Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

So no need to conserve, worry about the environment...


Mike Beard, a Republican state representative from Minnesota, recently argued that coal mining should resume in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, in part because he believes God has created an earth that will provide unlimited natural resources.

"God is not capricious. He's given us a creation that is dynamically stable," Beard told MinnPost. "We are not going to run out of anything."

Beard is currently in the midst of drafting legislation that would overturn Minnesota's moratorium on coal-fired power plants, an effort that he backs due to his religious belief that God will provide limitless resources while ensuring that humans don't destroy the planet trying to get them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/1 ... 24312.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What he's forgetting is that in calling man to dominion over nature, implicit in the command (if not actually explicit) was a call to responsible stewardship. While one's definition of that may vary from that of another, THIS interpretation is a bit over the top, to say the least. While I am hardly an enviro-wacko, I do recognize that SOME steps to protect the environment, including conservation, is required. People like this guy should go away.

ahh... the Tea Party... now that they are legislating and governing it's almost funny...

I find it funny that Libs here accuse Cons of parroting Rush, but Jon has probably posted 25 articles from Huffington and the like just this week.

89Hen wrote:I find it funny that Libs here accuse Cons of parroting Rush, but Jon has probably posted 25 articles from Huffington and the like just this week.

Arianna Huffington is the voice of the Democratic Party

Gil Dobie wrote:

89Hen wrote:I find it funny that Libs here accuse Cons of parroting Rush, but Jon has probably posted 25 articles from Huffington and the like just this week.

Arianna Huffington is the voice of the Democratic Party

I think Jon favors her because she used to be married to a rich gay guy.

You guys be nice.

Jon may be a lib, but he's a THINKING lib. He doesn't go on an all-out ad hominem assault when a conservative even breathes around here. He's never threatened anybody, or anything like that. He states his opinion, backs it up when necessary, and leaves it at that. And that's in stark contrast to the many lib trolls around here.

Jon is good people. Leave him alone. PLEASE.

Please.

89Hen wrote:I find it funny that Libs here accuse Cons of parroting Rush, but Jon has probably posted 25 articles from Huffington and the like just this week.

What is in accurate about the report? Huff Post is a news gathering blog. Here is the original story:
http://www.minnpost.com/donshelby/2011/ ... ate_change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beard introduced the bill, and made the comments. No falsification.


Tea Party - crazy, and crazier.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote:I find it funny that Libs here accuse Cons of parroting Rush, but Jon has probably posted 25 articles from Huffington and the like just this week.

What is in accurate about the report? Huff Post is a news gathering blog. Here is the original story:
http://www.minnpost.com/donshelby/2011/ ... ate_change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beard introduced the bill, and made the comments. No falsification.


Tea Party - crazy, and crazier.

The same thing that is inaccurate about posts by Cons that get called Rush parrots... nothing.

SuperHornet wrote:You guys be nice.

Jon may be a lib, but he's a THINKING lib. He doesn't go on an all-out ad hominem assault when a conservative even breathes around here. He's never threatened anybody, or anything like that. He states his opinion, backs it up when necessary, and leaves it at that. And that's in stark contrast to the many lib trolls around here.

Jon is good people. Leave him alone. PLEASE.

You're not his type, SH. Just give it up. PLEASE.

clenz wrote:

Right on que!

Grizalltheway wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:You guys be nice.

Jon may be a lib, but he's a THINKING lib. He doesn't go on an all-out ad hominem assault when a conservative even breathes around here. He's never threatened anybody, or anything like that. He states his opinion, backs it up when necessary, and leaves it at that. And that's in stark contrast to the many lib trolls around here.

Jon is good people. Leave him alone. PLEASE.

You're not his type, SH. Just give it up. PLEASE.

89Hen wrote:I find it funny that Libs here accuse Cons of parroting Rush, but Jon has probably posted 25 articles from Huffington and the like just this week.

Funny? Yeah, this is real funny. Mr. funny man can't see the forest because he has a tree shoved up his ass.

dbackjon wrote:Tea Party - crazy, and crazier.

All other things aside, is there something in the articles saying he is affliliated with the Tea Party? I couldn't find anything.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote:I find it funny that Libs here accuse Cons of parroting Rush, but Jon has probably posted 25 articles from Huffington and the like just this week.

What is in accurate about the report? Huff Post is a news gathering blog. Here is the original story:
http://www.minnpost.com/donshelby/2011/ ... ate_change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beard introduced the bill, and made the comments. No falsification.

And the same kind of thing happens with Rush Limbaugh. He spends a lot of time referencing, reading, and describing articles and news accounts on the air. I used to check on him. I'd note the reference and look it up. And he pretty much accurately represented what the referenced articles, etc., said. For instance I remember him citing a USA Today article indicating that satellite data did not support the idea that the planet has been warming. I picked up a USA Today and, sure enough, there it was and that's what it said.

What Rush Limbaugh does, however, is pick and choose articles, etc., that help him to make the case for his point of view. He is not interested in "balance" and openly says so. In fact I heard him say that just the other day to a caller who said he's not "fair and balanced." He said something to the effect that he's not TRYING to be fair and balanced. He makes no bones about that.

And that's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and just every Liberal (or progressive) person or institution I've heard or read that has a point of view. In my opinion they try to create the impression that they are just looking at things objectively and that such objectivity, of COURSE, leads to their point of view.

As an aside: I noticed in the original article yet another reference to literature published in peer review journals. As I've said before, one thing I really lament is the public perception that the peer review publication process represents and objective quality control system. I think that most people believe that if a study follows the rules of science to reach conclusions substantiated through that process it will be published while a study that does not meet those standards will not be published.

That is totally untrue. The fact that a study is valid does not mean it will be published and the fact that there are problems with a study does not mean it will not be published.