Eco-libtard Bill Gates funding scary climate experiment in New Mexico. This follows his failed 2009 giant-tub proposal for stopping hurricanes. At some point, this idiot is going to cause so much harm to the environment with his loony notions that we’ll need emergency government intervention to solve the problems… oh, gee, maybe that’s what he wants?
View Comments (62)
Sooooooooooooo, let me get this straight.
The guy who stole almost every idea that made him rich is feeling MORALLY SUPERIOR to me, AND messing with mother nature?
I really do not see this ending well.
Truthfully, he only stole DOS, the rest he paid other people to come up with.
Truthfully, he only stole DOS, the rest he paid other people to come up with.
I stand corrected,That SHOULD read "stole the idea that is the basis of his wealth"....
LOL!! :-)
I just Corporate Greed' in my pants. Now I need to wipe my John and flush it down the Enviro-Hippe. Damnit, new pants too...
Thanks for the best laugh of the day..
I'm sending the article to our governor, Susana Martinez! I want to know which dipshit in state government approved this "experiment" and I want them thrown out on the street!
I live on the eastern plains of New Mexico, not all that far from Fort Sumner, and anyone who has lived here more than 6 months knows the wind blows almost every day so who knows where this crap may come to ground. I don't want this gunk coming down on my property, who knows what kind of damage it will cause?
Well, it’s some kind of sulphur apparently, so if you come out on a bright beautiful morning and the whole world smells like skunks eating garlic or Helen Thomas’ farts, that means the stuff came down in your area.
Then you can write a thank you letter to Bill Gates and ask him why he didn’t do the experiment up in Seattle around his own house.
"if you come out on a bright beautiful morning and the whole world smells like skunks eating garlic or Helen Thomas’ farts"
That brought a tear(s) to my eye. Beautiful, just fucking beautiful!
Looks like somebody read Dream Catcher.
nice
Bills Gates didn't do that. He had help.
Notsosilent:"Sounds like Bill has a bit of a 'God' complex going on"
Funny you should mention that. Bill's wife Melinda, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is hoping to spend a billion dollars over the next eight years buying contraceptives for women in poor countries. Many in the poor countries are crying, Imperialism! They wonder why other needed drugs can't be provided and are tired of the elitists' obsessions with condoms, contraceptives, abortion, and AIDS. Melinda, a Catholic, says none of the money will be used for abortion. But some of the groups they are partnering with are involved with abortion. The Guardian newspaper in England says that one of the groups the Gates Foundation is partnering with is involved in coercive sterilization programs in India. Even the liberal Amnesty International fears that "coercive family planning programs" may come back through the auspices of the Gates Foundation. Wealthy liberals, like the Gates and the Obamas, can have a God complex. Poor peoples want to develop and progress, but the liberals want them held down and even snuffed out.
Can you explain how Bill gates wants to hold down poor people or even snuff them out?
The Comrade:"Can you explain how Bill gates wants to hold down poor people or even snuff them out?"
I was focusing more on Melinda Gates than Bill Gates but I have no doubt that he shares her values. People in poor countries want to develop their infrastructures. But when they ask for aid, it is often tied to population control. Imagine all the good Melinda Gates could do in poor countries with a billion dollars, but it is going to go for contraceptives exclusively.
I didn't say that Bill or Melinda Gates were big supporters of abortion, but I do stand by my statement that "liberals" are big defenders of snuffing out human life through abortion. They have embraced the philosophy of Margaret Sanger. An excellent example of this occurred in a 2009 interview Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave to The New York Times when she said:"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of." Imagine the cries of "Racism!" if Scalia or Alito had said something like that.
I don't see what is wrong with providing for contraceptives. yes, it will probably most likely control population growth but some of the most poorest countries are those with highest population growth. As a result having more opportunities for women to control whether or not they give birth will also play a role in poverty and hunger. Not only that but many economics and scientists claim that Bill Gate's program of providing contraceptives to people of India has actually saved 100,000 indians from capturing AIDS.
As for your point about abortion, I understand. However I see nothing wrong with contraceptives from a religious view so as long as it is not used immorally.
You clearly don't comprehend poverty, or the value of man for that matter. Human beings are assets, not cost centers, especially in poor countries. The whole basis for your comment is the assumption (making an ASS of U and ME) that children are burdens rather than assets which is not jusst philosophically and morally wrong, but economically incorrect.
Give that poor woman contraceptives to prevent conception, then walk away. That's what the Gates do. Thirty years later when she needs children to help her survive, what then? Not only will she have fewer choices for care, the overall family wealth will be significantly less than it would have been with a larger family.
Liberals love to highlight the "costs" of having children here in the developed world, but they use wildly inflated numbers and completely ignore the benefits: Cost of a child.
You don't seriously believe raising a child in a poor, struggling nation is the same as raising a child in America? What I found strange about your article (assuming you wrote it because it sounds like you) is that you choose to attack the costs of raising a baby (which I agree on some points that you mentioned) but you didn't include what it really costs to raise a baby. Your article may have more merit if you include your own calculations. Not that I'm trying to attack you but I'm trying to help you out.
Lastly, what costs more have 2 children or 10 children? I'm just making sure we are on the same page on this question.
Why would I calculate what it cost me to raise my children? That's borderline insane and commits me to the liberal paradigm I know is false. What does it cost me to drive to church and worship God? Some questions are fundamentally nonsensical. Here's a better question, for you: does everything have a price? And here's another one for you: can something that has a monetary cost also have a monetary benefit? The last one is relevant because I constantly see liberals adding up costs without calculating benefits... as in the silly Global Warming costs.
I didn't ask you to calculate how much it costs to raise your own children. You say that 300,000 dollars is too much. Well then, what cost sounds more reasonable to you? 1,000? 10,000? 50,000?
Not everything has a price. As far as I am aware the doesn't cost me nor the government anything to breathe in fresh air outside :P
As for your last question I believe we can both agree that certain things are not worth the costs as they are portrayed to be.
Now that I answered your questions I think its only fair if you respond to my previous statement: "You don’t seriously believe raising a child in a poor, struggling nation is the same as raising a child in America? What I found strange about your article (assuming you wrote it because it sounds like you) is that you choose to attack the costs of raising a baby (which I agree on some points that you mentioned) but you didn’t include what it really costs to raise a baby. Your article may have more merit if you include your own calculations. Not that I’m trying to attack you but I’m trying to help you out."
"As for your last question I believe we can both agree that certain things are not worth the costs as they are portrayed to be."
"Certain things?" An odd phrase. I believe we are talking about children here. So costs are irrelevant and it shows a lack of comprehension about the value of human beings to even discuss money. Your example of breathing air might give you a better idea of the absurdity of discussing the cost of a child because it doesn't require you to recognize the value of human life: the value of your next breath of air is always infinite, isn't it? You'll pay anything. But on the other hand nobody will pay you a dime for a breath of air. The contradiction arises because the monetary value is irrrelevant.
J.p., the only reason that there are no kids starving in this country, and statistically few in the rest of the world, is that money is taken from us, at gunpoint, to feed them. The irresponsible breeding must stop.
You can say that breeding out of control is financially a good idea, but I haven't seen any benefit yet out of continuing to breed, and have the U.S. feed, all the children in starving countries, or continuing to breed children that the parents can't fee, in this country. If the ones doing the breeding can't feed 'em, they have no right to breed 'em.
Comrade, you're simply wrong. Not just philosophically wrong, but demonstrably and provably wrong in the economic sense. The poorer the populace, the more economic benefit brought to a family by children.
Scotsman, there are starving children in the world, but in a world of 7 billion people there are so few that we can label them statistical flukes... vicitms of dislocation, war, and neglect rather than victims of poverty. In the U.S. there are none. Zip. Zero.
Flash, that's RAAACCCIIISSSTTT!!!
I agree with you on that one flashingscotsman.
Ok J.P. lets take a step back. You originally said the following: "The whole basis for your comment is the assumption...that children are burdens rather than assets which is not just philosophically and morally wrong, but economically incorrect."
How can you argue with this one? I definitely think it is not a good idea for a family to continue having children when they are financially unstable. The problem with many other countries is that not only are some facing a crisis in food supply but their women give birth to more children than many American women. Some of the reasons for this include the lack of sexual education and women rights.
So to drive my point home further, i believe having babies is the greatest gift in the world, however, there are times when some should bring a child into this world.
If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.
"...coercive sterilization programs in India."
Bill Gates, of all people, should realize what kind of deleterious effect that could have on technology in general, and the computer field in particular.
Subtle, lol...
Then again, maybe someone once casually said "hey, the next Bill Gates might come out of one of those poverty stricken villages in India". He thought about it, and applied the standard Microsoft policy - ergo, the population control efforts.
But seriously - I looked at the roster of licensed professional engineers in NJ. The number 1 name was Smith (no big surprise). Just slightly less a number was not Johnson or Miller or anything waspy like that. It was Patel.
Which is, pretty much, the Indian version of "Smith" or "Jones." :)
What does he care? His wife has a project that will keep her out of his hair, and he gets to play God and fix the world.
On a disrelated note:
Why the hell can't some computer nerd come up with a program that will replace this
"consequences for the Earth's weather systems"
with this
"consequences for the Earth's weather systems"
Seriously, how hard can that be? We've got programs that simulate football games with actual human facsimiles, and no one can come up with a word program that puts in an actual apostrophe instead of ' ?
Uh, as somebody who like's to pretend he know's everything, it bother's me to have to admit that I don't know what the hell you're talking about. There's a difference between apostrophe's at an angle and apostrophe's that're straight up and down?
The apostrophe is at an angle. The single straight up n down quote mark looking thingy is actually called the 'prime' symbol. See how I used it there? I have no idea why I did that. So no, they are not the same. Yes, there is a difference.
I just noticed that using the prime symbol - ' - as semi-quote marks on my 'puter and they angle in towards the word or phrase, but alone they do different stuff! They're pretty smart little suckers, ain't they?
'prime'
Weird.
How did you teach them to do that?
I had nothing to do with it. If I had, the prime symbol would indeed be different from the apostrophe!
But since my keyboard doesn't have but one choice, what the hell can we do about it?
Well, if it really matters, you can figure out how to insert one of those fancy ASCII characters, the ALT 39 combo yields the single blip quote type thingy.
“consequences for the Earth's weather systems”
That is exactly what was in the article.
Not "Earth's" - but "Earth's"
The guy types and apostrophe, but the program prints '
Andre. Sweetie. Maybe you need a vacation? Some yoga classes? Seriously, I think you may just be wound a bit too tight right now. =)
Oh yeah - absolutely.
That reply was posted an hour after my normal bedtime (yes, that's about 9:30 eastern, I get up at 4:30), but I was looking at many more hours yet to come in front of an autocad pgm on the computer. All that after 8 hours in the sun in 95 deg weather.
Later I reread JP's post and realized that, with all the extra apostrophes, he meant it as a joke. Or maybe I'm so used to bad grammar that I saw it as normal bad English.
You know, I just had an idea - I'm thinking I might need a vacation.
You aren't the first person to be mystified by my sense of humor.
I'm not really mystified by your sense of humor. I tend toward the subtle and sarcastic myself, and appreciate it in others. The problem is that it requires equally subtle tones of voice, facial expressions and/or body motions, and elocutionary variations and pauses. None of which are delivered on a message board.
But you did what you could do, i.e., overuse apostrophes to such a degree that it should have been obvious, at least to someone with full use of their mental faculties.
Karmaa, you need to see it the way it showed up in the email.
Fabulous. Another supervillain who thinks he's a superhero. They're the worst kind!
Leave. The Sun. Alone. Morons.
Sounds like Bill has a little bit of a "God" complex going on.....I am rich therefore I am smart, therefore I am Godlike, Therefore I must tell the little people what to do and how to live...Bill's been smoking from the same stash as Obutthead.
If the big-gov totalitarians didn't have unintended consequences form their harebrained ideas they would have no consequences at all.
Just remember that it is their intention and how that made them feel that is far more important than any results.