You're using the "reductio ad absurdum" logical fallacy. I don't claim this to be a perfect division.
It's a tendency, nothing more.
Are you seriously going to deny that democrats are "generally" young idealist socialist-leaning (or plain communist is some *cough* kos *cough*) people.
And republicans are older, more experienced and realistic individuals who realise that giving all power to one party, the government, whoever is running it, is a disaster waiting to happen (Bush at least slowed down the growth of government, yes he should have sacked half the govt's employees, I agree, but I can give him some credit, it takes a while to undo clinton's damage, and apparently more than 2 terms).
Take a look at the example above : I'll feed the troll. Maybe the 'dumb' are the ones who switch from Dem to GOP as they get older, forgetting that you do actually have to 'invest' in your people and infrastructure, not expect private industry to do it.
Ignoring the ad-hominem in this post, he claims that letting the government "invest" in people and infrastructure is a good idea. But it's clear that what he means is either halfway, or complete communism.
The guy doesn't even realise that it does.
Then again, maybe the dumb are the people who generalize parties and vote party line regardless of the actual people they are voting for, putting incompetent corrupt people in power, Dem or GOP.
Again attacks, but let's AGAIN ignore them and look at the real issue. Clearly this guy is irritated at the concept of pluralism. After all there is only one "ideal" solution. "Investing in people and infrastructure as a single government entity".
He actually acknowledges that the government is "corrupt, incompetent" etc. But that is only lip-service. Presumably a situation that only lasts until his messiah is in government. And when that happens, when his party has full control, it can then "invest in people and infrastructure".
Does anybody seriously think that that's not exactly what the bolsjevik revolution wanted to do ? Simply having ("corrupt and incompetent") bureaucrats decide what to invest in who, and nobody else.
Do you seriously doubt this guy votes democrat ? Do you seriously doubt that VERY bad things are going to happen if his "investing in people and infrastructure" as a government ever comes to pass ?
In reality there are tons of non-stupid people around.
But it is also true that people don't become smart until they have to. The dumb vote democrat, the economy goes down, then they start growing brains, some actually check what happened... and start voting republican.
That's why the democrats are such a "young" party and that's why people nearly always convert from dem->rep. Hardly ever going back (although Bush's spending is making wonders happen).
Everyone starts out as a leftist "it isn't fair... weeeeeeeeeeeeiiiih" idiot in kindergarten. It's normal. Some people simply don't grow up. And nobody wants to grow up.
Besides the only reason Obama *might* get elected is his race.
You think he'll end racism ? He owes EVERYTHING to racism. He'll make it 100x worse, and expect his pay to rise 100x. He may be right, in the very short term.
Expecting Obama to improve racial relations is like expecting Hugh Hefner to start convincing women to join a convent.
The point I was making was merely that history does NOT have a liberal bias. In fact it's biased very much against certain types of freedom.
Meaning that if you want a liberal society, it'll be hard work, and continuously remain hard work.
I don't understand how people like you think. It must be evident, for even kids, that Obama is very anti-freedom. He's stated on numerous occasions that he's against freedom of speech. He wants to increase taxes, even if it means less money for the government, for "fairness". He wants to sue people based on their opinion.
If you give in to demagogues, socialist or... like the venezuelans did, then you will find yourself with a monarchy pointing guns at you.
If you truly wish to conserve, I have a few thoughts for you :
-> you post on slashdot ? That's not part of any conserved america -> you drive a car ? Again... that's not conserving -> you use plastic ? not conservative -> you work in a city ? not conservative...
If what you say is true, then get some dirt on the cop (if he truly has a lifestyle like that you're not seriously going to claim that that is difficult) and sue him. Have some out-of-state friend do it if you fear reprisals.
America's economy is holding up a lot better than competing economies, like Europe's, in reality. Even if it doesn't do anything else, Iraq is extending the deadline for getting alternative energy going.
We *need* that extension. Without Iraq, oil would be $500/bbl and going up. We have nothing to replace oil, and the very best alternatives *might* be partially operational in 5 years.
Without the war in Iraq, there would be no America left to speak of. Europe would be in pieces. Without the war in Iraq, we'd be currently in WWIII.
Without oil, there is nothing. Everybody (well, except democrats) is trying to fix that, but we don't have a solution (yet ?). There is only one choice : keep the oil flowing, as fast as possible, and keep researching.
If Obama gets elected we *will* have WWIII before his term is over. And even though America *might* be physically safe (I doubt it), it will not last the war with an intact economy.
In the last war American Democrat presidents were appeasers, and refused to fight. And what happened ? Pearl Harbor and the attack on Russia. Why do you think it's going to be any different this time ?
Obama is, at best, a Chamberlain. At worst, he's someone he very nearly shares 2 names with. He's merely a demagogue, nothing more. They always bring war.
The labor unions were only not a threat to their existence because they were a direct part of the nazi government. A single union under control of a single party (even a single person).
But you have indeed a much nicer way of putting it :
-> fascism : takeover of business by government by means of forcing mostly capable people to do the governments bidding -> communism : takeover of business by government by means of forcing mostly incapable people to do the governments bidding
Needless, to say, Obama supports the second option.
The end result is, after a bit of time passes, exactly the same, though it's immediately the same for everyone who's not a party official or company executive. Massive inefficiency and wealth destruction instead in large parts of the economy.
And when wealth is destroyed, everyone is poor. Not just poor, as in unemployed and food stamps poor, but poor as in immigrant "non-consensual workers*" ghettoes in Dubai or Saudi arabia.
* slavery after all doesn't exist there. Forcing people to work with death threats does exist, beating and raping "personal female employees", generally kidnapped women, is a part of that.
Cops here start at 19k,25-29k if they put in their 20 years. They can make nearly their yearly salary in a month by simply taking the money and looking the other way. They can make even more than their salary in a month if they allow a few of their old high school buds to set up meth labs. How many do you honestly think are not going to take the money?
I do actually think almost none of them take the money.
Same thing here: A congressman makes,what,130k a year or so? They can make that in a couple of months time by simply not supporting anything that hurts the big multinationals and special interests.
Actually if the Obama campagin proved anything, it's that the real money is not with "giant" corporations, but you get it by lying to your followers. And it's been demonstrated countless times before, and it always ends the same way.
How will Obama "protect" his "hope and change" ? Obama's shown, btw, to be very pro-IP already. Of course without the support of the networks he'd be nobody. But then, with a different skin color he'd be nobody too. But don't worry : the guy rising on a racist platform will end racism... yeah right.
And if you give me a ferrari F-40 I'll make sure everybody gets one.
Hitler was about as much "in bed" with big money as Stalin was, or Ahmadinejad is (and Chavez is trying to be).
They all certainly colluded with the bosses of industry, you will get no argument there... but they did so after replacing them with their own stooges...
But if you take that as "colluding with big money" then yes, you're aboslutely right, in a "technicality" sort of way.
Besides if you take over some company, you do it with the express purpose of getting "in bed" with it's management. So if a government takes over a company, they're obviously getting in bed with the company. So a communist government is very much "in bed" with big money, for obvious reasons. So is a fascist government. So is Chavez.
So is any union.
And they're much more in bed with big money than Bush is, for example. Obviously that won't stop the nutcases from shouting at Bush. (I can appreciate the standpoint that he's not the brightest light on the chandelier, but he's not satan, just think you're giving him waaaaay too much credit there).
And the reverse is also true. This describes very well what will happen with an insufficiently capitalist system :
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. â" Alexander Tytler
If a system is insufficiently capitalist, it will cave to populism, said populism will immediately destroy any hope of improving the economy, thereby fortifying it's position. Then again this quote apparently believes that will happen regardless. Think it can't happen in a democratic nation ?
This was soooo very close. But another example is the Iranian revolution (thank you Carter)... how the system that was once created to prevent "mercantilism" is now executing gays on a regular basis.
That's the big wool that's been pulled over everyone's eyes. Nazism isn't a "rightist" party at all. It's extreme-left, very much to the left of every other current political party. Much like islamism is in other parts of the world : not "rightist" at all. Not even "Conservative" in the direct meaning of that word. They want to create legal systems that never have existed, people just believe they did at some point.
I do disagree however with your placement of facism versus socialism. I'd go with :
Capitalism > Socialism > Fascism > Communism (ranged by freedom)
(I mean here socialism as practiced in most european countries between 1950-2000, if you mean the EU's overwhelming philosophy, then perhaps yes, you're right that it's closer to communism than fascism)
Communism only differs from fascism in theory. The difference is mainly that while fascims has overriding control of every company, communism wants that AND the ownership. (ie fascism demands 99% tax, communism 100%, the difference is at times a bit foggy)
The main difference between socialism and fascism is where the control of the unions lies. Fascism = socialism with 1 singular "super-union", controlled (and supported) by the state. This is something many unions want, except everybody wants to be the people in charge of said super-union. Companies under socialism have leadership that has to contend only with their own workers. The leadership of companies under a fascist state has to contend with the direct interference from the state, overriding their own judgement. In communism the leadership of companies is replaced by bureaucrats.
Another relevant remark is also that while capitalism is undoubtedly more free than socialism there is something to say for worker's participation. In a totally free setting it is questionable just how free a person who was born "poor" really is. He is allowed to do whatever he wants, but he'll be at it alone. The guy that was born rich however can enlist (almost) any amount of help he(/she) wants.
And to be honest, when one looks at BHO's campaign, one thinks he wants more than "just" socialism.
Any historical atlas contains this information. There were few non-tyrannical states in history, and the ones that existed did not last, due to "barbarian"* invasion, do you seriously contest that ?
* barbarian in the greek meaning of the term : non-locals. So the muslims that invaded persia were barbarians under this definition despite that then they were still maintaining a (small) part of the previous civilization they conquered.
First it is very clear that this depends greatly on what you mean by "liberal". If you mean non-totalitarian, then perhaps you're right. If you're going more for "libertarian", such as including gay marriage or some such, history and reality would seem to indicate reality has a VERY anti-libertarian bias, it's just that a small part of the world currently has a small pocket (about 15% of living people) of libertarianism, that's showing constant signs of collapse at that. Especially in Europe the libertarian vision is collapsing at an astonishing rate (unless you call observing that muslims, one protected class of the libertarians, are attacking and even killing gays, another protected class, a success story)
If you truly mean liberal, in the sense of republican party liberal, that would the American theory. But in reality the America is the first (and currently only) country that can be called in any way "liberal" that has survived like that for 200 years.
So in fact, if you study history, you'd say that reality has a strongly anti-liberal bias (roman republic, athens, persia,... all fell to barbarians, and persia fell to muslim immigration and became VERY anti-liberal).
And you'd call America currently an aberration in history. Then again, even though American law was very liberal 100 years ago (as it was 200 years ago), in actual "real" social situations it wasn't at all very liberal.
Given history and the structures that lasted the longest (which would be a Christian kingdom, in case you're wondering, by American standards that would be non-free and illiberal), I'd say reality has had up till now a strongly anti-liberal bias. Perhaps that's changed in the last 100 years. You're claiming that the situation that was true for all of recorded history somehow excludes the environment you live in.
To be honest, I wouldn't want be caught dead making a point that arrogant.
There is too much content in this mail to consider. But let's look at this "desertification" claim of GW... it hasn't happened. In fact, if you ignore the usual "the world is ending" claims in this BBC article you will see what I mean :
It is especially clear on the Equatorial Congo picture.
Even Sudan, which is much in danger of becoming Sahara (esp. with the government there currently in power) has gained huge amounts of greenery.
Coastal areas overflooding (IF it happens), say the sea level rises 2 meters (which is over twice the absolute worst predictions), loses negligeable landmass.
I'd have to admit though, that you're right on the city counts. Some of the most important European cities would have to move. But the landmass lost will be negligeable. This does have the added advantage that the fish population will rise massively (because of the extra food that becomes available for them due to more low-depth areas growing stuff on the bottom).
So if the "worst" happens, we'll have a LOT more fish and a LOT more green on this planet. Not less. Eastern Europe will be a lot more liveable than it is now. Same for middle America. Same for midle of Africa. Afghanistan might actually become a viable country if temperatures rise enough.
I realise this is a "forbidden" theory. Very politically incorrect. I do believe it's true though. About having to move populations... how is that a bad thing ? You said yourself "more jobs" = better. Well Moving 30% of Los Angeles around will certainly provide jobs.
Simple, AGW is a fantastic argument for a world government.
If we are ever to implement cap-and-trade, this requires a global government and a global police force and justice system to be implemented. In short one singular organization with power that is not limited by jurisdictions, but simply power of all humans.
And like all politicians, the UN wants more power (esp. the UN).
And if you think it's to be used for good then please explain how these governments got veto power in the human rights council ?
-> China -> Russia -> Saudi Arabia -> Bangladesh -> Pakistan -> Jordan -> Qatar
Needless to say they're not going to do anything about Sudan's "civil war" (which the government calls "jihad", surprise surprise after that nothing much was heard)... Nary a peep about Russia killing it's journalists either, nor any comment about throwing nuclear material in a dissident's tea, that is apparently acceptable behavior. However imprisoning people for shooting at it's soldiers while hiding amongst civilians... you'd need a library to collect it.
Let's not kid ourselves that you believe in Pascal's wager. Are you a practicing Christian, Buddhist, Animist, Muslim, Jew,... because if you truly believe in pascal's wager you wouldn't know which religion was true, and as you go for the safe option, you'd have to pass munster in *all* religions. And since islam demands you kill yourself if you practice another religion, you'd be dead. So let's cut this ridiculous argument about Pascal's wager. You don't believe it, nor does anyone else.
Another problem is the short term cost. You forget a lot of options that are not that unreasonable :
GW (or even AGW) exists, and has a positive influence, therefore doing stuff has both a short term cost and a massive long term cost (reducing CO2, if it works, will reduce agricultural harvests for example, it is not really studied how big this effect is. Same with temperature : higher temps -> larger harvest. How much larger ? We certainly could use more food)
The short-term costs are prohibitive. Changing co2 output over the course of 20-30 years is doable, and is a reasonable cost. Doing it in 5 is not 6 times more expensive but 600 times.
The costs are morally unacceptable... e.g. biofuels are causing famines. Even if biofuels is done with non-food crops, they will obviously still compete for land, brain power, research funds and well, basic manual labor with food crops, therefore they are no solution.
There are thousands of other possibilities you don't consider, and if you consider them all equal you're just a nihilist (which is exactly what most AGW nutcases are).
Let's also not kid ourselves : you support AGW because it's socially popular, even if it goes against science.
Have you joined the army ? If not, then please explain what specifically YOU have YOURSELF sacrificed in the short term for the long-term gain of the nation... because, frankly, most people who say this have done exactly nothing. Not that I expect you to have made the kind of sacrifices someone like McCain has, but at least tell me you regularly volunteer at your church for soup kitchens or whatever. Supporting a socially popular idea means, obviously, nothing at all. If it were socially popular to burn witches, all the AGW "we must act now" nutcases would be screaming for blood in scenes reminiscent of the Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9/11.
Yes but > 90% of academic money comes (either directly or indirectly) from govt.
Besides many large corporations use research money as PR investments... and will thus provide for research in popular stuff, like animal conservation, cancer research and... pro-global warming research. Certainly not invest in stuff like energy research or theoretical physics.
Let's take for example one (big) sponsor of my alma mater... HP.
So the govt (with the notable exception of the US govt, but this certainly applies to th EU), the largest researcher, does not sponsor ANY anti-AGW research. Most corporations don't actually risk it either, as it's a pr-disaster waiting to happen.
And now for the bad news : behavior in turns (or if you're in holland : behavior in strong winds).
You see this clearly in F1 accidents. Half the time the car is literally blown several times it's own length into the air. That will never happen to a mercedes, because the energy required simply isn't present in it's momentum. Whatever lifts the front of an F1 car 4 cm in the air will cause it to lift off.
This has, thank God, only once ended in a F1 car crashing, from above (ie not coming from the road, but collapsing from a height of some 15m) into a (thank God once more) mostly empty spectator's tribune.
Now granted cars don't go 300 km/h. However at 120 km/h (the speed limit in most of Europe) on a bridge, a liftoff could still get the car 5 meters into the air, enough for it to throw itself over any barrier that might be realistically constructed next to a road, and into someone's living room, or worse.
Besides, and I don't understand how people do this, you assume that while oil is going to run out, the streets are not. Streets are made of asphalt, which is... oil... Since F1 cars need extraordinarily well done streets to drive on, what are you going to make them from ? If you use cement like in the old days, they'll crumble and the streets will once again forever be lined with tons of little stones, which will preclude doing much driving with that light F1 car.
You can indeed recognize scientists and nutcases by their stance on global warming.
The scientist opinion is the basis of science (ie doubt and explicitly admitting the things you don't know (which does indeed include not describing predictions in a chaotic system like the climate as "true")). The nutcases opninion is predetermined (for example on whether it costs them money, or delivers them job)
Is there antropogenic global warming ?
Scientist : I doubt it Nutcase, type A : No Nutcase, type B : Yes
So, while perhaps complete denyers don't have the truth on their side, neither does the IPCC. And let's be fair for once, which is more danguerous ? Some fringe groups nobody takes serious anyway, or the IPCC ?
The IPCC isn't filled with idiots who are confused about the foundations of science, so they have some other agenda. And I think that like all politicians they realise that global warming is a "global external cost", presenting a very good case for a global government, presumably them.
And this type of hypocrisy is not strange. Science is based on a few assumptions that are totally at odds with today's liberal mindset:
-> science believes there is a singular, unchangeable and absolute truth (economics and biology for example clearly both state that having "too many" gays in a society is fatal for that society's future, know any liberal that accepts this ?). All religions are therefore either right or wrong, but a special place must be reserved for Christianity : at the very least it confrontated itself with this absolute truth, and shares some of the basic axioma's with science, something no other religion has even attempted (e.g. islam is fundamentally at odd's with science, since it's belief system precludes the repeatability of experiments)
-> such a truth can be tested. It is truly universal. An electron behaves the same in New York as in Tokyo, as in Proxima centauri, as in the distant pulsars. Again this is a Christian principle, fundamentally at odds with for example buddhism.
Christians believe God is just, and that justness is a fixed contract between God and man, defined in the bible, and therefore (at least partially) predictable. There are groups of Christians that go further and presume a "mechanical" God, but that isn't very widely accepted.
Buddhists believe that reality is an illusion, and therefore experiments will have different results based on the mindset of... you (I can see why egoists like buddhism). Experiments make no sense since you can make them take on any result, even after the fact.
Muslims believe that God is fundamentally unpredictable and responsible for everything that happens on earth and nothing at all can therefore reasonably be predicted.
-> if 2 theories differ, one is necessarily wrong.
Again muslims don't believe in this, because the quran contains ayats (let's simplify that term to "laws", which is mostly accurate) that are fundamentally at odds with eachother. E.g. perpetual war is declared in the quran, and islam "is a religion of peace". These statements, to muslims, are BOTH true. Islam "is good", killing "is wrong", but killing someone for leaving islam "is right". They see no contradiction here, not because they don't see the logical problem, but because they force logic to be of lesser truth than the quran. It goes further than this. When you die, allah demands 9/8th of your inheritance be distributed, which is obviously impossible.
Same with Buddhism. 2 experiments giving different results is the EXPECTED result, the one you want to achieve, not something that indicates a problem in your theory.
-> Truth is utterly independant of the observer, or of anyone. Now at the very least this is one thing where islam, Christianity and science agree all three : an individual has exactly 0 influence on the truth.
Republicans like to state that congress can't repeal the law of supply and demand, which is an obvious truth, yet at leas
Actually if you read the IPCC's "guidelines" you will be forced to admit that at the very least there's good money to be made by not taking it into account.
(you're excluded from UN research funds if you claim the sun warms the earth, the UN is certainly not the only organisation doing that btw.)
So while whether they take em up on that offer or not, one thing's for sure : the scientist that claim it's the sun are the poorer ones.
per capita industrial GDP (this is the number that matters, do you agree ?)
US : $9476 EU : $8916
So if there's only ONE major industry left in the US (I don't think that's right at all, and US industry is seriously more varied and diversified than EU industry, but hey, who am I ?), then there's only 90% of a single industry left in the EU.
And let's not forget just how much government support the auto industry, using it's unions, extracts from government in the EU.
Funny how you mention car manufacturing. Renault has just announced it's leaving Belgium entirely. I'm gonna miss them.
"Choosing more wisely"... you mean industrial agriculture, zoos and reservates ?
Of course that's exactly what the original poster is against... He's all on about the "natural" way of doing things.
Well the natural way is, as you seem to agree, killing everything you can kill, counting on natural selection to create a balance by alternating famines and "massacres" (of animals/plants and if we want to go natural... people)
That's because there's hardly any industrial activity in Europe.
Now imagine what you've heard about "hardly any" industrial activity in America... take the rust belt for example... then divide this by a factor of 3.
Then you're in the ballpark of European figures.
Europe uses less oil, because it doesn't do anything but sit behind computer screens. Now this is all fine and dandy, but SOMEONE has to run the industry. Europe just expects others to do it.
You see the same thing with California for example : they just chase the industry over the border, then claim co2 winnings. Even the Goracle lauded them for it.
To be completely fair, had congress cooperated in 2005 (or 2006 or 2007 or 2008, so please don't blame this on republicans), the peak would probably have been delayed, perhaps even to 2006 or 2007.
The problem with the "alternative" energy is simple : it's not an alternative. At all.
Perhaps one day. In, say 2015 (and that's VERY optimistic, it requires a lot of things from the physicists to get even that far), we can do without with solar or wind. More likely 2020, or further.
And yes, that's why we need breathing room. If you're truly worried about co2, then go nuclear (as in build nuclear power plants), but we need the time to develop these things. Preferably the time to develop 10 versions of these things, but that'll take 100 years. And add to that the time necessary for the patents to run out.
Do you seriously think America can function with even 20% less oil ? And if you think america's situation is bad... take a vacation in Egypt, near the red sea, and turn of the airco for 30 minutes.
Without oil the entire middle east, except perhaps Israel, will be as deserted physically as it is intellectually in 5 years. And without oil, that will probably be the result of a water shortage combined with an inability to ship people out.
Slashdot Mirror
You're using the "reductio ad absurdum" logical fallacy. I don't claim this to be a perfect division.
It's a tendency, nothing more.
Are you seriously going to deny that democrats are "generally" young idealist socialist-leaning (or plain communist is some *cough* kos *cough*) people.
And republicans are older, more experienced and realistic individuals who realise that giving all power to one party, the government, whoever is running it, is a disaster waiting to happen (Bush at least slowed down the growth of government, yes he should have sacked half the govt's employees, I agree, but I can give him some credit, it takes a while to undo clinton's damage, and apparently more than 2 terms).
Take a look at the example above :
I'll feed the troll. Maybe the 'dumb' are the ones who switch from Dem to GOP as they get older, forgetting that you do actually have to 'invest' in your people and infrastructure, not expect private industry to do it.
Ignoring the ad-hominem in this post, he claims that letting the government "invest" in people and infrastructure is a good idea. But it's clear that what he means is either halfway, or complete communism.
The guy doesn't even realise that it does.
Then again, maybe the dumb are the people who generalize parties and vote party line regardless of the actual people they are voting for, putting incompetent corrupt people in power, Dem or GOP.
Again attacks, but let's AGAIN ignore them and look at the real issue. Clearly this guy is irritated at the concept of pluralism. After all there is only one "ideal" solution. "Investing in people and infrastructure as a single government entity".
He actually acknowledges that the government is "corrupt, incompetent" etc. But that is only lip-service. Presumably a situation that only lasts until his messiah is in government. And when that happens, when his party has full control, it can then "invest in people and infrastructure".
Does anybody seriously think that that's not exactly what the bolsjevik revolution wanted to do ? Simply having ("corrupt and incompetent") bureaucrats decide what to invest in who, and nobody else.
Do you seriously doubt this guy votes democrat ? Do you seriously doubt that VERY bad things are going to happen if his "investing in people and infrastructure" as a government ever comes to pass ?
In reality there are tons of non-stupid people around.
... and start voting republican.
... weeeeeeeeeeeeiiiih" idiot in kindergarten. It's normal. Some people simply don't grow up. And nobody wants to grow up.
But it is also true that people don't become smart until they have to. The dumb vote democrat, the economy goes down, then they start growing brains, some actually check what happened
That's why the democrats are such a "young" party and that's why people nearly always convert from dem->rep. Hardly ever going back (although Bush's spending is making wonders happen).
Everyone starts out as a leftist "it isn't fair
Besides the only reason Obama *might* get elected is his race.
You think he'll end racism ? He owes EVERYTHING to racism. He'll make it 100x worse, and expect his pay to rise 100x. He may be right, in the very short term.
Expecting Obama to improve racial relations is like expecting Hugh Hefner to start convincing women to join a convent.
The point I was making was merely that history does NOT have a liberal bias. In fact it's biased very much against certain types of freedom.
... like the venezuelans did, then you will find yourself with a monarchy pointing guns at you.
Meaning that if you want a liberal society, it'll be hard work, and continuously remain hard work.
I don't understand how people like you think. It must be evident, for even kids, that Obama is very anti-freedom. He's stated on numerous occasions that he's against freedom of speech. He wants to increase taxes, even if it means less money for the government, for "fairness". He wants to sue people based on their opinion.
If you give in to demagogues, socialist or
If you truly wish to conserve, I have a few thoughts for you :
... that's not conserving ...
-> you post on slashdot ? That's not part of any conserved america
-> you drive a car ? Again
-> you use plastic ? not conservative
-> you work in a city ? not conservative
If what you say is true, then get some dirt on the cop (if he truly has a lifestyle like that you're not seriously going to claim that that is difficult) and sue him. Have some out-of-state friend do it if you fear reprisals.
America's economy is holding up a lot better than competing economies, like Europe's, in reality. Even if it doesn't do anything else, Iraq is extending the deadline for getting alternative energy going.
We *need* that extension. Without Iraq, oil would be $500/bbl and going up. We have nothing to replace oil, and the very best alternatives *might* be partially operational in 5 years.
Without the war in Iraq, there would be no America left to speak of. Europe would be in pieces. Without the war in Iraq, we'd be currently in WWIII.
Without oil, there is nothing. Everybody (well, except democrats) is trying to fix that, but we don't have a solution (yet ?). There is only one choice : keep the oil flowing, as fast as possible, and keep researching.
If Obama gets elected we *will* have WWIII before his term is over. And even though America *might* be physically safe (I doubt it), it will not last the war with an intact economy.
In the last war American Democrat presidents were appeasers, and refused to fight. And what happened ? Pearl Harbor and the attack on Russia. Why do you think it's going to be any different this time ?
Obama is, at best, a Chamberlain. At worst, he's someone he very nearly shares 2 names with. He's merely a demagogue, nothing more. They always bring war.
The labor unions were only not a threat to their existence because they were a direct part of the nazi government. A single union under control of a single party (even a single person).
But you have indeed a much nicer way of putting it :
-> fascism : takeover of business by government by means of forcing mostly capable people to do the governments bidding
-> communism : takeover of business by government by means of forcing mostly incapable people to do the governments bidding
Needless, to say, Obama supports the second option.
The end result is, after a bit of time passes, exactly the same, though it's immediately the same for everyone who's not a party official or company executive. Massive inefficiency and wealth destruction instead in large parts of the economy.
And when wealth is destroyed, everyone is poor. Not just poor, as in unemployed and food stamps poor, but poor as in immigrant "non-consensual workers*" ghettoes in Dubai or Saudi arabia.
* slavery after all doesn't exist there. Forcing people to work with death threats does exist, beating and raping "personal female employees", generally kidnapped women, is a part of that.
Cops here start at 19k,25-29k if they put in their 20 years. They can make nearly their yearly salary in a month by simply taking the money and looking the other way. They can make even more than their salary in a month if they allow a few of their old high school buds to set up meth labs. How many do you honestly think are not going to take the money?
... yeah right.
I do actually think almost none of them take the money.
Same thing here: A congressman makes,what,130k a year or so? They can make that in a couple of months time by simply not supporting anything that hurts the big multinationals and special interests.
Actually if the Obama campagin proved anything, it's that the real money is not with "giant" corporations, but you get it by lying to your followers. And it's been demonstrated countless times before, and it always ends the same way.
Just to give one example
How will Obama "protect" his "hope and change" ? Obama's shown, btw, to be very pro-IP already. Of course without the support of the networks he'd be nobody. But then, with a different skin color he'd be nobody too. But don't worry : the guy rising on a racist platform will end racism
And if you give me a ferrari F-40 I'll make sure everybody gets one.
Sorry 't was a stupid mistake.
Hitler was about as much "in bed" with big money as Stalin was, or Ahmadinejad is (and Chavez is trying to be).
... but they did so after replacing them with their own stooges ...
They all certainly colluded with the bosses of industry, you will get no argument there
But if you take that as "colluding with big money" then yes, you're aboslutely right, in a "technicality" sort of way.
Besides if you take over some company, you do it with the express purpose of getting "in bed" with it's management. So if a government takes over a company, they're obviously getting in bed with the company. So a communist government is very much "in bed" with big money, for obvious reasons. So is a fascist government. So is Chavez.
So is any union.
And they're much more in bed with big money than Bush is, for example. Obviously that won't stop the nutcases from shouting at Bush. (I can appreciate the standpoint that he's not the brightest light on the chandelier, but he's not satan, just think you're giving him waaaaay too much credit there).
And the reverse is also true. This describes very well what will happen with an insufficiently capitalist system :
... how the system that was once created to prevent "mercantilism" is now executing gays on a regular basis.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. â" Alexander Tytler
If a system is insufficiently capitalist, it will cave to populism, said populism will immediately destroy any hope of improving the economy, thereby fortifying it's position. Then again this quote apparently believes that will happen regardless. Think it can't happen in a democratic nation ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7447558.stm
This was soooo very close. But another example is the Iranian revolution (thank you Carter)
That's the big wool that's been pulled over everyone's eyes. Nazism isn't a "rightist" party at all. It's extreme-left, very much to the left of every other current political party. Much like islamism is in other parts of the world : not "rightist" at all. Not even "Conservative" in the direct meaning of that word. They want to create legal systems that never have existed, people just believe they did at some point.
I do disagree however with your placement of facism versus socialism. I'd go with :
Capitalism > Socialism > Fascism > Communism
(ranged by freedom)
(I mean here socialism as practiced in most european countries between 1950-2000, if you mean the EU's overwhelming philosophy, then perhaps yes, you're right that it's closer to communism than fascism)
Communism only differs from fascism in theory. The difference is mainly that while fascims has overriding control of every company, communism wants that AND the ownership. (ie fascism demands 99% tax, communism 100%, the difference is at times a bit foggy)
The main difference between socialism and fascism is where the control of the unions lies. Fascism = socialism with 1 singular "super-union", controlled (and supported) by the state. This is something many unions want, except everybody wants to be the people in charge of said super-union. Companies under socialism have leadership that has to contend only with their own workers. The leadership of companies under a fascist state has to contend with the direct interference from the state, overriding their own judgement. In communism the leadership of companies is replaced by bureaucrats.
Another relevant remark is also that while capitalism is undoubtedly more free than socialism there is something to say for worker's participation. In a totally free setting it is questionable just how free a person who was born "poor" really is. He is allowed to do whatever he wants, but he'll be at it alone. The guy that was born rich however can enlist (almost) any amount of help he(/she) wants.
And to be honest, when one looks at BHO's campaign, one thinks he wants more than "just" socialism.
So the democrats in control of the house are basically in Satan's personal employment ?
Not that I entirely disagree, but this seems a bit strong, even for them.
Here's the roll call :
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-300
Here's the (short) list of "No" voters :
Nay CA-4 Doolittle, John [R]
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Nay AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]
Nay TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]
Nay TX-2 Poe, Ted [R]
Nay GA-3 Westmoreland, Lynn [R]
Nay AK-0 Young, Donald [R]
Nay VA-9 Boucher, Frederick [D]
Nay OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
Nay CA-16 Lofgren, Zoe [D]
Nay WI-4 Moore, Gwen [D]
Barack Obama didn't vote, but all the IL guys voted "Aye"
John McCain didn't vote either, but one (out of 4) of his Arizona colleagues voted "Nay". The democratic candidate for Arizona votes "Aye"
Thought this was worth mentioning.
Any historical atlas contains this information. There were few non-tyrannical states in history, and the ones that existed did not last, due to "barbarian"* invasion, do you seriously contest that ?
* barbarian in the greek meaning of the term : non-locals. So the muslims that invaded persia were barbarians under this definition despite that then they were still maintaining a (small) part of the previous civilization they conquered.
First it is very clear that this depends greatly on what you mean by "liberal". If you mean non-totalitarian, then perhaps you're right. If you're going more for "libertarian", such as including gay marriage or some such, history and reality would seem to indicate reality has a VERY anti-libertarian bias, it's just that a small part of the world currently has a small pocket (about 15% of living people) of libertarianism, that's showing constant signs of collapse at that. Especially in Europe the libertarian vision is collapsing at an astonishing rate (unless you call observing that muslims, one protected class of the libertarians, are attacking and even killing gays, another protected class, a success story)
... all fell to barbarians, and persia fell to muslim immigration and became VERY anti-liberal).
If you truly mean liberal, in the sense of republican party liberal, that would the American theory. But in reality the America is the first (and currently only) country that can be called in any way "liberal" that has survived like that for 200 years.
So in fact, if you study history, you'd say that reality has a strongly anti-liberal bias (roman republic, athens, persia,
And you'd call America currently an aberration in history. Then again, even though American law was very liberal 100 years ago (as it was 200 years ago), in actual "real" social situations it wasn't at all very liberal.
Given history and the structures that lasted the longest (which would be a Christian kingdom, in case you're wondering, by American standards that would be non-free and illiberal), I'd say reality has had up till now a strongly anti-liberal bias. Perhaps that's changed in the last 100 years. You're claiming that the situation that was true for all of recorded history somehow excludes the environment you live in.
To be honest, I wouldn't want be caught dead making a point that arrogant.
There is too much content in this mail to consider. But let's look at this "desertification" claim of GW ... it hasn't happened. In fact, if you ignore the usual "the world is ending" claims in this BBC article you will see what I mean :
... how is that a bad thing ? You said yourself "more jobs" = better. Well Moving 30% of Los Angeles around will certainly provide jobs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7445706.stm
It is especially clear on the Equatorial Congo picture.
Even Sudan, which is much in danger of becoming Sahara (esp. with the government there currently in power) has gained huge amounts of greenery.
Coastal areas overflooding (IF it happens), say the sea level rises 2 meters (which is over twice the absolute worst predictions), loses negligeable landmass.
I'd have to admit though, that you're right on the city counts. Some of the most important European cities would have to move. But the landmass lost will be negligeable. This does have the added advantage that the fish population will rise massively (because of the extra food that becomes available for them due to more low-depth areas growing stuff on the bottom).
So if the "worst" happens, we'll have a LOT more fish and a LOT more green on this planet. Not less. Eastern Europe will be a lot more liveable than it is now. Same for middle America. Same for midle of Africa. Afghanistan might actually become a viable country if temperatures rise enough.
I realise this is a "forbidden" theory. Very politically incorrect. I do believe it's true though. About having to move populations
Simple, AGW is a fantastic argument for a world government.
... Nary a peep about Russia killing it's journalists either, nor any comment about throwing nuclear material in a dissident's tea, that is apparently acceptable behavior. However imprisoning people for shooting at it's soldiers while hiding amongst civilians ... you'd need a library to collect it.
If we are ever to implement cap-and-trade, this requires a global government and a global police force and justice system to be implemented. In short one singular organization with power that is not limited by jurisdictions, but simply power of all humans.
And like all politicians, the UN wants more power (esp. the UN).
And if you think it's to be used for good then please explain how these governments got veto power in the human rights council ?
-> China
-> Russia
-> Saudi Arabia
-> Bangladesh
-> Pakistan
-> Jordan
-> Qatar
Needless to say they're not going to do anything about Sudan's "civil war" (which the government calls "jihad", surprise surprise after that nothing much was heard)
Let's not kid ourselves that you believe in Pascal's wager. Are you a practicing Christian, Buddhist, Animist, Muslim, Jew, ... because if you truly believe in pascal's wager you wouldn't know which religion was true, and as you go for the safe option, you'd have to pass munster in *all* religions. And since islam demands you kill yourself if you practice another religion, you'd be dead. So let's cut this ridiculous argument about Pascal's wager. You don't believe it, nor does anyone else.
... e.g. biofuels are causing famines. Even if biofuels is done with non-food crops, they will obviously still compete for land, brain power, research funds and well, basic manual labor with food crops, therefore they are no solution.
... because, frankly, most people who say this have done exactly nothing. Not that I expect you to have made the kind of sacrifices someone like McCain has, but at least tell me you regularly volunteer at your church for soup kitchens or whatever. Supporting a socially popular idea means, obviously, nothing at all. If it were socially popular to burn witches, all the AGW "we must act now" nutcases would be screaming for blood in scenes reminiscent of the Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9/11.
Another problem is the short term cost. You forget a lot of options that are not that unreasonable :
GW (or even AGW) exists, and has a positive influence, therefore doing stuff has both a short term cost and a massive long term cost (reducing CO2, if it works, will reduce agricultural harvests for example, it is not really studied how big this effect is. Same with temperature : higher temps -> larger harvest. How much larger ? We certainly could use more food)
The short-term costs are prohibitive. Changing co2 output over the course of 20-30 years is doable, and is a reasonable cost. Doing it in 5 is not 6 times more expensive but 600 times.
The costs are morally unacceptable
There are thousands of other possibilities you don't consider, and if you consider them all equal you're just a nihilist (which is exactly what most AGW nutcases are).
Let's also not kid ourselves : you support AGW because it's socially popular, even if it goes against science.
Have you joined the army ? If not, then please explain what specifically YOU have YOURSELF sacrificed in the short term for the long-term gain of the nation
Yes but > 90% of academic money comes (either directly or indirectly) from govt.
... and will thus provide for research in popular stuff, like animal conservation, cancer research and ... pro-global warming research. Certainly not invest in stuff like energy research or theoretical physics.
... HP.
Besides many large corporations use research money as PR investments
Let's take for example one (big) sponsor of my alma mater
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/feature_stories/2006/06globalwarming.html
'nuff said
So the govt (with the notable exception of the US govt, but this certainly applies to th EU), the largest researcher, does not sponsor ANY anti-AGW research. Most corporations don't actually risk it either, as it's a pr-disaster waiting to happen.
And now for the bad news : behavior in turns (or if you're in holland : behavior in strong winds).
... oil ... Since F1 cars need extraordinarily well done streets to drive on, what are you going to make them from ? If you use cement like in the old days, they'll crumble and the streets will once again forever be lined with tons of little stones, which will preclude doing much driving with that light F1 car.
You see this clearly in F1 accidents. Half the time the car is literally blown several times it's own length into the air. That will never happen to a mercedes, because the energy required simply isn't present in it's momentum. Whatever lifts the front of an F1 car 4 cm in the air will cause it to lift off.
This has, thank God, only once ended in a F1 car crashing, from above (ie not coming from the road, but collapsing from a height of some 15m) into a (thank God once more) mostly empty spectator's tribune.
Now granted cars don't go 300 km/h. However at 120 km/h (the speed limit in most of Europe) on a bridge, a liftoff could still get the car 5 meters into the air, enough for it to throw itself over any barrier that might be realistically constructed next to a road, and into someone's living room, or worse.
Besides, and I don't understand how people do this, you assume that while oil is going to run out, the streets are not. Streets are made of asphalt, which is
You can indeed recognize scientists and nutcases by their stance on global warming.
:
... you (I can see why egoists like buddhism). Experiments make no sense since you can make them take on any result, even after the fact.
The scientist opinion is the basis of science (ie doubt and explicitly admitting the things you don't know (which does indeed include not describing predictions in a chaotic system like the climate as "true")). The nutcases opninion is predetermined (for example on whether it costs them money, or delivers them job)
Is there antropogenic global warming ?
Scientist : I doubt it
Nutcase, type A : No
Nutcase, type B : Yes
So, while perhaps complete denyers don't have the truth on their side, neither does the IPCC. And let's be fair for once, which is more danguerous ? Some fringe groups nobody takes serious anyway, or the IPCC ?
The IPCC isn't filled with idiots who are confused about the foundations of science, so they have some other agenda. And I think that like all politicians they realise that global warming is a "global external cost", presenting a very good case for a global government, presumably them.
And this type of hypocrisy is not strange. Science is based on a few assumptions that are totally at odds with today's liberal mindset
-> science believes there is a singular, unchangeable and absolute truth (economics and biology for example clearly both state that having "too many" gays in a society is fatal for that society's future, know any liberal that accepts this ?). All religions are therefore either right or wrong, but a special place must be reserved for Christianity : at the very least it confrontated itself with this absolute truth, and shares some of the basic axioma's with science, something no other religion has even attempted (e.g. islam is fundamentally at odd's with science, since it's belief system precludes the repeatability of experiments)
-> such a truth can be tested. It is truly universal. An electron behaves the same in New York as in Tokyo, as in Proxima centauri, as in the distant pulsars. Again this is a Christian principle, fundamentally at odds with for example buddhism.
Christians believe God is just, and that justness is a fixed contract between God and man, defined in the bible, and therefore (at least partially) predictable. There are groups of Christians that go further and presume a "mechanical" God, but that isn't very widely accepted.
Buddhists believe that reality is an illusion, and therefore experiments will have different results based on the mindset of
Muslims believe that God is fundamentally unpredictable and responsible for everything that happens on earth and nothing at all can therefore reasonably be predicted.
-> if 2 theories differ, one is necessarily wrong.
Again muslims don't believe in this, because the quran contains ayats (let's simplify that term to "laws", which is mostly accurate) that are fundamentally at odds with eachother. E.g. perpetual war is declared in the quran, and islam "is a religion of peace". These statements, to muslims, are BOTH true. Islam "is good", killing "is wrong", but killing someone for leaving islam "is right". They see no contradiction here, not because they don't see the logical problem, but because they force logic to be of lesser truth than the quran. It goes further than this. When you die, allah demands 9/8th of your inheritance be distributed, which is obviously impossible.
Same with Buddhism. 2 experiments giving different results is the EXPECTED result, the one you want to achieve, not something that indicates a problem in your theory.
-> Truth is utterly independant of the observer, or of anyone. Now at the very least this is one thing where islam, Christianity and science agree all three : an individual has exactly 0 influence on the truth.
Republicans like to state that congress can't repeal the law of supply and demand, which is an obvious truth, yet at leas
Actually if you read the IPCC's "guidelines" you will be forced to admit that at the very least there's good money to be made by not taking it into account.
(you're excluded from UN research funds if you claim the sun warms the earth, the UN is certainly not the only organisation doing that btw.)
So while whether they take em up on that offer or not, one thing's for sure : the scientist that claim it's the sun are the poorer ones.
Well let's then just take the numbers :
per capita industrial GDP (this is the number that matters, do you agree ?)
US : $9476
EU : $8916
So if there's only ONE major industry left in the US (I don't think that's right at all, and US industry is seriously more varied and diversified than EU industry, but hey, who am I ?), then there's only 90% of a single industry left in the EU.
And let's not forget just how much government support the auto industry, using it's unions, extracts from government in the EU.
Funny how you mention car manufacturing. Renault has just announced it's leaving Belgium entirely. I'm gonna miss them.
"Choosing more wisely" ... you mean industrial agriculture, zoos and reservates ?
... He's all on about the "natural" way of doing things.
... people)
Of course that's exactly what the original poster is against
Well the natural way is, as you seem to agree, killing everything you can kill, counting on natural selection to create a balance by alternating famines and "massacres" (of animals/plants and if we want to go natural
That's because there's hardly any industrial activity in Europe.
... take the rust belt for example ... then divide this by a factor of 3.
Now imagine what you've heard about "hardly any" industrial activity in America
Then you're in the ballpark of European figures.
Europe uses less oil, because it doesn't do anything but sit behind computer screens. Now this is all fine and dandy, but SOMEONE has to run the industry. Europe just expects others to do it.
You see the same thing with California for example : they just chase the industry over the border, then claim co2 winnings. Even the Goracle lauded them for it.
To be completely fair, had congress cooperated in 2005 (or 2006 or 2007 or 2008, so please don't blame this on republicans), the peak would probably have been delayed, perhaps even to 2006 or 2007.
... take a vacation in Egypt, near the red sea, and turn of the airco for 30 minutes.
The problem with the "alternative" energy is simple : it's not an alternative. At all.
Perhaps one day. In, say 2015 (and that's VERY optimistic, it requires a lot of things from the physicists to get even that far), we can do without with solar or wind. More likely 2020, or further.
And yes, that's why we need breathing room. If you're truly worried about co2, then go nuclear (as in build nuclear power plants), but we need the time to develop these things. Preferably the time to develop 10 versions of these things, but that'll take 100 years. And add to that the time necessary for the patents to run out.
Do you seriously think America can function with even 20% less oil ? And if you think america's situation is bad
Without oil the entire middle east, except perhaps Israel, will be as deserted physically as it is intellectually in 5 years. And without oil, that will probably be the result of a water shortage combined with an inability to ship people out.