Hypocrite Cameron Disses California

Hypocrite Cameron Disses California

John Seiler:

James Cameron is another filthy-rich elitist — like Der Arnold, Bill Gates and Meg Whitman — who loves dissing California, Californians, and California jobs — and therefore is opposing Prop. 23, which would suspend AB 32. They want to keep imposing AB 32, which would destroy our jobs, leaving California depopulated, becoming a nature preserve for them to frolic in.

Cameron is one of the most wasteful and hypocritical of the “conservationists,” as the following YouTube shows. I’ll never watch one of his crummy movies again.

Oct. 22, 2010

No comments

Write a comment
  1. Paul Taylor Examiner
    Paul Taylor Examiner 23 October, 2010, 07:54

    According to a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, the November 2nd Prop. 23 ballot initiative to suspend California’s job-killing global warming law stands at 48% against Prop. 23 and 37% for Prop. 23. Now, only 10 days from the election, “yes on Prop. 23” TV ads are finally appearing.

    The “no on Prop. 23″ funders are spending $29.9 million — three times that of the “yes on Prop. 23” campaign. One-third of the anti-23 organizations have received over $2 million from billionaire George Soros’ Tides Foundation, and include the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy and other eco-groups. George Soros’ Tides Foundation is a slush fund for progressive (liberal) special interests — handing out over $100 million each year. Titanic and Avatar director James Cameron gave $1 million to stop Prop. 23. A new video from Greener Horizon Films shows Cameron as a “green hypocrite.”

    Soros affiliates dumped over $25 million for Pres. Obama’s election. Lately, Soros has pumped money into left wing media — $1 million to Media Matters, $1.8 million to NPR and deals with The Huffington Post for so-called “independent media” ventures. Soros bought Obama’s election, and directs Obama’s domestic policies through his Center for American Progress. And now, Soros is buying more influence in America’s liberal media.

    Before the economic recession, Californians blindly approved the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) that mandates 2012 reductions of greenhouse gases through carbon taxes, and alternative and renewable fuel subsidies. All new climate laws increase the unit production costs and corresponding consumer prices of all goods and services.

    California voters can delay the California Global Warming Solutions Act (A.B. 32) by voting for Prop. 23. Prop. 23 would suspend implementation of A.B. 32 until the state’s unemployment rate is reduced from its current 12% to below 5.5%.

    What is clear in California is that partisan ideologies and cultish environmentalism have replaced prudent science and economic realities in climate policy. What is also clear is that radical environmentalism no longer offers any product or service in support of our future security and prosperity. Militant environmentalism and green-obsessed bureaucrats have become an “axis of antagonism” that we can no longer afford.

    Reply this comment
  2. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 23 October, 2010, 08:17

    What a load of garbage. If I have to choose between 90 percent of the world’s scientists and Rush Limbaugh for a prediction of what will happen if global warming continues, I’ll pick the scientists every time. Because George Soros is spending his money to help save the planet is no reason to vote the other way.

    Reply this comment
  3. John Seiler
    John Seiler 23 October, 2010, 08:49

    After Prop. 23 loses, which it will, AB 32 will kick in and unemployment will rise above 15%. A new initiative in 2012 will repeal AB 32.

    Reply this comment
  4. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 23 October, 2010, 09:56

    Let’s remember that prediction, boys and girls. Unemployment over 15 percent. Pigs fly.

    Reply this comment
  5. John Seiler
    John Seiler 23 October, 2010, 11:29

    Please remember my prediction, Steve. (It assumes Prop. 23 loses and AB 32 is imposed.)

    But I’m curious why you’re siding with the plutocrats — Cameron, Gates, Der Arnold, and others who have invested in these subsidized technologies? And against the common working men and women of California who will lose their jobs?

    Reply this comment
  6. Tylerle13
    Tylerle13 25 October, 2010, 11:12

    Because he makes a living defending those who are otherwise undefendable. They sign over big sums of money then he goes around deflecting from their destructive & corrupt actions. There will always be politicians abusing the taxpayers, therefore Steve will always have plenty of business. He does not care if working class people lose their jobs & ability to provide for their families. He is always defending the taking of money from “Greedy Capitalists” (AKA people who work for a living) in order to prop up wasteful government programs.

    Steve is a huge defender of those politicians who shift money away from basic services in order to fund their pet programs. They then turn to the taxpayers and claim that they need to raise taxes & create new taxes in order to avoid drastic cuts to the basic services. Just like they are doing with Prop 21, when Alan Loenthan demanded that the already allocated funding for our parks be revoked, because as he states “…If the program is fully funded, then the voters will have no incentive to vote for (Prop 21).”

    These people do dispicable things all of the time, and there really is no defense for their actions, so they cut check to people like steve so he can either lie on their behalf or so he can deflect attention away from their corruption & focus on the one or two good things they have done in their career. Business is real good for steve right now.

    Reply this comment
  7. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 26 October, 2010, 13:38

    Oh, thanks, Tylerle13, for doing such a poor job of defining me. But anyone who disagrees with the Limbaugh line must be discredited at all costs. So you had to throw your 2 cents in.

    I’m delighted you actually admit that there are some “basic services” that government should provide. But sadly, you think that programs that help the most vulnerable Californians–like food stamps, medicaid, home care, job training, etc., –are just pet projects. Because, in your world, only people who work for a living–like Meg Whitman and Bernie Madoff–are worth anything.

    Lastly, unlike members of the greedy class, no one has to “cut me a check” for me to speak out about the unbelievable corruption in the private sector. No one has to pay me to fight back against those who would give us more years of Bush/Cheney/Rove, etc.

    If you say that I get paid to post to this blog, you are a DAMN LIAR! OK, is that plain enough for you?

    Reply this comment
  8. Tylerle13
    Tylerle13 1 November, 2010, 13:13

    Haha nice phrasing. No one HAS to pay you to stand up for the crap you push, but its convenient that they do.

    Ill take your word on the Limbaugh thing though, I’ve never listened to them man.

    Its quite funny that you try to compare me to Billionaires (former in the case of Madoff). You are wayyyyy off mark with your financial estimations, but good try though. you must be using that new math.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Audit: Secretary of State wastes $22 million on voting machines

When Debra Bowen was a candidate for California secretary of state in 2006, two of her top three priorities, according

Legislators Support Census Counting LGBT

Katy Grimes: California’s legislators passed a joint resolution for the federal government to allow the Census Bureau to collect information about

SF leads the way

Steven Greenhut: It’s ironic that the city of San Francisco — a great city that is nevertheless known for its