Talking about everything under the sun kind of dilutes the conversation, doesn’t it?
It’s bad enough that this thread started out on the topic of “climate change.”
@George+Wells: 337
why not include camel jockeys, portajohn cleaners, tall men, runts, midgets, boys with long hair, girls with short hair, everybody in the civilized world, everybody not in the civilized world, etc. Or how about just ‘anybody but you’, that would include practically anyone. As I said, it’s just a ‘feel good’ pander to a voter so you can get their vote deal. Tell me again how having a red hot poker shoved up your ass by a gay guy is preferable to a red hot poker by a straight guy. A ‘hate’ crime is just a ‘crime’ committed by somebody that doesn’t like you or that you don’t like because he doesn’t like you. It’s not a ‘real’ thing.
I didn’t need a reminder of how many states are run by stupid people.
you said:
but you had said:
but what you didn’t say was that ‘hate’ was recognized as ‘motive’.
How could a court determine, if someone stuck a red hot poker up your ass, whether he was doing it to make you feel good, or if he was doing it because he didn’t like you? Nothing in your quotes show clear definition of hatred as it applies to crimes.
@retire05 #342:
“Show where I have ever quoted Scriptures before, you sad old weasel.”
In your post #333, you quoted scripture THREE times.
“AGAIN” applies to the second and third quote.
@Redteam: 41-7 That’s embarrassing– our book you’re 0-3. Turn in your fantasy football card.
What’s your Senate picks?
@George+Wells:
yes, but talking about the temp being 55 at night and 72 during daylight isn’t very entertaining. We all know that temps change basically every hour of every day. Why does that need to be discussed?
Restating all that crap about ‘hate crimes’ is useless as the fact of ‘hate’ can only be proved if you have a liberal judge that wants to pander.
@George+Wells:
The FBI reported ONE murder in 2012 that was listed as an “anti male homosexual” crime. How many police officers were shot in the year 2012 in the line of duty.
I guess you are too dense to notice that I had “persecuted” in quotes, George. Does someone need to buy you a clue as to why I did that?
No, but since you don’t seem to understand what “again” means, let me explain it to you; it means another time. What other time have I quoted Scriptures, you sad old weasel?
@Redteam #344:
“Nothing in your quotes show clear definition of hatred as it applies to crimes.”
I didn’t have to supply you with a “definition” to make the point that hate crime laws are in effect and being used to put hate criminals in jail in all but five states in the union. Hate crime laws have been upheld by the SCOTUS, and your OPINION that hate crimes mean nothing because YOU don’t have a definition for them that YOU like must come as a tremendous relief to the people who are now in jail for having committed hate crimes. Why don’t you tell THEM all about your OPINION about hate crimes. Maybe they’ll elect you president.
@richard wheeler: Problem is, you’re kinda O-3 also. How did all your Southern Cal teams do tonight? UCLA? USC? anyone? You ever see so many top 25 teams get bumped off in one day? Wow….
@Redteam:
Agreed. A man doesn’t murder a woman because he loves her. But I guess in the liberal mind, tacking on 20 years due to a “hate” crime means a lot when the guy gets the death sentence to begin with. Then again, all crime could be labeled “hate” crime since I don’t know of any case where a burglar robbed someone because they loved them. Hate crime classifications are just another liberal wet dream of political correctness.