I think this applies to how Liberals see the Middle Class and Americans workers in general. Is there a single Liberal cause that HASN’T damaged the Middle Class?
Pick a cause.....any cause.
Gaia demands blood sacrifice.
Kinda like getting messed up because someone bombed the empty hut next door...
So sorry should Becker become collateral damage in the restoration of the middle class.
I have no idea whether it is real or not but this is the first time I've heard of anyone who is a "war correspondent" getting a bronze star for their reporting.
It would be enlightening to see the citation that backs up this claim.
I don’t know.
I have occasion to travel through coal country several times a year. Around election time you see a lot of stop the war on coal signs.
Lots of union workers.
Lots of them still vote Democrat in spite of losing their jobs.
There’s even union talk radio out there.
I just don’t know.
That’s the same thing the Free Trade crowd calls them.
They don’t really look at them as “collateral damage”—more like a recruiting opportunity. Make them feel like victims, put them on disability, food stamps and section 8 housing. And, like magic, you have a Democratic voter for life.
I guess, in the eyes of the new progressive Republican Party, conservative ideals are to be considered “collateral damage”, as well.
“there is nothing explicit in the [Obama] plan to mitigate or adapt to the economic disruption the clean energy transition will cause for...” Everybody
Him plan is the same, no change,print money pass it out for votes.
They will also need to import a bunch of wheelbarrows for the people people to carry all this currency around in.
Inflation is on us the monkey on your back.
Bjorn Lomberg, a cofounder of Green Peace and author of the “Skeptical Environmentalist”, has an excellent TED talk from around 2006. He talks about the massive cost of “climate change” solutions at 150-200 billion dollars. For that much money, it is estimated that we could solve micro-nutrient deficits, de-worming, malaria and half a dozen other highly pressing problems - even bring clean water and sanitation to hundreds of millions.
He said that trying to mitigate climate change at that cost wasn’t worth it, by delaying the effects by six years. But solving all those problems would have a dramatic impact within a few years. And because micronutrient deficiencies and disease burdens drain the economies and potential of third world nations, their economies would grow much faster.
To quote him, a richer country could better adapt to climate change. But wasting money on solutions that hardly make a difference are no help at all.
And that’s why he’s reviled by environmentalists today.
Given $50 billion to spend, which would you solve first, AIDS or global warming? Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg comes up with surprising answers.
http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities
Bolshies consider anyone in the private sector with a job the enemy.