<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Lessons learned in Greece ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-22T15:14:00-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Pointing at the wrong demons...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3641369]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Look, while the banks are not saints, not in the least, what ails the banking system, and the economy in general, is the intrusion which has become so immersed into the whole economy, and what the bankers and other businesses have been doing is trying to overcome the burdens imposed on them by that intrusive and burdensome government.What's occurred to economies all over Europe, and lately the U.S., would never had happened if governments had not tried to control or involve themselves in running the economies.  That's not to say that government shouldn't be involved in insuring that the consumer is protected, but, most of what ails the economies has been government initiated.  It's the simple-minded who will easily believe that, &quot;the giant, evil, greedy corporations&quot; are out to get them, and that government is the good uncle out to save the people.  Yeah, there are greedy people out there in the economy, but, the majority of problems can be traced back to government intervention into the economy.  For example, why should government dictate that, people should get mortgages, whether they're qualified to get them or not?  Why should government be in the business of dictating to banks what their banking fees should be?  Let the people decide if they wish to pay those fees.  People can choose to go to an institution which doesn't charge those fees or that have lower fees.  Government regulations and laws should go no further than to control abuse and to insure that the people are protected from unsavory business practices.  Wishing more government involvement is the quickest road to destruction of any economy, and that is what we're witnessing all over the world, especially in Europe and in the U.S.Be careful what you wish for.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3641369]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:05:17 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Repudiate!  Repudiate! Repudiate! And when all else fails..]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3640847]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[@NickNeilsenAmen.Repudiate!  Repudiate! Repudiate! And when all else fails make the banks use an open Cash basis only accounting system and watch how quickly their wealth dwindles once their ability to scheme, leverage and bribe are removed.   But thats also why it will never happen.  Like the old saying goes, he who has the gold makes the rules.  In this day and age its &quot;The LLC Entity With The Most Credits (however they are delineated ) Controls The Puppets In Government&quot;.  I just wish more took to heart the actions of the Icelanders who fought against the banks and media pushing the banks angenda, and finally got teh banks to admit &quot;:Oh yeahhhh, thats right, the people of Iceland don;t really owe all that money, some of it is the banks own debt.  Sorry about that; simple accounting mistake&quot;.  I wouldn;t be suprised is a certain frequent defneder of the Banksters in this thread still tries to push the idea that Iceland got out of paying moeny they owed and or was able to unjustifiably make the banks shoudler the burden of debt.BTW - In a previous Post thats is too nested to have a REPLY you posted a link to an article at MotherJones about the differences between the top and bottom in wage earners and tax payers.  Thanks, it did have some great charts.  You were right to suggest ignoring the politics in the piece.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3640847]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[BlueCollarCritic]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:18:08 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nick: Yeah, none so blind as he that doesn't look at the issues in context,]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3640223]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[and, you, sir, are completely clueless about the history and the facts on the issues you mentioned.&quot;I think I've said this before&quot;And, you were as wrong before as you are now.&quot;None so blind...&quot;True, but, there is nobody more blind than he that doesn't understand the entire truth behind the issues, and you refuse to examine the issues in complete context.&quot;In January 1981, the US national debt was just under $1 trillion. Since the Reagan tax cuts were passed, the only time the growth of that debt has slowed was in the last three years of the Clinton budgets.  This is fact.&quot;Yet, what Reagan inherited was a deep recession from Carter, and he (Reagan) had to do things to stimulate the economy towards recovery, and, as all smart-thinking economists understand, cutting taxes is a great stimulus to any economy, and for certain, those Reagan tax cuts did stimulate the economy to the greatest economic recovery seen in history, with GDP growth oftentimes reaching 8%, which economy then generated a huge tax revenue windfall, which, democrats, who were in control of congress, immediately saw an opportunity to go on spending sprees.  What Reagan created with tax cuts, was an economy which most people, even most democrats, would be happy to see return.  But then, Bush Sr (a RINO)  and Clinton, immediately went on to raise taxes on everyone out there that was breathing, and thus, the economy took a few dives.  In fact, Clinton inherited an economy which was growing at about 4%, and left the country with a recession for Bush Jr. to have to undo.Now, you and I both know that, Clinton had nothing at all to do with balancing the budget in the last couple of years of his administration.  The balancing of the budget was as a result of the republican congress, which forced Clinton to cut back on spending.  Sure, the &quot;near&quot; budget balance occurred while Clinton was in office, but, he had zero to do with that &quot;budget balance&quot;.  In fact, Clinton fought the republicans, tooth-and-nail, to stop the republicans from passing their &quot;balanced budget amendment&quot;.  But, Clinton had to give in to political pressure and the republicans had their way, with Gingrich leading the way.  Now, when it comes to spending, every year that Clinton was in office, the national debt went up, and in fact, the debt was increased by about 25% during his administration, and, his spending sprees would have added a lot more to the debt and yearly deficits if it had not been for the republican congress, which essentially, neutered Clinton's spending sprees.  So, again, you have the facts completely wrong, and the only thing you could say positive about Clinton's years is that, he had a republican congress to reign him in.&quot;Bush went to war and cut taxes at the same time, declining to pay for war for the first time in American history. This is fact.&quot;Bush went to war?  Are you that dense?Bush was forced to war, by the 9/11 attacks, which, if you were to have any kind of common sense at all, you would realize were planned and rehearsed and trained for during the Clinton years.  War in Afghanistan was inevitable, and any president that didn't go after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, would have been run out of office.  Sure, Iraq was not a mandatory war, but, what Hussein was doing from Iraq was virtually no different from what the Taliban were doing from inside Afghanistan.  So, it was, according to some military and diplomatic experts, the right time to go after Saddam, and in fact, the whole world, and especially the middle-east, are a lot better off without Saddam and his family creating havoc.When it comes to paying for the wars, the economy under Bush was productive enough to pay for them, and in fact, tax revenues were more than paying for the wars and for the recovery after the 9/11 attacks.   Again, the tax cuts under Bush stimulated the economy towards fantastic recovery from the Clinton recession, and it was generating, like in the Reagan years, fantastic tax revenues to handle the spending for the wars and other areas.  In fact, in the last couple of years of Bush, the budget was very close to getting balanced, and without the budget gimmicks like Clinton had to use to make it appear that, the budget was getting balanced.  Sure, spending under Clinton did go down, but, as a result of the republican congress budgets, and what Clinton did was to use budgetary and bookkeeping gimmicks to make it appear as if the budget was in complete balance and leaving a &quot;budget surplus&quot;, which, none of it was real.So, again, you either fail to understand the issues, or you are deliberately lying on the issues, or you are completely ignorant of the underlying facts on the issues, or, perhaps, you just let the democrat party's talking points speak for you.&quot;The economy tanked in the last year of the Bush administration. This, too, is fact.&quot;That is a fact.  But, the real underlying fact is that, the economy tanked, but, as a result of democratic policies of the past, under Clinton and Carter.  The housing bubble occurred as a result of the CRA (a Carter bill), and the stringent enforcement policies for the CRA under Clinton, which forced banks and lending institutions to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay for them or had very bad credit.  It's the stupidity of the democrats which caused the economy to tank while Bush was president, and it would've tanked under any president at the time, but, the REAL FACT is that, it was the democrats who caused the economy to tank.  Bush had actually tried to reign in the lending and he also tried to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were actually encouraging the bad lending practices.  But, no!, the democrats stepped in and stopped Bush from passing legislation to put a stop to the bad loans and to Freddie and Fannie.  Again, the democrats caused the economy to go into deep recession.  Are you smart enough to notice a pattern?  Democrats take over the presidency, and leave the economy in recession, and then, a republican has to be voted into office to recover the economy from recession.  It happened under Carter, and Clinton, and now, under Obama.  Sure, Obama &quot;inherited&quot; the recession, but, he immediately went about making things many times worse.  Democrats, who are really socialists, can't be trusted with the economy, and they've proven it over and over and over again.  And, you, being so clueless and unthinking, will immediately blame a republican, even if he had nothing to do with a bad economy.So, your versions of &quot;that is a fact&quot; is really, &quot;that is how I lie about the facts&quot;.  &quot;Yet you continue to blame the current President for all the fiscal troubles this country faces.&quot;Absolutely, I blame him!!!He is the most inept and clueless and idiotic president/&quot;leader&quot; ever in the history of the country, and perhaps in the history of mankind.He took a bad situation, and promised to make things better, and proceeded to make things many times worse.   That is the equivalent of taking a rotting meat, and turning it into dung.  I thought Carter was pretty bad as president, but, the current idiot in the White House is many times worse.  Even you must know that, but, you can't bring yourself to admit it.&quot;You, sir, don't demonstrate the good sense God gave road apples. &quot;It takes a smart person, a person with common sense, to understand the issues, and to understand the underlying sub-issues, and causes and effects, and you are quite lousy at that.  You are as bad as the Obama, and you are part of what has made this country head towards self-destruction.  When you grow a brain and start doing some real thinking, then you can come back and tell me about not having common sense.  You demonstrate the complete opposite of common sense, and you are completely unqualified to judge anybody else about their common sense.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3640223]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:38:10 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Health(care) only become so political...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3640213]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...after the government got involved in it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3640213]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:05:14 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I think I've said this before]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3639332]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[None so blind...In January 1981, the US national debt was just under $1 trillion.  Since the Reagan tax cuts were passed, the only time the growth of that debt has slowed was in the last three years of the Clinton budgets.  This is fact.Bush went to war and cut taxes at the same time, declining to pay for war for the first time in American history.  This is fact.The economy tanked in the last year of the Bush administration.  This, too, is fact.Yet you continue to blame the current President for all the fiscal troubles this country faces.You, sir, don't demonstrate the good sense God gave road apples.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3639332]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NickNielsen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:19:23 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nick: What a bunch of crappola!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3638042]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Well, I finally got around to revisit this thread, and as usual, your garbage is still soiling the discussion.Look, when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility, the democrats and socialists like you wrote the book on the subject.Spending under Bush/Cheney didn't get so absolutely out of whack like it has under Obama, and their spending was nowhere near the obscene spending that happens whenever a democrat is in office.While spending did go up under Bush, there were a few wars to take care of, but, under Obama, the spending is all for nonsense and without any results whatsoever, except to increase the debt and the yearly deficits.  Spending without results is the same as flushing money down the toilet, whereas, under Bush, any spending did produce results, and the economy was quite prosperous under his administration.  The only thing that undid the economy was the nonsense perpetrated upon the American people under previous democrats administrations, like Carter and Clinton.So, again, you demonstrate your inability to think, and you continue soiling the discussion with more of your &quot;sheet&quot;.  Grow a brain already, and you might start making some sense.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3638042]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:52:50 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I didn't realize that health(care) was so political and sarcastic]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3637445]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That's it.  Oh, and I would definitely use a sarcasm mark if there were one.  And also I wish there were a hatred or snarky mark that when inserted would hide the comment and future replies.  (Good thing lent is coming soon.)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3637445]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[cglechner]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:04:26 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I agree . . . kind of.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3637458]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as the saying goes, but your right; prevention doesn't eliminate accidents or unfavorable outcomes.  And I would agree that people have gone or could go bankrupt from healthcare and other medical costs.  I can only imagine that it would be very scary.However, if doctor visits and hospital stays are costing more than ever before--enough to cause bankruptcy--then paying a company or government entity to manage your money for you (which implies extra costs of administration) would certainly add to those costs, if I'm thinking correctly.  Healthcare, it seems to me, is more or less a savings account . . . that is managed by someone else . . .  and carries a monthly fee . . . and is suspiciously more accepting of deposits than withdrawals.  It makes more sense, for me at least, to deposit a monthly &quot;premium&quot; to my own dedicated savings account or money market fund, and then pay the hospital/doctor out of pocket.With this &quot;healthcare plan&quot; I can, for instance, raise or lower my &quot;premiums&quot; with wage reductions and pay raises, or switch &quot;insurers&quot; (banks) whenever I like.  I choose which doctors are in my &quot;network of providers,&quot; and pick the ones I like best.  I don't risk losing my policy due to preexisting medical conditions or late physicals, and cannot be denied coverage.  And, to top it all off, I'm making some (albeit meager) interest.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3637458]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[cglechner]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:34:13 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I don't have time for your entire post, but I'll address the Greeks and]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3557077]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;their&quot; economic decisions.Look, whatever happened in the Greek economy was the doing of the Greek people.  Unless their elected officials are elected for life and they then have dictatorial powers, then it's the people themselves who are responsible for the decisions of their leaders.  If those elected officials don't attain lifetime terms, then the people had the chances to determine their future by electing others who weren't advocating what those officials had in mind.   I find it very hard to believe that the people weren't aware of what their candidates for office didn't stand for.  What occurred in Greece took decades to develop, and the people there liked their government freebies and their power in the economy and over their employers, as it was all developing.   The one thing they didn't count on, like always happens, is that, the underlying socialism always ends with dire consequences.  They're paying for their stupidity now, and no amount of excuses is going to absolve them of any blame.  The people in a democracy are supposed to be the ultimate decision makers, and absolving them by placing blame on the &quot;leaders&quot; is pure cowardice.  The people in the U.S. are also to blame for any problems with the economy and the general direction of the country, and, though we may have crooked and incompetent leaders in government, the ultimate decision about who those leaders would be, rests on the hands of the people.I do agree with your last paragraph, wholeheartedly.  The other points could be argued on specifics and on clarity of how those rights are or are not being devalued or restricted.  But, I don't have the time right now.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3557077]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:49:04 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Its not the fault of the Greek people]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3555910]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;The economic condition in Greece may have been affected by the external influences of the EU, but, most of what ails the Greeks is of their own doing.&quot;Yes and no.While the actually spending was authorized by the Greek government and since the people elected their representatives you could make the case that it is the Greek peoples own fault that they got into debt but it is a very, very week case.  The reason is that the people of Greek were conned into their current situation through a combination of lies and political and financial maneuvering by outside forces acting on internal Greek affairs.   The people do elect their officials but after the election is over the people have little control (short of revolution) to stop an out of control and or crooked government.  A perfect example is the process of joining the EU, something most EU nations never get to decide, at least not at the citizenry level.  Once the leaders are in office they are either corrupted or blackmailed afterwards and put into a position of doing as told by these outside forces or they were crooked to begin with and the mass amounts of outside financial power helped elect to office a member of hat is effectively organized crime at a global level. Now that events have played out a little more we see Greek is now losing its Sovereignty and being artificially pushed into austerity.  There are at this point because their elected representatives were either blackmailed or bribed into joining the EU and for participating into the Global Banking cartels derivatives scheme.  Yes the people elected those representatives but it was the outside forces, the global banking cartel often and appropriately referred to as the global banksters, that then pushed the nation of Greece onto the path of financial destruction.  Through the participation in the derivatives scheme these banksters have effectively transferred wealth from the masses to the elite few and the same has been done here in America.  We simply have not fallen to the level Greece has because we were stronger to begin with and so tour destruction will take longer but rest assured it will come if our path is not altered.  A few cold hard facts:1)No More Private Property Rights - Americans no longer have private property rights.  Everything from your home and land to your vehicles, anything of long term value is taxed and failure to pay said taxes results in loss of said property.  So long as the property tax is in place you are only renting the property from the government, you do not really own it.  Yes you can sell it to someone else but they don???t own it then because they must then assume the tax burden and so you never sold them a piece of property you merely transferred liability of the property to someone else. 2)No More Free Speech ??? For years the so called 1st amendment right has been more theory then practice with the introduction of so called ???free speech zones??? in major urban areas as well as unconstitutional acts bny local law enforcement such as the prevention of public protest.  Yes there are still public protests but these days you have to go to a free speech zone which is often nowhere near where you need to protest.  There also are the local ordinances requiring protest permits which are also unconstitutional.  This excludes protesting in traffic areas which is often the counter argument used for why we need free speech zones and protest permits.  The US Constitution makes no exclusions in free speech despite what the US Supreme court says. 3)No More Warrantless Searches and Seizures AND Constitutional is not Constitutional ??? With recent egregious rulings but state courts and the SU Supreme Court we Americans no longer have a right to be free from warrantless searches.  Be it the ruling by the US Supreme court that traffic stops are OK even though they are unconstitutional by the courts own words (yes the Courts did say in the ruling that the checkpoints were unconstitutional but just a little and so it was ok for the police to do them) .4)The Patriot Act , NDAA 2012, Police State ??? The most egregious and highly unconstitutional act ever committed by the US Government on the people of this great country was the Patriot Act and most welcomed it with praise and open arms.  Once the PA was in place and used many times (most of which were drug related crimes and never for actual terrorist acts or prevention of terrorist acts )to set the precedence the next phase of the road to a police state was launched, the NDAA of 2012. While some like the ACLU tried to point out the dangers of the act the media and political pundits told us there was no such ???Indefinite Detention??? wording in the NDAA bill.  Once Obama signed it (on New Year???s Eve, a time guaranteed to get as little coverage of the act as possible)  we now find out that yes it does give the US government the power to indefinitely detain any US citizen on US soil for any reason and the Feds d not have to give the reason nor does the citizen being detained have any rights afterwards.  How the heck can anyone not see that this is an act of a tyrannical government seeking to silence and intimidate those who speak out against it?  The White House and Congress are even saying now that those who are against the government are possible terrorists.All of this is possible because of our current economical state in which close to half of the population is dependent (for surviving) on the government be it food stamps, housing or medical.   Once more than half the voting public (notice I did not say legal citizenry)  is dependent on the government it is then when the politicians will wield the power of control over us all because then they will have the ability to steer the voting majority and get it to approve anything the government wants.  This is the road to a police state and we are on it.  Don???t you think it???s about time to wake up?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3555910]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[BlueCollarCritic]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:33:01 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nick, I have a &quot;pair&quot;, but you need to grow a brain,]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3555301]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[because, the problem with you is not that, a &quot;qualifier&quot; was or was not used; your problem is that, people need to explain things to you as if you were a newborn, who is still trying to grasp the basics of everything around him.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3555301]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 07:52:33 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Semantics]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3554873]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[As you said in a different thread: A qualifier makes a huge difference...No qualifiers are present.I would never claim that climate change is not real...Seems to me you did exactly that, and now you're trying to weasel out of it. Lame. Man up, grow a pair, and admit you made a mistake.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3554873]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NickNielsen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 06:07:31 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nick: You're getting more stupid with each new post you make...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3554583]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;Where in your post did you say that climate change didn't exist?&quot;That is a misleading question, and not one that I would phrase that way.  I would never claim that climate change is not real, and the quote from me that you presented below is not any kind of &quot;gotcha!&quot; to prove me wrong.&quot;So, it has nothing to do with wanting to &quot;call it a hoax&quot;; the pure fact of the matter is that, it was a complete hoax, with no doubts at all.&quot;What the heck does quoting that statement of mine prove?  At best, it proves that, you can't understand what other people say.  The hoax I was talking about, was the idiotic &quot;science&quot; methods being used to prove a lie.  That statement of mine has nothing at all to do with me denying climate change.  Like I mentioned before, climate change is part of nature, and we insignificant humans can't change it or even affect it in any significant fashion.  We are at the mercy of nature, and not the other way around.  Sure, we can affect our environment in negative ways, but, in the overall scheme of things,  we are nothing when it comes to climate change, and we are subject to all natural disasters (or natural occurrences), just like all other life forms on the planet.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3554583]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:37:37 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Changing the past again?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3553491]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Where in your post did you say that climate change didn't exist?So, it has nothing to do with wanting to &quot;call it a hoax&quot;; the pure fact of the matter is that, it was a complete hoax, with no doubts at all.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3553491]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NickNielsen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:38:03 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[My turn]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3553472]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Your tax and spend mentality is the kind that destroys countries. We are witnessing that right now, in the U.S...No, you idiotic git!  What we are witnessing in the U.S. is the failure, no, refusal to match revenues to spending levels.  This idiocy was perpetrated by the G. W. Bush administration, which was handed a balanced budget by the Clinton presidency.  Bush, Cheney, and their cronies, who apparently included nobody capable of adding 1+1 to get 2, promptly proceeded to throw rational fiscal policy out of the White House and, apparently, out of the Republican party..]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3553472]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NickNielsen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:32:01 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Like I stated earlier, in another post, not all comments need]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3551968]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[a response, and so, the one above is inconsequential and unimportant and too silly to even warrant a long response, though even this one is more than your comment warrants.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3551968]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:46:45 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Actually, my BP is doing fine, and the doctor tells me that,]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3551959]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I have the BP pressure of a teenager, and I haven't been a teen for a long time. I'm actually a pretty calm person, and there's virtually nothing that can get my BP out of control.  When it comes to blood penetrating my brain, I'm pretty sure that I have enough of that. However, perhaps it's you that needs a blood transfusion so that you can get some more blood flowing to your head.  It you are trying to attack my intelligence, well, I'm pretty sure that, I've had IQ scores much higher than yours. I don't ever like bringing that up, because, I see it as inappropriate.  I mention it only when I get the stupid remarks about intelligence levels mentioned.  Again, I'm pretty sure that my scores have been much higher than yours, and higher than most.  When it comes to &quot;laughing&quot; at someone, I would consider that &quot;laugher&quot; to be the more pathetic one.  Me, I just try to set someone straight by educating him or her.  That's what I've been trying to do with you, and I feel sorry for you, because, you continue to keep a closed mind.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3551959]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:43:53 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Oh, get a clue!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3551934]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Socialism is only &quot;ideal&quot; in the minds of those that don't understand the system, and that have not learned the lessons of history, which teaches that, socialism has never worked.  Like I said, logic is never on the side of socialism, so, there is nothing at all &quot;ideal&quot; about it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3551934]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:30:02 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nick: You're not going to like this, but that last post was pretty stupid.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3551945]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Where in my post did I say there was no global warming?  Or climate change?My posts were about the idiotic propositions that, the earth was warming as a result of humans using carbon-based fuels. Nobody could ever deny that, global warming occurs, nor could anyone deny that global cooling also occurs.  It's cyclical and humans are barely noticeable in the whole scheme of natural forces.  Before humans were ever on the planet, climate change was a reality for eons.Also, you have your terminology wrong.It's not about denying the &quot;science&quot;.  It's about denying the faulty and agendized &quot;science&quot; which is not science at all.  You, on the other hand, seem to be supporting the junk science.  Who's the &quot;zealot&quot; in that scenario?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3551945]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:24:04 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Social spending, government subsidized healthcare, what's the difference/]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3551932]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Fact is, that's is all spending by government.  If a program depends upon the private sector for funding, it's wealth that's not going to be available for economic growth or for jobs creation.  With no economic growth and with high unemployment, eventually, there won't be a source for funding those government programs.  It's like is said, &quot;the problem with socialism, is that, eventually, government runs out of other people's money&quot;.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-354064-3551932]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:16:12 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

