Because facts and logic are never on their side. If these people ever told the truth, they’d be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Liberalism itself is a lie, it’s all based on lies. They have to lie to keep it going. I’ve known them to even practice lying, just so they can stay good at it. I think that’s why bill clinton lied about being a vegan. It’s a small lie, nobody really cared that much. But to him, if he gets busted at it, he knows he needs to keep practicing, if he gets away with it, he knows he’s still on his “A-game”.

I don’t think the threat of force is reserved for the left.

George Johnson
So it’s only the left that lie? Ever heard of Richard Nixon?

Simon, did he say “Only” the left lies? No – he just said the left lies. Stop trying to create straw men.

Simon:
No one said it was ONLY the left, LM said the left’s instincts are ALWAYS to resort to compulsion.
Occasionally the right sinks to the same level – I am sure you can state examples.

iwian and David Jay:
The “left” is no more inclined to lie than the “right”. Indeed, it was an exemplar of the far-right, Joseph Goebbles, who perfected use of the Big Lie as propoganda.
Richard

And the Blood is barley dry from real terrorists and criminals….
Feh,.

Just because he was a Republican is not evidence that Nixon was a conservative.

I see that Richard is still trying to push the lie that Nazi’s were right wingers.
Sheesh, they put “socialist” in their name.

This is not a left/right issue.

Lol. Funny how some moron has to use Nixon as an example. You can have your Nixon, and I will raise you: every leftist that opens their totalitarian mouths.

@richardscourtney
Sigh… clearly to anyone paying attention, the Nazis were of the left, it’s a liberal myth that they are right wing. Altogether now… Goebbels was a National Socialist — keyword Socialist. All of their programs were big government. Adding in militarism and anti-Semitism (also, something more from the Left) doesn’t suddenly make it right-wing in my book, despite the propoganda spewed by all the “smartest people in the room”.
Which is not to say those on the right don’t lie. Per typical platitudes and cynical lamentations about our political process, they’re all liars.
I would agree though that lefties do it more naturally and habitually – to themselves as much as everyone else.

Simon! Richard Nixon! Really?!
Now I am sure that with your twisted logic that Hillary’s lies are justified because Nixon did it first.
Kind of like every Obama screw up is Bush’s fault because…well it’s just Bush’s fault.

Goebbel’s like the rest of his party, were socialists, which puts them as members of the left.
It really is sad the way modern socialists try to rewrite history to avoid dealing with the consequences of their philosophy.

Pat, it may not be a left right issues, but it remains a fact that nearly everyone who supports both CAGW and the criminalizing of opposition is a creature of the left.

(Note: “Michael Darby” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Buster Brown’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

MarkW:
The Naz1s were fascists, not socialists (as you know well).
Richard

richardscourtney
December 7, 2015 at 10:23 am
iwian and David Jay:
The “left” is no more inclined to lie than the “right”. Indeed, it was an exemplar of the far-right, Joseph Goebbles, who perfected use of the Big Lie as propoganda.
Richard

Goebbles was a member of the National Socialist Germans Worker’s Party. Sorten as nazi, *Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in German) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
It only looks far-right to people who are at the farthest-unreacheable-to-reason-left

Micheal Darby: It can’t be “rewritten” because the science is already settled right?

Luke:
In reply to my having written

The “left” is no more inclined to lie than the “right”. Indeed, it was an exemplar of the far-right, Joseph Goebbles, who perfected use of the Big Lie as propoganda.

You say

Sigh… clearly to anyone paying attention, the Nazis were of the left, it’s a liberal myth that they are right wing {snip}

A”liberal myth”? It is hard to imagine a more ridiculous lie than that!
The Naz1s were fascists: they were as far to the political right as it is possible to be.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum
Richard

Sadly, because it works. A rapist uses threats, his fists, a knife, or a gun. A Leftist uses the threat of government, and mob action to rape Western Civilization. On the bright side, sometimes the victim fights back and survives.

Fascism – a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator (UN this time) controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.
: very harsh control or authority
Sounds like the Alarmist solution to a non existent problem.
History repeats itself, but liberals do not study history, neither social, political, economic or climate. So, we see the same tired failures repeated again and again.

Hitler did the same thing

I hope this arrives in the correct place.
There is no left or right, the true spectrum goes from Anarchy (no government control) to Totalitarianism (total government control). Socialism and Fascism are just two different forms of Totalitarianism.
In Paris you aren’t seeing “the left” at work, you are seeing “Totalitarians” at work advancing their agenda. And they move on while their opponents spend their time arguing over a totally cosmetic, semantic difference in someone’s nomenclature 70 years ago.

The Nazi government implemented wage and price controls and had absolute control over industrial production and the press. They confiscated the property of the old aristocracy in the name of the German “folk.” Not so different from the Bolsheviks, and not fitting the definition of “right wing” as conservative supporters of the established order.
The Oxford dictionary defines “left wing” as the “liberal, socialist, or radical section of a political…system.” The Nazis weren’t strictly socialist and they definitely weren’t liberal, but they certainly were radical.
You could call them left-wing for their radical transformation of the political system and extreme right-wing once the new system was established. Typical of a transformation to totalitarianism.
As Benito Mussolini said of fascism: “We want to be aristocrats and democrats, conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and revolutionaries, legalists and antilegalists – depending on the circumstances of the time, place and situation.”

The Nazi government implemented wage and price controls and had absolute control over industrial production and the press. They confiscated the property of the old aristocracy in the name of the German “folk.” Not so different from the Bolsheviks, and not fitting the definition of “right wing” as conservative supporters of the established order.
The Oxford dictionary defines “left wing” as the “liberal, socialist, or radical section of a political…system.” The Nazis weren’t strictly socialist and they definitely weren’t liberal, but they certainly were radical.
You could call them left-wing for their radical transformation of the political system and extreme right-wing once the new system was established. Typical of a transformation to totalitarianism.
As Benito Mussolini said of fascists: “We want to be aristocrats and democrats, conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and revolutionaries, legalists and antilegalists – depending on the circumstances of the time, place and situation.”

Why is it necessary for the left to always resort to force, threats of force and compulsion to get their agenda enacted. ??
Because they have no other valid techniques of persuasion, like truth, reason and intelligence.

Wikipedia has a decent article about the history of the Left vs. Right Wing in politics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics which ends with this wise conculsion:
“the way the words should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean”
In other words, left vs. right has become a meaningless euphemism, much like undefined “climate change” has replaced “global warming” so it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
Oh, the guy’s name is Goebbels, not Goebbles. Rhymes with “no balls”, as in that little ditty the returning vets on my block brought home to us kiddos.

It is wrong to assume a straight line between left and right. It is a circle. Really far left meets up with really far right.

lee says: “It is wrong to assume a straight line between left and right. It is a circle. Really far left meets up with really far right.”
So true… Some spectra place anarchists and communists at opposite ends, while back in the good ol’ 1800s the bomb planting and president assassinating anarchists were often communists who wanted anarchy so they could become the rulers.

All:
People that want to take things from others, or enhance their power without adequate/reason tell the lies.
Today, what political structure(s) wants to take other individuals things (material goods, freedoms, etc.)? They are the ones that will lie the most?
(and just because some individual are willing to give up their stuff for the perceived “good cause”, doesn’t mean the political structure that they support isn’t lying to them).

@richardscourtney:
G’day Richard, long time. And with respect, I feel I need to correct a grave misconception: Goebels was a member of the National Socialist Democratic Party (Nazi). Socialist. While it has become common currency to denounce “right-wingers” as “nazis” or “fascists”, both Nazis and Fascists are manifestations of the Left of the political spectrum. The Fascisti, a political party created by Benito Mussolini, took it’s name from the symbol of a Tribune of the People of Republican Rome, but he was himself a former ranking member of the Communist Party of Rome, and had edited two communist newspapers.
To call someone “right wing” and “fascist” or “Nazi” in the same breath is an oxymoron.
Josef Goebbels was an exemplar of the extreme Left.
The difference between the political philosophy that has become known pretty universally as fascism from history, as exemplified by either the Nazis or the Fascists, and other forms of Socialism, is that fascism is a top-down philosophy that isn’t happy to wait for the crisis which is supposed to bring about a revolution by the proletariat, such that they throw off the chains of their capitalist oppressors, and they determine to use the machinery of government to impose the required changes by taking over the government. An example closer to home of this same sort of behavior can be found among the Neo-Cons in the US, considered by many to be “right wing”, many of them even running as Republicans and claiming to be “conservatives” and supported by what’s ironically called “the establishment”, but in fact they are Statists, another Left of the political spectrum philosophical group, who have an approach much like the fascists, though usually not with the—overt—attendent violence to coerce people. Contrast the modis operandi of the Neo-Cons with the causes supported by Hillary Clinton presently and when she was Secretary of State (I think even the NYT mentioned how it was three women, Valerie Jarret, Stephanie Powers, and Hillary Clinton, who talked Obama into taking action in Libya). Look carefully; you won’t find many.
The big similarity between all the leftist groups is a strong tendency to act as if the means justify the ends, and the only variation is how ruthlessly they impose that particular meme: coercion is just one of the hallmarks of that approach.
I remind everyone of the words of Tim Werth, when he said that even if the theory of climate change was wrong, taking action—alluding to forcing people to do things against their will in the name of fixing a problem that he was admitting might not even exist—was still the right thing to do. I might ask who appointed him king? But we have heard supporters of global warming, and other eco-activists, and Paul Ehrlich et al, frame arguments this way for generations now—rent-seekers living off government grants, lobbying for laws to effectively prevent grants to be given to anyone who dares to disagree with them—not a big ethical problem there, right? Sure—smearing people like our host here at WUWT, that HE is taking money from Big Oil, the Koch Brothers, Satan himself. Uh huh. And at every just about every big climate crisis summit, you see signs out front with BP and Exxon and the like all over it.
So why, really, are we listening to all the global warming nonsense? Is it about saving anything aside from the gravy train for people like whazzizname that earned something like $60 Million so that his foundation could produce three or four papers in a decade or more? Capitalism is not about rent-seeking, never has been, never will be. It’s about competition in the free market, both of ideas, and finance. Statism is about eliminating competition, and choosing the winners, and the rent-seekers will have their lobbyists in their fighting to ensure THEY are among those chosen.
So: which group, the Alarmists, or the Skeptics, acts more like Statists, or any other Leftist ideology?
But I do get your point, Richard: historically, the Right and the Left both have shown a tendency to abuse power when they are in the majority. As Lord Acton mentioned, once upon a time.
p@
P.S.: for the best discussion of a history of fascism, please read Jonah Goldberg’s excellent, “Liberal Fascism”.

My reading of history led me to find that in the old French parliament sitting in their respective places the ‘left’ argued for government control over personal freedom, the ‘right’ argued for persona freedom over government control. Both were socialist though..
Oliver Cromwell deposed the monarchs, claiming to be offended by hereditary control, only to declare himself chief protector then reinstated hereditary with his son to take over after him. Monarchs and Communist/Socialist rulers don’t look that different from below, the later just looking inspired by resentment or a delusion that they can do the job better.
Conservatives have a history of conservation and preservation, giving them their name – they aspire to maintain the status quo which has evolved over time (or occasionally to return to a ‘better’ time, viewed through rose coloured glasses). They are often older people. They can lie anywhere on the political spectrum.
radicals and reactionary seeks ‘change’, often revolutionary.. which means abandoning the past (lessons) and trying something new or different to the old order. This tends to come from the young, ignorant of the compromises that must be made in life. They can lie anywhere on the political spectrum.
The words revolutionary, change and new are spun with positive connotations, old and entrenched with negative connotations. Saying ‘selfies are so 1890’s’ or ‘rap (flyting) is so 12th century’ taints the act. Saying Volkswagen is releasing a new car is cause for excitement (or used to be) for many people.. new is good because it’s different .. yet rarely do we get excited in a good way when our keys are not where we expect them to be, the tax form changes each year, the government tears down houses to build a highway or a river breaches it’s banks to set it’s self a new course.
Yes change in nature is inevitable, that’s why we build houses to keep nature out, and society to maintain continuity, comfort and familiarity.
control freedom
many laws few laws
big government small government
this is different from
communism capitalism
socialism, fascism, conservatism, radicalism all lie in the middle in no set order
and different again from
power power (?)
(individual power can be great or nonexistent all the way through this spectrum)
Socialism is a relatively new social experiment, others will say it’s very old – it doesn’t matter. I live in a socialist country (Australia) where education, health and civil protection are free(ish) and controlled by the government to be equal for all – it has great merit. Both our main parties are essentially socialist, with one having slightly more libertarian views than the other. Fascism or the ‘third way’ was to be an alliance between business and government (peoples) interests – with essential services being controlled by government and capitalists free to make money as long as they do not take advantage of The People. it has merit, and more closely describes the Australia of years gone by before the Bob & Paul Show deregulated the banks and began the selloff of public assets. Their socialist party was more capitalist than preceding conservatives!
yes, socialists scream ‘fascist’ at their opponents on the right, because socialists hate socialists of any creed that is not their own – and to a ‘true socialist’ a fascist IS to the right of them.. just as a libertarian will scream ‘communist’ at a socialist. To a libertarian there’s little difference, they lie on the side of government control.
Many of those who espouse concern for ‘the common man’ have their roots in the left – but it’s no surprise the worst atrocities are committed by these people, after all control does not compromise – and people in groups require compromise or absolute control. If the starting position is control for the greater good, then the majority must come first – hence the eugenics movement that inspired the deaths of so many, the killing fields to eliminate undesirables, the gulags .. so many deaths. But when people regain their sanity and throw out these murderous rulers they always distance themselves and think, next time it will be different, next time it will be better. Few remember the likes of Titus Salt who took it upon himself to improve lives for those around him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Salt few recall it was the wealthy few who built the first schools, hospitals and led the charge for social equality. Bill gates led an evil empire because he what.. made money? Yet it is he hurling money about in an attempt to help..
Many political divides exist, and many political movements promise to fix things when in reality the only functional system of governance is one that
A. Can change
B. Can compromise.
C: Does not lay blame
Me – I’m probably a conservative (I like plants and animals) libertarian (I don’t want the government to control my personal life) with fascist leanings ( government should provide water, roads, telephone services and other essential services and maintain sovereign control) a fair love of socialism (education, health services provided to all by capital raised from taxes) , capitalist personal desires (I want more money) with some radical views (I support gay marriage)
What are you dear reader?

oh bollocks.. the html ate my arrows (and the bits inside them) rendering everything a bit more nonsensical than I’d hoped. Try this..
control — communist socialist fascist libertarian anarchist — freedom
many laws few laws
big government small governent
this is different from
communism —– wealth distribution mechanism ——— capitalism
socialism, fascism, conservatism, radicalism all lie in the middle in no set order
and different again from
power —- dictator, monarch, ruling elite — government — self governance — no government — anarchy — power (?)
(individual power can be great or nonexistent all the way through this spectrum)

People who do not know the facts about what they believe will become shriller and shriller in defence as their beliefs are threatened. Ironically I would bet hands down that all the organisations that are stirrng them up are at least partially funded by the biggest of big oil. AKA Rockefellers. Choose any foundation such as WWF, 350.org, The Sierra Club, Green peace etc. Do a search on their website and see who funds them. If you want to learn how much they are funded by the Rockefeller Brothers (just one of the Rockefeller funding groups) take a look at their website where thet graciously list all of their funding. I published some exerpts on my blog. http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
If the name Rockefeller does not come up in a green foundation’s website, try looking at their major funder and find out who funds them.
Cheers
Roger

Political Philosophies Explained in Simple “Two Cow” Terms
Socialism
You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.
Communism
You have two cows. The government takes them both and provides you with milk.
Fascism
You have two cows. The government takes them and sells you the milk.
Capitalism
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Socialism, communism, and fascism are all leftist (centrally controlled forms) of government. They are also the most prone to abuse due to the concentration of power in government. Capitalism can be awful, but less so than the others.

The terms left and right have lost their meaning. There’s big government and small government. The left and right have completed the circle and at their extremes are both big government.
I think this sums it up:
http://davidsdiamondsandrust.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-it-time-to-dump-left-and-right-in.html

Simon
Ever hear of Barack Obama

Richard, as you well know, the only difference between fascism and socialism is that fascism adds a heavy dose of nationalism.
Your attempts to rewrite history still fail.

When you use your own money to buy votes, it’s called bribery.
When you use other people’s money to buy votes, it’s called socialism.

How about, say, Franco and similar monsters? you would hardly call them left. This has deteriorated into silliness.

Richards Courtney at 10:23 am: Joseph Goebbles was of the left persuasion.

PeterK:
No! Joseph Goebbles was a Naz1: it is not possible to be more right-wing than that.
Richard

For those below arguing about whether Nazis were facist or socialist, I would point out that Mussolini was a precursor of Hitler and a facist. His party was the ISP, the Italian Socialist Party. The difference is between national and international socialism.

To the millions upon millions of dead in Europe and Asia: As you ended your life, did any of you wonder whether the bullet that killed you was left wing or right wing?

“No! Goebbles (sp: Goebbels) was right wing. Because courtney says so.”
To repeat, “left” and “right” are meaningless euphemisms that mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. Like “climate change” can mean warmer or cooler, bigger snows or no snow at all, etc. etc. etc. I prefer straightforward terms like Socialist, Commie, Pinko, FM listening hippie, Obammunist, Stalinist, and Global Warming.
Words we can all agree on, Right?

Richard, you can repeat your delusion as many times as you like, but it still remains a delusion.
Like most socialists, you define as right wing, anything you disagree with.
Goebbels was bad, therefore he must have been right wing.

Obama for one. He wants USA to be like china so he can dictate policy outside the constitution.

I love asking people wearing an image of Chez Guevera on their shirt, who that guy is?
The answer is invariably the same.

spangled drongo commented: ‘…The decline has set in: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/15/infographics.htm”
Blatant attempt to spin the current state of natural climate variability except the CO2 mix in the atmosphere is still rising.

Ah the Soros Family
The son of the father seems to strike a slightly different tone.
He recognizes the imbalance of special interest access and promotes its limits.
On the other hand, he did just attend an Obama fundraiser.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/opinions/soros-ending-campaign-dollars-corruption/index.html

You fight corruption by limiting power NOT money.

The problem is that all these so called attempts to limit influence always end up ensuring that outsiders have less say in how govt is run.
The ultimate will be public funding of campaigns. In which the two candidates selected by the govt will be permitted to compete against each others, and all others will be barred by law from trying to participate.

“Je Suis Charlie” never existed. It is a figment of your collective imagination.
Charlie Hebdo tried to make the Front National illegal a few years ago, so Charlie Hebdo isn’t really “Charlie”.
Criticizing a judge is illegal – even when he acts is a blatant political and media circus way.
Saying that the criminality from immigrants from Maghreb is way higher than average is illegal.
“hate speech” which can mean any non-PC is illegal.
Truth isn’t an “excuse” for “hate speech”, unlike diffamation.

In France, encouraging people to not subscribe to a social assurance system is punishable. This is interpreted broadly as encouraging anyone to not subscribe to the national system but instead to a foreign health assurance. (See mouvement des libérés de la sécurité sociale.)
Showing good aspects of illegal drugs is also illegal.

As far as France goes, don’t they have pretty draconian gun control laws?
So much for the claim that tougher gun control laws will prevent acts of terrorism.

(Note: “Michael Darby” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Buster Brown’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Yes in France some people kill themselves with a train instead of a gun, making thousands of people late.

Yes but killing people by the thousands helps “save the climate”

If he is a marxist it will be forgiven?

Always worked in the past.

For the love of all that is good and decent, please go away.

PERHAPS THE POST THIS IS REFERENCE TO CAN BE DELETED?

What a bunch of BALONEY. Using the exemptions of the U.S. Fed. Income Tax Code to reduce your taxes owed is simply rational behavior. That is: keeping your own money is not at all to take away money that belongs to anyone else.

He or she is actually right. No man or woman is compelled to file income tax nor private persons unless under jurisdiction/consent. There’s actually case law on this here in Canada. For example: here in Canada, if I choose to be employed under the social security number then my person is required to pay a tax in that jurisdiction. But if I choose to be independent and contract with whom ever I wish (given their consent) then i’m not obliged to pay a portion of the fruits of my labour. My labour is my property- my services. And one more thing: Anyone operating under the S.I.N is a foreigner working for a foreign democratic government.
Government doesn’t dictate to Man, its man who dictates to government. So take your democratic garbage out of here and back to the Parliament of Westminster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you live in CA and earn income in WI, do you owe CA taxes on that money?
Of course not. You pay the taxes where the money was earned. The same goes for any money earned in another country.

100 billion would be more impressive, as long as its “illions” the prefix simply isn’t important.
Did you know 999% of all climate “scientists” believe on glowball warning.

“CO2 has its own mechanism to control its emissions”

Well for one thing, it has an inbuilt negative feedback in that it greens the planet, thereby increasing the size of carbon sinks.
The incontrovertible fact is fact is that the planet has been greening faster than man can deforest it these past 40 years, and with it the size of the carbon sink due to plants has increased.
That is one control mechanism. Whether there are others, I have not stopped to think about it, but obviously there are on geological time scales and that is why the planet does not have circa 7,000 ppm of CO2 as was seen in the past; that CO2 has been sequestered into chalk and limestone.

Poorly posed (CO2 is not an active agent), but as obvious as Le Chatlier’s Principle. Let me put it this way: seawater, from having dissolved CO2 (in various chemical species), will have a CO2 vapor pressure. The atmosphere CO2 concentration will tend to equilibrium with this pressure. If the vapor pressure happens to be higher than the current atmospheric concentration, the sea will out-gas CO2 and raise the concentration. If the vapor pressure is lower, atmospheric CO2 will dissolve into the seawater, and lower the concentration. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what human beings do; we can make our additions, but what we do doesn’t change the equilibrium point. At best, it may increase or decrease the oceanic out-gassing.
This, of course, is really an irrelevance, as the effect of CO2 on “global warming” is negligible. There is no water vapor amplification (any excess water vapor rains out).

Speak for yourself Bruce.
Spartacus and the rest were crucified, for they lost!
I damn well mean to be on the winning side, and crucify the warmers! We lose, the world goes back into the Dark Ages. No thank you!

To Dorian,
Perhaps you may want to retake the history class that you slept through concerning the Fall of the Roman Empire.

That is true, but here in Canada we on the hook for a few billion dollars. The only saving grace is that the Canadian dollar has lost over 35% of its value because of restricted oil exports and lower oil prices. The greenies will of course take all the credit and I for one agree that all the credit is due them.

The “Complaint” that was filed in Canada about alleged climate change “misinformation” last week will still be there after COP21.
Just a different legal track is being used in Canada than in the U.S but the result will be the same. So this could go on for quite some time. Done to intimate “climate deniers” and could lead to criminal prosecution of the accused parties.
Don’t fool yourselves about how serious this situation has become. Legal intimidating tactics have already been used in Canada over wind turbine issues.

Via online Complaint form, Dec.3, 2015
http://ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-03-Application-to-Commissioner-of-Competition-re-Climate-science-misrepresentations-updated.pdf
If one legal track fails then other legal tracks might be tried.

The Heartland Institute is one of the parties named in the above legal action Complaint.
The Complaint is a 24 page document.

Well if he did make all his decisions this way, which I severely doubt, then there is something in Astrology because he was usually right!!!

You really should read a little history. It was Nancy, and the only thing she affected was the timing of speeches and press conferences. No policy decisions were ever made due to astrological concerns.

Janice Moore
December 7, 2015 at 10:28 am
Good question, Mr. Javert (“Really, what is a’ {community organizer}’” {v. a v. B. Hussein Obama}?).
************************************************************************************
Community organizer is the PC way of saying rabble-rouser rent-a mob etc.
SteveT

As you know, the UN define anthropogenic climate change (as distinct from natural climate variability) to include ‘atmospheric composition’ and ‘land usage’. Therefore, the ability to apply taxes to every single molecule you exhale, perspire, excrete as well as to every footprint you make is conveniently present in the definition. The only way out is to absent humanity from the face of Gaia. Therein lies the truth.
The willing ‘millions’ should start contributing. They should just get on with it and cease vacuously emitting noise and sundry pollutants.

Canada sent over 300 (330 IIRC) partiers, freeloaders and tourists … er, delegates, from various organizations.

Alan Robertson:
Please explain what I have done to merit that obscene abuse.
Richard

Richard
That remark was originally scribbled on a torn- off corner of paper by Keith Richards to Mick Jagger, some 40+ years ago.
Your regret was that you hadn’t been made a target. I can’t resist the chance for a joake.
/ <<<that's a sarc tag in some circles

Dawtgtomis:
Thankyou for that idea. Although it has an obvious appeal, I don’t think it would work.
We need the wamunists to be making the mistake of attacking people instead of the arguments. Doing it ourselves prevents use of the warmunists’ mistake when pointing out they have nothing to substantiate their alarmism.
Richard

The guy probably lives in Oregon. Boy, I’d LOVE to meet him.