Comments on: Shady Solar Dealings

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:35:46 +0000

Of course you feel that way. They, ALEC, help fund sites such as these for example. And the Right is expert at creating fake boogymen and red herrings re: the Left; and to respond as you have is standard operating procedure. Accuse your opponent of the very thing you are guilty of. I see it all the time by the Right, more and more, because it is like a magical formula. It works like virtually nothing else. But then again is isn’t really anything that new. The Nazis utilized a lot of the same techniques, and developed some of them too. At most Dan, given some occasional fluctuations, your extreme Rightism will command at most a third of the population, as it has in the past. That is why they need such devices and techniques. And the extreme Right is also constantly starting little battles to keep the Left busy putting out fires, so they cannot become more organized with regard to populous support. It’s a generally winning formula, unfortunately. And you and this site are just another cog in that wheel of elitist control. Some people, perhaps even you, truly believe in all that you do. But they count on that, they know that there is that segment of the population that fall into that category. And they use them to the fullest because they are smart and wealthy. Mostly wealthy.

By: Dan McGrath

Dan McGrath — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:47:40 +0000

ALEC is just one of thousands of similar think tanks. They’re probably the most open of any I’m aware of. They actually invite press to their meetings. Many (c)3 and (c)4 organizations are funded in whole or in part by grants from corporations and foundations. There’s no “stealth campaign.” They’re very open about their process, members, donors, etc. ALEC is a fake boogeyman, who in the scheme of things isn’t terribly important – though they do good work.

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:40:04 +0000

Or not.

Since its founding in 1973, ALEC has ghostwritten state legislation across the country on a wide range of issues, from voter ID laws to private prison policyies, to worker “protections”.

What has gone unmentioned, however, is ALEC’s longtime stealth campaign to scuttle state–and federal–climate change initiatives, despite the fact that a number of its corporate members publicly acknowledge that global warming is a serious problem. They include General Motors; oil giants BP America, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell Oil; and electric utilities Duke Energy, Entergy and Progress Energy.

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:04:59 +0000

So you see, once again, the door is opened for you to respond logically, to specific points, clear as day. And as you have done all along, you fail to do so. I know why that is, but you are free to respond…

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:14:19 +0000

I never claimed to be an expert on Freud. Please show me where I did that. You cannot. You behave like a very naive child who lashes out when he cannot get his way. But silly me, that’s pretty normal for someone on the Right. So nevermind. And (large sigh) there are still MORE PhD’s who agree with AGW than not, so how is it you can even begin to defend your position vis a vis that line of argument? Absurdity, thy name is Neil.

By: NEILIO

NEILIO — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:19:44 +0000

You know if you would refrain from calling me things like anal we could avoid these kinds of conflicts. You do play a role in these things too.

By: NEILIO

NEILIO — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:37:56 +0000

Hey, I only said I would listen to the opinion of a Ph.D. over your Masters degree. And comparing this to my position on global warming as opposed to so called experts on global warming is not the same thing. There are plenty of Ph.D.’s who share the same opinion as I do on global warming, and I never claimed to be an expert on global warming, as you DO claim to be an expert on Freud. So, phtttttt!

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:05:39 +0000

Not only are you anal but you possess delusions of granduer. Dismissing anyone with credentials for personally biased reasons only highlights your levels of honesty and ego, which are in opposite proportion to one another. All I refuted was a very basic and ACCEPTED psychological notion re: early childhood development. I am well aware of Frued’s detractors, and I myself am not in full agreement with all of his ideas and opinions. And if you were to defer to the majority of the “highest degrees of education” you would believe also in AGW. You consistently display your hypocrisy like some sort of demented badge of honor. Trust me, it is not.

By: NEILIO

NEILIO — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 02:26:13 +0000

A Masters degree? Oh wow that must make you a total expert then! Right? I mean the only people who would be more knowledgable on the subject would be someone with a doctorate right? A Ph.D? Well I only ask that because the person that wrote what I posted was:

John F. Kihlstrom
University of California, Berkeley

Current Position
Professor

Highest Degree
Ph.D. in Personality and Experimental Psychopathology from University of Pennsylvania, 1975

So, I’m sorry, in this case I am going to defer to the man with the highest degree of education. Not to belittle your Masters degree………………..

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:17:32 +0000

Seriously? Now’s the time I have to remind thee of this: I have a Master’s Degree in Psychology. And Joe tries to accuse me of conceit. ABSURDITY.

By: NEILIO

NEILIO — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:31:31 +0000

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/freuddead.htm
“Freud’s cultural influence is based, at least implicitly, on the premise that his theory is scientifically valid. But from a scientific point of view, classical Freudian psychoanalysis is dead as both a theory of the mind and a mode of therapy (Crews, 1998; Macmillan, 1996). No empirical evidence supports any specific proposition of psychoanalytic theory, such as the idea that development proceeds through oral, anal, phallic, and genital stages, or that little boys lust after their mothers and hate and fear their fathers. No empirical evidence indicates that psychoanalysis is more effective, or more efficient, than other forms of psychotherapy, such as systematic desensitization or assertiveness training. No empirical evidence indicates the mechanisms by which psychoanalysis achieves its effects, such as they are, are those specifically predicated on the theory, such as transference and catharsis.

Of course, Freud lived at a particular period of time, and it might be argued that his theories were valid when applied to European culture at the turn of the last century, even if they are no longer apropos today. However, recent historical analyses show that Freud’s construal of his case material was systematically distorted and biased by his theories of unconscious conflict and infantile sexuality, and that he misinterpreted and misrepresented the scientific evidence available to him. Freud’s theories were not just a product of his time: they were misleading and incorrect even when he published them.”

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:02:52 +0000

Um, Neil. Perhaps you should be the one to look things up besides ancillary definitions supporting (supposedly) your already strongly held biases. The anal phase of child development is real and can have life-long repercussions, just like many other very early childhood experiences. But maybe to you Freud is just another long-haired liberal hippy.

By: NEILIO

NEILIO — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:02:35 +0000

I’m just having a bit of lighthearted fun. I don’t even buy that theory anyway, I don’t ever recall being fixated on anything, especially poopies! I am pretty shure that is just something that comes (out) naturally. And I don’t think I have ever spent more than a few moments of thought on them other than thinking that it’s kind of gross, or that used to be food….ugh!

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:00:09 +0000

And it is I who is the expulsive, including the somewhat unflattering traits, as are most Liberals. I believe even Joe would agree with that.

By: Rob N. Hood

Rob N. Hood — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:06:26 +0000

Wrong again grasshopper. You are plain Jane conservative retentive. That was obvious all along. Or so I thought. Silly me. (no- you are NOT obsessed with detail?!?)

And thanks so much for the lesson in anal. That was, a little too much, you know… detail.