These tea party people....

[Hassled]

Nutters? In this BBC blog, one woman says "This progressive agenda (Obama's economic policies) has progressed to the tipping point in the United States, where we either stand up for the constitution of the United States or we accept socialism, tainted with Marxism."

How can she interpret Obama's policies as socialism tainted with Marxism? Is it just down to lack of education? I really, genuinely, don't understand. I don't understand the fear they seem to have. And they're doing well - they've got the Delaware Senate nomination, NY, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky and Alaska. Meanwhile they're being funded by billionaires who clearly have a vested interest keeping the focus on tax cuts for the rich.

I don't know what my point is really - I get that many people want smaller government, lower taxation, less govt spending etc, but that view is already well represented. I don't get this extremism.

Yes I think they should drill for oil there.

'I just cannot see how developing a thriving industry, full of small businesses, original scientific and engineering progress, enterprise and initiative, can possibly be a bad thing.'

it sounds like you've been taken in by Gordon Brown, the man who saved the world from financial collapse and was instrumental in saving the planet from the horrors, tidal waves and desertification of global warming.

I am saying the Tea Party is good for democracy. I agree with some of their policies and not others. I agree with their anti-globalisation stance, their anti bailing out fatcats and banks stance, their anti green agenda, their belief in lower taxation and removal of bureaucrats and a smaller government. I don't agree with all of their other policies. I believe that Cameron is the best hope for us here, but I don't agree with his green agenda and his globalisation stance, for example.

You think that beautiful unspoilt landscapes should be drilled and mined where possible.

You don't believe that harnessing renewable energy resources is sparking a huge industry, employing people from the scientific world, to engineers, to manufacturers, to companies selling and distributing. Well OK I am obviously imagining all of these small companies that are involved in the "green" sector. Or not.

You say that you believe in lower taxation but at the same time super-top public services, somehow run by private nationalised companies.

You don't make any sense.

I think I make sense. I think the British people make sense, which is why they voted for the Coalition. I think many of the Tea Party's policies make perfect sense, which is why they are making such headway in the United States, against all odds.

I think human beings are more important than the environment. I think the environmental agenda is a lie and is against the interests of human beings.

How much do you think these small green companies contribute to GDP and the wealth of the nation? How many health services for human beings do you think they are able to pay for?

I believe in nationalisation and private enterprise. I don't care who runs things as longs as they are efficently managed in the greater interests of the country. I'm not against high wages for individuals running hospitals as long as they are doing an effective job and serving the people.

I am for low taxation, because I think that forces teh bureaucrats to spend the money that they take in, wisely. They won't be able to waste it without the public's say so. I believe in incentivising hard work and allowing families to keep as much money as possible and choose it in the way they see fit. I believe in the people and their judgement, not in the judgement of bureaucrats with no accountability.

choose to spend it in the way they see fit

You think that human beings are more important than the environment?

But human beings are a part of the environment. We are animals who live on this planet. We are not some kind of separate entities. That gets a too I'm afraid.

Green industries are in their infancy and growing fast. We are already winning contracts from overseas for building wind turbines, there are new energy providers supplying green energy and giving people a choice outside the big 4 (5? however many it is. not many). We are at the forefront of new technology to harness many different types of renewable resource. And once much of our power needs are met locally, we will be a more stable, wealthier and independent country.

You claim to be for low taxation and also for nationalisation of industry and also for a world-beating national health service. You say that you don't want the NHS managers paid high salaries but you are happy for private bosses to be paid higher fees.

And thecoalitionneedsyou is right - you talk in slogans.

Exactly human beings are part of nature and in my opinion more important than the lesser spotted beetle and its habitat. I think the planet will survive, I don't think that human beings are causing the death of the planet.

I think green industries will remain in their infancy, and we will be taxed by the progressives. I think the real hidden agenda is nuclear power and that is what they want to convince the people about. James lovelock is only one of the green voices who adviocate "clean" nuclear power. I think they know that there will be a resistance from the public, but they will sell it to the public by frightening them about energy shortages and when investors and shareholders inevitably lose their money in wind turbine companies, then nuclear will be the only answer.

I think I talk in words and ideas. I think "building a progressive future" and "for a fairer Britain" are slogans. I don't use those - the progressives do that.

What's wrong with wind farms and solar power and heat sinks and wave power and heat exchangers and high efficiency boilers and cars with lower emissions? You put people at the top of the food chain as the most important thing there is above anything else - thousands die in London every year due to the pollution - if we were all running electric vehicles from renewable resources the air would be clean and those people wouldn't die - what's not to like?

Are you, in fact, Jeremy Clarkson? I claim my £5.

Being anti-globalisation is like being anti-water running down hill.

Claig - you talk in wishes and platitudes.

What about the habitats of human beings that are being destroyed by the fossil fuel industry and other industry? Doesn't that matter? Or is it only certain humans that it's important to look after ie you and yours (basic right wing philosophy).

The niger delta is a mess, remember what happened with union carbide, hundreds of thousands of people (yes, those humans you were talking about) have to live in toxic environments due to the activities of other humans. These toxic environments kill humans, damage their offspring, shorten life expectancy, destroy their food supplies.

Handling our environment ie the one that provides us with all of our resources including the food we eat and the air we breathe, with a little respect, is common sense I'd have thought. And not jeopardising the habitat of thousands / millions of humans through short sighted, unsafe and profiteering behaviour is also basic common sense to anyone with an ounce of compassion.

I am all for clean air and scientific breakthroughs. I am all for health, which is why, unlike the progressives, I am against GM food and additives and aspartame in our food and drinks.

I am against the hot air of global warming.

I am a fan of Clarkson, particularly as he has challenged the sacred cows of Eton educated green guru, Sir Jonathon Porritt. Porritt has a feud with Clarkson, because Clarkson doesn't believe in global warming. Porritt has called him a "bigoted petrolhead".

You always know when someone is losing an argument, it is when they start insulting the other person and calling them a bigot, as gordon caleed Mrs. Duffy, or when they say that the other person doesn't make sense, or when they call the Tea Party "nutters".

Here is Porritt, the champion of sustainability, and someone who says that having more than two children should be seen as being irresponsible to the planet, in full flow against Clarkson, who dares not to believe.

"The former director of Friends of the Earth, who heads the Government's Sustainable Development Commission, chose the opening of a classroom at Rendcomb College, near Cirencester, Gloucestershire, for the latest round in a long-running feud. Sir Jonathon blamed Clarkson for public apathy about climate change and contrasted him with his fellow BBC presenter Sir David Attenborough, who recently went public for the first time about his fears over global warming. Clarkson, on the other hand, is renowned for belittling the threat posed by carbon dioxide emissions.

"In my mind this outstandingly bigoted petrolhead is partly responsible for why so many people today still somehow think that the world is going to be drawn in the image of Jeremy Clarkson rather than the image of David Attenborough and others," Sir Jonathon said. "Anyone who can shut up Jeremy Clarkson deserves more honours than have already been heaped on David Attenborough."

In the past, Sir David has come under fire from environmentalists for failing to use the platform afforded him as the doyen of natural history programmes to address the threat from rising temperatures. But Sir David told The Independent last week: "I am no longer sceptical. Now I do not have any doubt at all. I think climate change is the major threat facing the world."

Sir Jonathon said: "I am delighted that David has accepted the evidence that most people accepted a long time ago ... When people like David Attenborough think very carefully about the evidence, eventually there is very little room for people playing the scientific uncertainty argument. Maybe he will even shut up Jeremy Clarkson. That would be a great relief."

Porritt also welcomes Sir David Attenborough into the fold, because Sir David was once a non-believer.

Monbiot is not too keen on that other non-believer, Sir David Bellamy and Monbiot has even described the green guru grandaddy of them all, Sir James Lovelock, as having an attack of the "bellamoids" because he had said a few things that were off message.

Most people can see through them and their use of intemperate language, just as most people can see through the desperation of the progressives in their attacks on the "nutters" in the Tea Party and on their ridiculing of the next President of the United States, Sarah Palin.

I am against Union Carbide and against the global warmers.

'Handling our environment ie the one that provides us with all of our resources including the food we eat and the air we breathe, with a little respect, is common sense I'd have thought.'

I would have thought so too, which is why I struggle to understands why they allow the planting of genetically modified crops which then contaminate the land around them.

What was that great big essay about?

You still haven't answered my question as to why moving away from fossil fuels, to renewable fuel sources, giving us freedom, independence and wealth, is a terrible terrible thing.

Your posting style is very strange, actually.

I don't think you ever answer a direct question. Scratch Jeremy Clarkson, are you a politician?

Yes my posting style is very strange, and I am very strange and I don't make sense. Am I a 'bigoted petrolhead as well?'

We haven't got renewable fuel sources that can replace fossil fuels. We can't run our economy and thrive and prosper and pay for our health service with renewable fuel sources. There is an answer to our energy needs, and it is the answer that Sir James Lovelock advocates - nuclear energy.

Well you don't make sense.

Explain how your nationalised private industries are going to work?

I can't get to grips with a lot of what you say, in order to discuss it with you.

You say that humans are important, and you agree with reducing pollution.... But you support drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, and lambast Green ideas for alternative, less polluting energy sources.

You say you want a strong wealthy Britain, but you want us to retain our dependence on the often corrupt and unstable oil producing countries around the world.

It all seems contradictory to me.

Yes I don't make sense, please explain things to me, you are so knowledgeable.

'Explain how your nationalised private industries are going to work?'
I think you are deliberately trying to misunderstand me. We can have both natioanlised industries and private enterprise side by side, just as we used to have when BT and the railways were under public ownership.

'You say that humans are important, and you agree with reducing pollution.... But you support drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, and lambast Green ideas for alternative, less polluting energy sources.'
yes i say all of those things. I don't care if greens want to search for less polluting energy sources, I object to them taxing companies and people for their carbon footprint, and harming business and the jobs that people depend on.

'You say you want a strong wealthy Britain, but you want us to retain our dependence on the often corrupt and unstable oil producing countries around the world.'
we have no threat from Saudis over oil etc. There is a potential problem with superpowers like Russia, but it is in their interests to sell us fuel and we need to maintain good relations with these countries.

Hmmm. I think 'no threat' from Saudi might be over stating it.

Claig I enjoyed reading your posts, it's late now ( well for me) all I can say is you never resort to any insults, even when others say things that are not true about you and your postings. Am I right in thinking that you do, care about the environment, but think that the global warming and green issues have been overplayed. You hate the nanny state, and the resulting bullying of the people of this country by bureaucrats and the political elite, and admire the outspoken freshness of Sarah Palin. I read your link to the Times article on her and it was of course interesting. I'm not to sure if she would become President of the USA, but I'm sure she will at least be at the top of her game in politics in the USA. If I'm wrong about you please say, I feel that you are saying that if you are not with the global warming brigade, people automatically think you agree with shooting tigers or running a high speed train trough vast acres of meadows, and I'm sure you do not. Goodnight

I think the Saudis have always been in the West's sphere of influence. I can't see it ever being in their interests to refuse to sell us oil. I know that they did quadruple the price with OPEC once, and that harmed our economies, but who knows what other private interests it really benefitted?

thanks complimentary, yes you are right, I do care about the environment and not shooting tigers and rhinos and I am against companies that throw toxic waste into rivers etc. I am all for human health and am against genetically modified food and the harm that GM crops do in their contamination of non-GM crops and the potential harm to human health and to bees and other wildlife. I think the global warming brigade are lying and doing it for political ends and that the end result of their policies is to harm human life on earth and as Jonathon Porritt advocates to restrict the size of families because they pretend that humans are a virus on earth causing global warming which will destroy the planet. I agree with Sir David Bellamy and Sarah Palin and many others in their opposition to the elites who push the global warming agenda.

You approve of us pouring our money into Saudi?

Surely better to circulate our money in our own economy and those more local to us, and not throw it all at regimes like Saudi? Where they stone women to death, they aren't allowed to drive, and religious police are on the streets to administer beatings to women who are not dressed exactly to their standards? Where the religious police prevent firefighters rescuing schoolgirls from a burning school because the girls do not have their faces covered? This is a regime that you approve of and want to support with your money?

Again, right wing philosophy to a tee. Everyone for their own self interest and no compassion. You say that human beings are the most important thing on the planet, but clearly this concern only extends to you and yours.

I find your posts increasingly repulsive TBH.

'This is a regime that you approve of and want to support with your money?'

I think you want to read things into what I am saying. I do not approve of the Saudi regime. I said they are not a threat to the United Kingdom, they won't stop us getting access to oil. Your outrage at the Saudi regime is shared by me. I don't want to throw money at anyone. I believe in Tory fiscal rectitude, I am not a progressive.

Are you a relation of Mr. Angry from Tunbridge Wells, perchance? I find your posts increasingly deranged TBH.

But you just suggested that we buy lots of lovely oil from the Saudis. I'm sure I read that

"'You say you want a strong wealthy Britain, but you want us to retain our dependence on the often corrupt and unstable oil producing countries around the world.'
we have no threat from Saudis over oil etc. There is a potential problem with superpowers like Russia, but it is in their interests to sell us fuel and we need to maintain good relations with these countries."

"I think the Saudis have always been in the West's sphere of influence. I can't see it ever being in their interests to refuse to sell us oil. "

Sounds to me very much like you want to buy their oil

I'm sorry if you are struggling to understand my posts, I think they seems quite logical. I have never been called deranged before Are you suggesting that I have mental health problems? And you say that you never resort to insults

I don't feel particularly angry, I feel sad that "every man for himself and fuck everyone else" seems to be such a prevalent view at the moment.