# If I wanted America to Fail



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

*
If I wanted America to Fail

*

... 4 minute video…


----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

Excellent video Joe.

Thanks


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

Jim,

Sure glad you liked it, Jim…

I thought a lot of points were very well taken… that we haven't thought much about… that we should think about… and cut them off at the pass before it's too late.

Thanks again…


----------



## jeepturner (Oct 3, 2010)

If you think America is going to fail because of the fact that people are talking about science and that the majority elected a president who isn't a science denier, well you might as well move south. 
I think the counter point I would like to point out is, if one wanted to give the US a chance to succeed, then we would invest in education, make science a priority. We should stop pandering to alarmist who are actually only trying to remain in power by undercutting the populace with videos such as this. 
There is a reason gas prices are high, and most of it is because of the market. The fact that we are exporting gas at record rates should tell you why you are paying more at the pump. Of course it is easier to beleive that it some kind of conspiracy. 
I just had one more death in the family today, seems that I can't go a year without one. I come from a large family, but it sure puts things in perspective. I am glad I live in an age when all the information in the world is at my finger tips, but I am blessed that I have a good education that filters out the crud, for lack of the popular term. 
Well carry on.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

*
We should stop pandering to alarmist who are actually only trying to remain in power by undercutting the populace with videos such as this.
*

Mel, you're calling this guy an *Alarmist?!*

It looked like to me *he was pointing out areas that had already been created by Alarmists…*

*He was describing things that are being done or have been done "To make America Fail" *while once in a while saying *"instead, I would do…"*


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

I'll click once for a video, but I'll be damned if I'll click twice.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

JJohnston:

Getting old… losing that extra energy required… ??? LOL


----------



## JJohnston (May 22, 2009)

Not the energy - just that there's no reason the link here can't go directly to the video instead of that other site first.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

OK… then just don't do it… why make a deal of it?


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

I wonder sometimes why in the United States all things scientific, such as evolution or spherical Earth, are so poorly excepted by the general public. But then I watch a video like this and it all suddenly makes sense.


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

Here is the direct link although my soul will probably be damned for posting it.





"I will teach one generation of Americans that their factories and cars will cause a new ice age…"

Wow, just … wow. That never happened BTW. The whole "ice age" thing from the 70's was sensationalism created by the media, Newsweek later apologized for their role in misleading the public. Even then, the consensus was forming that humans could be accelerating the warming trend that began 10,000 years ago.

"When it's cold out, they call it climate change instead."

No, when it's cold out we call that a cold front (or winter). Weather is to climate what a note is to a symphony.

"I would never teach children that the free market is the only force in history to uplift the poor, establish the middle class and create lasting prosperity…"

No of course not, because it isn't even remotely true.

I could go on but this is an awful video full of misleading statements and outright lies.


----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

The video is full of facts that liberals refuse to accept.

After all, why let facts get in the way of "collective indoctrination of the masses"

First thing you know, people will start thinking for themselves. Perish the thought!


----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

Joe,

Looks like you found another rock to turn over. They again crawl out from underneath.
Keep up the great work.


----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

Viktor,
Some great reading for you in your criticism of the U.S.:

*Sweden a Perfect Example of Socialism Run Amok*

By Herbert London

There is a contagion of madness in Western Europe. It is not merely the preemptive conciliation that afflicts politicians who are ready to subordinate Christian civilization to Islam; it is the wholesale program to promote socialism, even if it leads to economic ruination.

While over-extended socialist Europe faces collapse from Spain to Greece, overtaxed Sweden is eager to instruct immigrants on how to get free benefits from the government.

According to a proposal from Swedish Immigration authorities, all newly arrived immigrants will undergo courses in "societal values" and be taught about the unique qualities of the society. "Without knowledge of fundamental societal values an important prerequisite to be able to live and work in Sweden is lacking," writes Erik Amna in a debate article in the Dagens Nyheter daily.

Amna contends that the municipalities should offer a 60-hour course on three areas: values, the welfare state, and everyday life, i.e. practical knowledge of how the welfare state works. Not only will Sweden have generous give-away programs, but it intends to instruct new arrivals on how to obtain them.

Here is an unvarnished version of the plan that is destroying Europe. The idea that you can obtain these government benefits without a cost is absurd. There is no such thing as a free lunch even if Swedish authorities challenge that idea. Someone has to pay and the extortionate tax rate in Sweden indicates someone is paying.

The problem, of course, is that the high taxes, which serve as a transfer payment, stifle innovation and relegate a portion of the population into shiftlessness. While the cradle-to-grave welfare state has an appeal to economic tyros who believe money grows on trees, the lessons of welfarism are coming home to roost in the form of insolvency and contractual failure.

Sweden may not yet be in the position of Greece, but its policies will in time result in a similar outcome. There isn't a painless way out of the trap of socialism. What makes this journey inexorable is the belief benefit packages have to be disseminated to one and all, even new immigrants recently arrived on Swedish soil.

What this orientation does, of course, is create a lobbying group for further welfarism. It explains why retrenchment is so difficult. How do you remove what citizens are accustomed to receiving?

For years American socialists cited Sweden as the nation we should emulate and now Barack Obama seems to agree. But as Margaret Thatcher once noted socialism fails when you run out of other people's money. Alas, the unfunded liabilities in Sweden and the United States serve as a vivid reminder that at some point you must pay the piper.

The mounting debt across the European continent is weight on the shoulders of every resident. But apparently the Swedes are either blind to their predicament or choose to avert their gaze. How else can one explain proselytizing new immigrants so they request their government goodies?

The dream of a world of plenty, a cornucopia of all you want, has been transmogrified into a nightmare of debt and shattered promises. Sweden was the dream and for some it remains so, but the illusion cannot persist. The newly arrived immigrants instructed with Sweden's social values will soon become jaded when give-aways disappear as quickly as soap bubbles.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

wormi,

The whole Video is more "Tongue in Cheek"... I think you're trying to turn it around.


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

*"Some great reading for you in your criticism of the U.S."*
Why did you think I was criticizing the US escapes me. I simply made an observation that the public in it is so peculiarly ignorant by comparison and was wondering why is that? Some say it's a bliss. Quick glimpse at the article though would surprise anyone who's been paying attention:

*"The mounting debt across the European continent is weight on the shoulders of every resident. But apparently the Swedes are either blind to their predicament or choose to avert their gaze. "*
Could this be because Sweden is running budget surplus and have one of the lowest public debt in the world at ~35% of GDP. (Compare that to ~ 100% in the US). Liberal media, Sweden, Greece, Muslims, all mixed up… who cares. We are all waiting for the Armageddon promised by a random blogger to unfold while clutching bags of popcorn in anticipation.

*"I thought a lot of points were very well taken… "*
If one gets his grasp on reality from tabloids (which apparently some people do considering the video and the article) it is easy to see why would one have such an impression. I am pretty sure few are aware that the whole theory in question is traced back to Fourier and Arrhenius. (What else would you expect from a French and a Swede - socialists!) His (Arrhenius) calculations of anthropogenic impact on global temperature are as accurate today as they were over 100 years ago. Here is an idea: skip the tabloids and go straight to the source.

BTW, Warmil is correct in his observation. 60-70s media frenzy had little to do with the actual scientific views of the time. This fact is easily verifiable by anyone who would care to find out. All nicely written and bound in what they call peer reviewed scientific journals. (Guess how I know). Warning, this involves reading and analysis.

This video is an example of blatant ignorance so ever pervasive. Whatever myth it spews, believe me, I've heard them all. Considering that the concept of evolution is still a raging battle 150 years later, I don't anticipate any shifts of public consensus in the climate change department any time soon. At the end it will probably be of little consequence since the ignorant are usually not the ones making decisions.


----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

Amazing how statements are made and then retracted when challenged.

And excuse me, but I have no idea what blathering facts you refer to. I would assume no one else does either.
And I don't intend to research them to discredit them.
You pretty much did that on your own with the nonsense you just wrote.


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

wormi,

The whole Video is more "Tongue in Cheek"… I think you're trying to turn it around.

Joey, are you suggesting we shouldn't take the video seriously? If so, I agree since it is utter nonsense. Frankly I think you should be ashamed for posting it.


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

I don't know wormil, if posted as a joke then it succeeds very nicely, since Joe refers to it as tongue-in-cheek then that would seem to be his intent. Personally I found it humorous, sad as well since I know some really believe this stuff (see several postings above), but overall funny. Thanks for the video Joe.


----------



## BobM001 (Jan 8, 2012)

Then there is the *SPAMMER* peddling his wares via whatever media possible. Jadee gomna so luk kurats glava! Tro da bum out!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

People in general believe the climate is changing - - always has and always will.
The IMPACT of human activity is what is in question. More specifically though- americans question the SOLUTIONS proposed by Kyoto and Copenhagen.

We look at fuel standards - and it can make sense for demand from foreign supplies - however the idea that IF ONLY THE AMERICANS drove less, global warming would stop is just not believable.
The Saudi's are not going to just "leave the oil in the ground" and find an alternative economy. Prices would fluctuate, and the oil would be pumped/refined and burned in China, India, Bangladesh, Africa etc….

The real impact of these laws simply drives away jobs to the same countries that have refused Copenhagen the so called BRIC - Brazil Russia India and China.

China is the largest poluter in the world.

So as the climate is global…if the changes do not actually REDUCE THE AMOUNT of material burned - it will not have ANY measurable affect on warming - - however the same cannot be said for economies

SENATE FLOOR SPEECH DELIVERED MONDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 2006

I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media's coverage of climate change.

Global Warming-just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster. As the senator who has spent more time speaking about the facts regarding global warming, I want to address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywood's involvement in the issue. And of course I will also discuss former Vice President Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age.

From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Last year, the vice president of London's Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism.

During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Lest the above not be "Scientific Enough" 
Lets go with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics whom I think understand the issue better than most of us on this site?

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html

Greenland got its name when the Vikings had farms there. They concluded the medieval warm period was WARMER than our current temperatures, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but coal fired power plants and automobiles weren't out in large numbers a thousand years ago - - nor were there more than 6 Billion people on the planet…...so maybe Man-made warming has some holes in the theory that need to be accounted for in the models.

I like the MRC's guidling towards journalists: pasted in here-

*Recommendations*
Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:

'Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.'

Some other important points include:

Don't Stifle Debate: Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. *That doesn't mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame*. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.

People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.

Don't Ignore the Cost: Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton's term.

Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

Dr. Dirt, very good points. There has been a lot of overlooking on historical environments over the centuries and greenland is just one example. What nations were prime grape and olive producers that can't produce the same quality of crops is another example. The climate is changing, we may be returning it to where it was or we may be hurrying it past there. The one thing we can't over look is that we, as a species, have a greater impact on this planet then any other creature on it and they we can and do change entire environments and usually not for the good. We have a collective responsibility to each other, our future generations, and this planet to watch what we do and how we treat things. A huge part of that is environmental pollution including greenhouse emissions and fossil fuels all of which can be a lot harder to undo then it is to make.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Good point Russ - 
I just shake my head with these Carbon Credits and such.
Ask yourself - would you invest in Carbon Credits in your 401K? It is a completly artifical currency based on policies regarding who has how much credits to sell to poluting industy. I understand fees for higher energy (sort of) but who sells credits? Why did the EARN them in the first place?
Those are points in Joe's video that are valid.

The other thing is that I feel that before we adopt provisions - we should have an understand of what will be actually Accomplished.
e.g. if the US cut CO2 by 20% what is the impact on global warming? how will the slope of the famous hockey stick graph actually change?
The temperature is climbing - if we radically cut emissions does that mean that a 2 degree rise that was predicted to happen in the next 20 years won't occur for now 50 years? or does the change mean the 20 year 2 degree change will in 20.37 years….so the laws are irrelevant to solving the actual problem.

If we agree that the present trend is a true problem - then we need to look at quantifiable solutions that Apply to everyone - not ones that China and Indea exempt themselves from while we crush our economy, and these "Feel Good Measures" don't count.

In the present proposals CO2 is regulated (even though methane is many times worse) because we can easily create laws regulating CO2 from power plants and automobiles - so it is chosen for EASE of Control and carbon trading schemes….not what is the most important issue on climate. It is too easy for a bunch of tribal boon-dock countries to vote that "The USA should slash its use of fossil fuels" in the UN because it has no impact on them!~"


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

When clowns start talking about the climate, watch your wallet.
Same old song and dance. The following is from the early 1900's, Oops.

From the late 1800's through the 1920's Americans were convinced via the print media that we were heading for the next Ice Age. Yes, Global Cooling! In 1895 the New York Times (the paper of record) wrote, "Geologists think the world may be frozen up again". In 1912 the L.A. Times reported, "The fifth Ice Age is on the way". Chicago Tribune, 1923, "Scientists say Arctic Ice will wipe out Canada all the way down to the Great Lakes". 1924, New York Times, "Signs of a new Ice Age". This reporting continued through the balance of the '20's.

A funny thing happened though; there was no Ice Age. After decades of dire warnings; nothing. Actually something did happen. Starting at the very end of the '20's there was no more talk of cooling. In just a few short years the nation's print media switched from Global Cooling to Global Warming.


----------



## Viktor (Jan 15, 2009)

*"Ask yourself - would you invest in Carbon Credits in your 401K? It is a completly artifical currency based on policies regarding who has how much credits to sell to poluting industy."*

God forbid! I'd rather invest it in "all natural" collateral debt obligations or other ABS, which are incidentally the risk propagating financial chicanery of choice for pension funds and accounts and such including your 401K. Oh, wait a minute…
I could not care less about Carbon Credits, but in this day and age of fiat money, which by definition derive their value from regulations, all financial instruments are "artificial".


----------



## 747DRVR (Mar 18, 2009)

That was 4 minutes I will never get back


----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

wahoe609

+100


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Thank you JimC


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Yes but Viktor - Carbon credits are to be DOLED out o companies that are sypmathetic as favors to administration donors and other global government groups to we wielded as power to force change.

That is very different than US Monetary policy and incestments.

Course just to tweak the left - we'll throw in a Sarah Palin Quote!
"If I wanted America to Fail, I would ban farm kids from doing chores" 
--------------------------------------------
From Today's daily caller!

*Rural kids, parents angry about Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores* 
By Patrick Richardson, Daily Caller

A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it's attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.

The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families' land.

Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work "in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials."

"Prohibited places of employment," a Department press release read, "would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions."

The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, *would also revoke the government's approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course.*Rossie Blinson, a 21-year-old college student from Buis Creek, N.C., told The Daily Caller that the federal government's plan will do far more harm than good.

"The main concern I have is that it would prevent kids from doing 4-H and FFA projects if they're not at their parents' house," said Blinson.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/rural-kids-parents-angry-about-labor-dept-rule-banning-farm-chores/#ixzz1t58JUbMg

------------------------------

Just the government here to help???


----------



## SCOTSMAN (Aug 1, 2008)

Look if you really want America to fail just vote George Dubya back in and get him to invade Iran.That's if you can get financial approval from China in advance.Otherwise you can't invade anyone! we are the same as you though so having all this military hardware is useless unless we -you guy's can afford to put it to use, so my Idea would be to sell it all to China a cent to the dollar to pay back a small fraction of what we-you owe them.
I tell you this if Geroge Bush and Tony B-Liar knowing what we definitely know now would never be able to take us back to war killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, on the basis of dodgey dosia's and downright smoothtalking lies.My 2 cents.Alistair ps if this hurts then the truth hurts.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

*DrDirt*

From Today's daily caller!

Rural kids, parents angry about Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores
By Patrick Richardson, Daily Caller
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*If THAT does not prove that our current Obama Administration, along with President Obama, are so INCOMPETENT, I wonder what would!*

Anyone who has been anywhere NEAR a Farm (or seen movies) KNOWS 
"There are Chores that everyone must do to keep everything happening".
Water the Chickens & other animals…
Give them FEED, etc.
Collect Eggs…
Clean various areas…
Chase the ducks & geese…
Empty the trash…
Ride the horses…
Rub-down horses, etc.
ETC. ETC.

*That is The American Way on the family farm!*

*With the Dept. of Labor, sticking their noses into this area, is SO RIDICULOUS, it's sickening!

That's almost as bad as the EPA telling us what colors our cars can be! LOL*

*I think Congress, ALL of them, will laugh THAT proposal to the waste basket! LOL*
(... or, at least, THEY SHOULD!)


----------



## muleskinner (Sep 24, 2011)

*When clowns start talking about the climate, watch your wallet.*

Hey, it's just some guys on a woodworking site. I don't think any of them are after your wallet.


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

Anyone using supposed 18th century science (there were no citations so I assume it's not true) to disprove 21st century science is digging deep for reasons to assuage their conscious. Just because your neighbor is throwing trash in the street doesn't mean you should jump in and do it to unless you have no moral center and don't mind living in a ghetto. I would prefer to keep my own yard clean and encourage others to do so.

We look at fuel standards… the idea that IF ONLY THE AMERICANS drove less, global warming would stop is just not believable.

Fuel economy standards are directed toward automakers and have nothing to do with Americans driving less.

maybe Man-made warming has some holes
That doesn't mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame.

Just to be clear, *neither of these sentences appear in the article you cited*. I traced the latter to an op-ed (opinion) written by a Fox News freelance journalist.

The Saudi's are not going to just "leave the oil in the ground"

Our focus should be on keeping our money at home by investing in alternative fuels like biodiesel. What should really worry you though, is how you are being manipulated into opposing your own best interests. The only people who benefit from the status quo are oil companies and they have a lot of money to buy op-ed pieces that sway simple minds.

In the end, it doesn't matter if global warming is influenced by humans or not, it doesn't even matter if it's all a hoax, because the medicine is good for us either way… good for America, good for our environment, good for our economy.


----------

