Could someone please explain how giving more money to the kleptocrats in government is going to cool the planet? This sounds about as scientific as voodoo witch doctors.
There is no such thing as "free". The diminishing percentage of the population who works full time will pay increased taxes to fund "free" education for people we don't know and will never meet, or the largest debt in the history of mankind will continue to swell. At some point, all of this "free" stuff is going to cause economic/social implosion.
Why anyone would waste an irreplaceable hour of their life watching this sociopath do stand up serial lying is beyond me. In a sane world, the networks would have done split screens, with the other side showing all the lies he told in 2010-2011. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, I will save the average family $2,500 per year, this won't add one red cent to the deficit, etc.
Nonsense. The closest we have come to capitalism lately was under Reagan. He dramatically cut taxes, decreased the size of the federal registry of regulations was cut in half, 18 million jobs were created, household income was up nearly 30% and we enjoyed a record 92 straight months without a recession. No other economic system ever devised holds a candle to economic freedom, or what Marx called capitalism.
Look, there are only two genesis stories. One posits that we are having this conversation because God created the universe and the other because the orientations and energy levels of particles in a ball of matter in the Big Bang made it inevitable. Both require faith, one a lot more than the other.
No, you believe in the Magic Soup (TM). Everything came from nothing. Throughout all but the most recent of recorded history, this kind of thinking was rejected by the vast majority of people. But since you have an iPod, your wisdom and knowledge obviously eclipse all prior generations. Such a lack of humility before nature is breathtaking.
So people who always agree with the Anointed One are thoughtful, but people who always disagree with Him are thoughtless. Got it. Your use of logic and reason are truly inspirational. Carry on, AC.
Maybe you missed "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." And millions and millions of people have been slaughtered by Marxists, but I cannot recall a single person slaughtered by an Objectivist.
That is the essence of progressive income taxes, which was one of the planks in the communist manifesto. A fair tax would be to take a fixed percentage from each person. Whether that be consumption or income is a fair question. As it stands today, you can confidently vote for tax and spenders knowing that your more successful neighbor will bear the cost, a conflict of interest if there ever was one.
Poppycock. When Obama was the junior senator from Ill. he was rated the most liberal (left) member of congress. You have no idea what you are talking about.
The net has become a hammock. Not everyone believes Keynesian economics. In fact, Keynes never countenanced government debt growing to over 100% of GDP. We are in uncharted waters because of do gooders buying votes with tax revenue,
So, your position is that these programs are to be infinitely expanding? We are way beyond anything Kennedy ever proposed. He would have scoffed at 99 weeks of unemployment.
And the opposing party is indistinguishable from Marxists. A generation ago, the democrat president Kennedy ran on a platform of tax cuts and anti-communism. Today, he would be denounced as a right-wing nut.
But it doesn't compete with electric cars because it pollutes a shit ton more than a Volt or Bolt or most any electric car (unless of course you take into account tossing a 2,500 lb battery into the landfill...)
Actually that depends on where your electricity comes from. Lots of electric cars could reasonably be called coal-fired cars.
So he "stated" a causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature. Where is the experimentation? Where are the independent experiments which yield the same results? If you are going to make statements, you have to show experimental results. That is the way science works. Given all the factors that make up atmospheric air temperature, asserting that CO2 concentration is the sole driving factor requires much more proof, especially when shameless politicians seize the opportunity for massive wealth transfer to government.
All this reasoning is very logical, straightforward, linear. Unfortunately, the real world rarely displays such predictability. Entire branches of mathematics are dedicated to linearizing equations because we humans have such difficulty with non-linear relationships, especially when there are more than two factors interacting. Anyone who says that this reasoning "proves" AGW does not understand the enormity of the problem. BTW, I have a degree in physics with minors in chemistry and math, so I know exactly what I am talking about.
Name the study that convinced you beyond any doubt that AGW is "true". It will be based on least squares curve fitting and computer modeling, neither of which every proved anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Could someone please explain how giving more money to the kleptocrats in government is going to cool the planet? This sounds about as scientific as voodoo witch doctors.
The name of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act becomes more Orwellian by the day.
There is no such thing as "free". The diminishing percentage of the population who works full time will pay increased taxes to fund "free" education for people we don't know and will never meet, or the largest debt in the history of mankind will continue to swell. At some point, all of this "free" stuff is going to cause economic/social implosion.
Why anyone would waste an irreplaceable hour of their life watching this sociopath do stand up serial lying is beyond me. In a sane world, the networks would have done split screens, with the other side showing all the lies he told in 2010-2011. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, I will save the average family $2,500 per year, this won't add one red cent to the deficit, etc.
Nonsense. The closest we have come to capitalism lately was under Reagan. He dramatically cut taxes, decreased the size of the federal registry of regulations was cut in half, 18 million jobs were created, household income was up nearly 30% and we enjoyed a record 92 straight months without a recession. No other economic system ever devised holds a candle to economic freedom, or what Marx called capitalism.
Look, there are only two genesis stories. One posits that we are having this conversation because God created the universe and the other because the orientations and energy levels of particles in a ball of matter in the Big Bang made it inevitable. Both require faith, one a lot more than the other.
No, you believe in the Magic Soup (TM). Everything came from nothing. Throughout all but the most recent of recorded history, this kind of thinking was rejected by the vast majority of people. But since you have an iPod, your wisdom and knowledge obviously eclipse all prior generations. Such a lack of humility before nature is breathtaking.
Actually, this is an argument based on symmetry, a well-accepted argument in the scientific community.
So people who always agree with the Anointed One are thoughtful, but people who always disagree with Him are thoughtless. Got it. Your use of logic and reason are truly inspirational. Carry on, AC.
Maybe you missed "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." And millions and millions of people have been slaughtered by Marxists, but I cannot recall a single person slaughtered by an Objectivist.
Obamacare is about transferring wealth from makers to takers, period. Gruber admitted as much. Everything else is obfuscation and misdirection.
That is the essence of progressive income taxes, which was one of the planks in the communist manifesto. A fair tax would be to take a fixed percentage from each person. Whether that be consumption or income is a fair question. As it stands today, you can confidently vote for tax and spenders knowing that your more successful neighbor will bear the cost, a conflict of interest if there ever was one.
Poppycock. When Obama was the junior senator from Ill. he was rated the most liberal (left) member of congress. You have no idea what you are talking about.
The net has become a hammock. Not everyone believes Keynesian economics. In fact, Keynes never countenanced government debt growing to over 100% of GDP. We are in uncharted waters because of do gooders buying votes with tax revenue,
I meant that they did not represent huge swaths of voters yet had control of the agenda.
So, your position is that these programs are to be infinitely expanding? We are way beyond anything Kennedy ever proposed. He would have scoffed at 99 weeks of unemployment.
And the opposing party is indistinguishable from Marxists. A generation ago, the democrat president Kennedy ran on a platform of tax cuts and anti-communism. Today, he would be denounced as a right-wing nut.
The same could be said of Princess Pelosi and Prince Harry (Reid) a few years ago.
Kind of like selling the Nova in Mexico, where "no va" translates to "doesn't go".
But it doesn't compete with electric cars because it pollutes a shit ton more than a Volt or Bolt or most any electric car (unless of course you take into account tossing a 2,500 lb battery into the landfill...)
Actually that depends on where your electricity comes from. Lots of electric cars could reasonably be called coal-fired cars.
So he "stated" a causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature. Where is the experimentation? Where are the independent experiments which yield the same results? If you are going to make statements, you have to show experimental results. That is the way science works. Given all the factors that make up atmospheric air temperature, asserting that CO2 concentration is the sole driving factor requires much more proof, especially when shameless politicians seize the opportunity for massive wealth transfer to government.
All this reasoning is very logical, straightforward, linear. Unfortunately, the real world rarely displays such predictability. Entire branches of mathematics are dedicated to linearizing equations because we humans have such difficulty with non-linear relationships, especially when there are more than two factors interacting. Anyone who says that this reasoning "proves" AGW does not understand the enormity of the problem. BTW, I have a degree in physics with minors in chemistry and math, so I know exactly what I am talking about.
I predict that your prediction will be as spectacularly wrong as the predictions made on the first Earth Day http://www.aei.org/publication...
Name the study that convinced you beyond any doubt that AGW is "true". It will be based on least squares curve fitting and computer modeling, neither of which every proved anything.
AGW is not established scientific fact, no matter how many people claim otherwise.