Leftists are the ones ruining the world. Most leftists governments are corrupt. The United States is one of the few countries that isn't socialist or a dictatorship. If you think those other countries are so good, go live there. Socialism doesn't get rid of the rich or raise the standards of living for the poor, it just keeps people dependent on the State. People become slaves to the State. They have no upward mobility. Capitalism gives people a chance at upward mobility. In socialism, it is who you know rather than what you know. Look at France. Do you see any great innovation coming from there? I see 50% unemployment in some areas among some groups and rioting in the streets because people demand a job for life from the government.
Wal-mart plays by the rules set forth by our system. I love to shop there because I know I will get great prices and I don't need a 'card' to get those low prices. Walmart must deal in quantity, so they cannot compete with specialty shops. If you are a mom and pa store, start selling specialty items that your customer's cannot get at Wal-Mart. If you work at Wal-Mart and don't like the wages or health care, you should find another job. If you don't like the system, then change the system. Don't blame Wal-Mart. The government sets the rules.
Caveman 1: "What is it?" Caveman 2: "Don't know, let's throw rock at it, see what happens..."
Many years later...
NASA Manager: "We need to find water on the moon. What's the best approach?" NASA Engineer: "Well obviously we should throw tax payer money at it and see what happens!"
All those impacts that the moon has had over the years with craters and all, and we have to make a few more?
Or just maybe an all powerful God did create the universe in six days, but decided to make it look as though it was done over many years through evolution.
Windows must support lots of different types of hardware. OS X probably only supports a limited set, being as it has always run on proprietary hardware. Thus it will be more challenging to get OS X to run on any PC. (I am no OS X expert, but this is my guess.)
My generation grew up with BASIC staring them in the face whenever they turned on their computer. My first computer was bought on lay-away and we didn't have the money to buy the "external hard drive" needed to play all the good games. Until I was able to get a hard drive, I mostly could only tinker with BASIC. There were magazines that had programs and games that one could "type in" and run.
Today's Operating Systems do not come bundled with a programming language. They seek to remove us further from the inner workings of the computer.
While many do get into computer science to program games, what they will soon find out is that programming games is a lot tougher and more competitive than many other comsci jobs. They will work harder and probably earn less money!
250 years? From what I know, the last ice age was around 10,000 years ago and we've been warming ever since. It is possible that humans have sped the process up a little, but by how many years?
Last I checked, it costs quite a bit to live even near San Francisco. I've noticed homeless people there, but are there really poor people living in San Francisco?
Re:comments from a non-gamer... awesome
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 0
Why stoop to name calling just because you disagree with someone?
Games want to give the player a good first impression. Many games try to detect what your computer is capable of whenever they are first run or installed. These games base their default settings on the results they get from their benchmarking. If a game is unable to do this for some reason, it should probably set the settings too low than too high. Since this hardware is Mac hardware, it is possible that this could throw off the detection mechanism used by these games.
I agree. I do lean towards a true "no regrets" approach:
" A true "no regrets" approach to climate change is not greater government controls on economic activity, but fewer. Economic growth, market institutions, and technological advance are often the most effective forms of insurance that a civilization can have. Policy efforts aimed at freeing up the energy sector, and those segments of the economy that are most energy intensive, will produce both economic and environmental gains. The economic gains will come from greater productivity and efficiency; the environmental gains from increased production per unit of energy expended or emissions released. Such an approach will reduce whatever threat of human-induced climate change might exist while spurring technological innovation and economic development. This strategy is the only approach to climate change that can be pursued with "no regrets." " From: http://www.cei.org/gencon/025,01783.cfm
I worry that many of the other approaches will actually do more harm than good.
Thank you for your enlightenment regarding the subject. It is refreshing to actually have an honest discussion about such topics.
I do not wish to approach the argument as an ideologue, but the alarmist argument is often given by ideologues.
My point about unknown CO2 sources is that it changes the percentage of what is natural vs. what is contributed by humans. I understand that burning fossil fuels causes increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if we contributed greater than 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, the question still remains whether or not the global warming is caused by humans. The earth goes through "super seasons" of global warming followed by global cooling. Ockham's razor should tell you to expect this as the more likely culprit.
First of all, Mussolini was not a "free market capitalist." Fascism is really closer to a left-wing ideology as far as the American political system goes. In Europe you basically had right wing socialists (fascists), left wing socialists (communists), and then you had the moderates (regular socialists). He was more a corporatist.
Second, I do not deny that there are pro-free market capitalists who have been convinced by others that humans cause global warming. I also do not deny that companies such as Alcoa are responsive to customers and PR, as they should be. Every game has its pawns. I do believe that the majority of global warming alarmists are largely left leaning people.
The reason that people can predict the climate easier than the weather is also because climate is mostly periodic and consistent. You don't need a scientist or a supercomputer to predict that it is probably going to be warm in summer. If global warming and ice ages were periodic and consistent, you would just be proving that humans are not the cause of global warming.
The earth has been warming for the last 10000 years, which is why we cannot walk across the bering straight. Is this because of fossil fuels? Why did this happen? Has all the ice from the previous ice age that trapped CO2 from the previous Global Warming been melting for the past 10000 years, putting it all back into the atmosphere? Has this process sped up in the last 1000 years because "less ice plus more warm water equals a faster melt?" Do we know how many volcanoes erupted, how much CO2 they put in the air, etc., for the last 10000 years? How many underwater CO2 sources have been accounted for? We found out not long ago that underwater "vents" are more common than we thought.
Many scientists get their research money from government. They work for Universities (the last bastion of communism). They are already working in a socialist system. Many get paid to waste money on nonsense studies about whether caffeine is good or bad for you, etc. It is a never ending cycle of wasted money that every once in a while produces something useful. We tolerate this because it does eventually lead to progress and we don't have a better system.
I don't think that anyone is for pollution. If a company's product converts C and O2 to CO2, then they should probably balance that with something that converts CO2 to C and O2 somewhere else. Call it the environmental "balance" act. I am very suspicious of "credit" scams that lead to government shakedowns and more corruption.
We are not in disagreement regarding the free market, nor on the realities of communism vs. neo-communist or neo-socialist idealism. In previous posts, I have pointed out several examples of how envirnmentalism has become the "new refuge of socialist thinking." (The green party, WWF, greenpeace, "tree huggers", "Captain Planet.") If you were to have a conversation with any of these folks, you would instantly realize this fact.
Scientists cannot even accurately predict the weather out to more than three days (using the best models and supercomputers). Prediction requires data, and 50 to 100 years of data is a drop in the bucket in a geological sense. Where does one come up with an accurate "anthropogenic" number without making a subjective guess? Do those models take into account the new finding that living plants may be giving off methane? Do those models take into account all the known and "unknown" Carbon Syncs? Do these models take into account the weather on the Sun? The difference in water vapor around the world? Is a wild fire considered "anthropogenic"? Do they take into account the time ash stays in the atmosphere after a massive volcano eruption? Do they take into account the new finding that the rain forest growth is during dry seasons rather than wet (the opposite of most plants)? Do they treat things as linear when they shouldn't be? Do they use averaging when they shouldn't be? Computer models are only as good as the people who design them.
First of all, I never said that there was no cause for concern. I am just pointing out that there are political reasons for why certain people would want you to think that humans cause global warming. If you believe that the capitalist system is evil, you are likely to adopt this stance.
Science is based on what can be measured, usually statistically. There are lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics.
I am not saying that we should throw out science or scientific method, but that we should realize its inherent imperfection. Scientists are human and humans are imperfect.
I stand corrected, I should have said that water vapor plays a MUCH larger role than CO2. Water vapor accounts for anywhere between 65% and 95%, but probably not the low 50% that you give. The budget analysis is debatable and prone to error, and at least one of the authors of that paper is known for his scientific activism. Peer review these days leaves a lot to be desired:
" IPCC proponents place great emphasis on the merit of articles that have been "peer reviewed." However, peer review for climate publications, even by eminent journals such as Nature or Science, is typically a quick, unpaid read by two or three knowledgeable persons, usually close colleagues of the author. It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations.
In 2004, I was asked by a journal (Climatic Change) to peer review an article. I asked to see the source code and supporting calculations. The editor said no one had ever asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. There is nothing at the journal peer review stage in climate publications that is remotely like an audit.
Although the IPCC and similar agencies have many committees and meetings (usually in nice places), they do not carry out any audit or verification activities.
While insiders have long known this, it was recently admitted in written answers by the author of the hockey stick study (Michael Mann) to the U.S. Senate in the fall of 2003. "It is distinctly against the mission of the IPCC to 'carry out independent programs,'" Mann wrote. Thus, if a paper has passed the cursory journal peer review process, there may not be any subsequent hurdles prior to adoption by the IPCC. "
The earth may be warming, but are humans to blame? The earth has had several periods of "Global Warming" before humans ever existed, followed by ice ages.
" Contrary to the assertions of climate alarmists, present day atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are NOT significantly above pre-industrial levels. According to testimony by Prof Zbigniew Jaworowski before a US Senate committee hearing last year, the average for the 19th century was 335ppm by direct measurement, not the widely quoted 280ppm derived from ice core measurements, which are prone to gross experimental errors. The picture gets worse for the alarmists .
Current CO2 levels are low by historical standards. Only the Upper Carboniferous/Lower Permian geological periods and the Quaternary, including the present day, show CO2 levels below 400ppm over the last 550 million years. Ironically, to the chagrin of the alarmists, the Late Ordovician saw extensive glaciation, when CO2 levels were nearly 12 times higher than today's at 4400ppm. According to greenhouse theory, this period should have been a hothouse! It wasn't. Average temperatures were no higher than they are today.
The major greenhouse gas is water vapour, not CO2 as the alarmists would have us believe, and accounts for approximately 95% of the total greenhouse effect. The contribution of anthropogenic CO2 is a trifling 0.12%.
1. People sometimes follow those with an agenda without knowing it.
2. Sometimes the best way to defeat another's agenda is to coopt it and then make it fit your agenda. I think that this is what G.W. has done. He did this because we need to cut our dependence on foreign oil and he needs to give a thousand reasons why we need E85 (sort of like all those arguments for war with Iraq). The democrats won't argue with it because he threw them a bone.
Why do you think the communist party renamed itself to the "Green" party? Why do you think that Greenpeace and WWF are leftist organizations? Why do you think that the "Captain Planet" cartoon was done by Ted Turner?
Easy. It isn't humans that are messing up the planet, it is those evil corporations! Humans are slaves to the evil corporations! Geesh.
More people die from diseases other than HIV, yet it gets the most attention in the media. Is it because scientists feel it is more "important" or is it because of a political agenda? The same can be said about "Global Warming." When one sees or hears the phrase "Global Warming," one automatically thinks it means "warming of the earth caused by humans." Why? Because there is a political agenda associated with the term.
Science relies on what can be measured over time, and we have not been measuring long enough in geological time to know if humans are the major cause of Global Warming. The fact that the earth has had several ice ages in the past, and that Greenland used to be green, and that England used to be known for its Wine, is proof enough to me that we have had "Global Warming" cycles in the past and that they were not caused by humans.
Extinction due to an environmental imbalance is a fact of life. Without such a notion, humans would not exist. Humans should take care of the environment and keep it in balance. Nature takes millions of years to correct imbalances, and we should be careful to maintain that balance. But that does not mean that we should move towards some marxist form of economy.
Although humans do have an impact and should take care of the environment, most of the "Global Warming" alarm is raised by those on the left to further an anti-capitalist agenda. It isn't a coincidence that the "Green" party is a left-wing communist party and that Gorbachev, the former Soviet leader, is a member. Many of these people have no problem telling others how to live their lives while they themselves drive in big SUVs, fly in fuel guzzling jets, and wreck the hillside with their million dollar homes.
I would have never guessed that computing drains battery power. How long did it take them to figure that out?
Leftists are against DRM because they think everything should be "free". I am against DRM because I think that leftists make too much money over there on the left coast. I think we should take their "cribs" in Beverly Hills and Malibu and redistribute their wealth to the homeless that travel up and down Wilshire Blvd. Ask them if they think Robin Hood "did the right thing," first though just for kicks.
I don't know, but I think John Kerry looks a lot like those Easter Island stone heads. I think those people were actually libs who tried to preserve their trees, but froze to death during a freak ice storm because they never learned how to build fire. Then another group came along and chopped down all the trees and sold them for profit in their homeland. You see, those statues were actually built to honor the frozen islanders.
Ben Franklin was a middle child of 15. Many Americans are descendants of so called "rednecks". Many rednecks have farms and live closer to nature than educated city folks. They understand that meat doesn't originally come in plastic wrap or from the local burger joint. They understand sustainability better than most! Many so called "educated" people live in big cities and complain about polution. They probably wouldn't last that long if all the amenities were taken away from them.
Slashdot Mirror
Leftists are the ones ruining the world. Most leftists governments are corrupt. The United States is one of the few countries that isn't socialist or a dictatorship. If you think those other countries are so good, go live there. Socialism doesn't get rid of the rich or raise the standards of living for the poor, it just keeps people dependent on the State. People become slaves to the State. They have no upward mobility. Capitalism gives people a chance at upward mobility. In socialism, it is who you know rather than what you know. Look at France. Do you see any great innovation coming from there? I see 50% unemployment in some areas among some groups and rioting in the streets because people demand a job for life from the government.
Wal-mart plays by the rules set forth by our system. I love to shop there because I know I will get great prices and I don't need a 'card' to get those low prices. Walmart must deal in quantity, so they cannot compete with specialty shops. If you are a mom and pa store, start selling specialty items that your customer's cannot get at Wal-Mart. If you work at Wal-Mart and don't like the wages or health care, you should find another job. If you don't like the system, then change the system. Don't blame Wal-Mart. The government sets the rules.
Caveman 1: "What is it?"
Caveman 2: "Don't know, let's throw rock at it, see what happens..."
Many years later...
NASA Manager: "We need to find water on the moon. What's the best approach?"
NASA Engineer: "Well obviously we should throw tax payer money at it and see what happens!"
All those impacts that the moon has had over the years with craters and all, and we have to make a few more?
What I meant was "today's Operating Systems that young people grow up using". This is not Linux just yet (nor is it AS/400 or whatever else).
Or just maybe an all powerful God did create the universe in six days, but decided to make it look as though it was done over many years through evolution.
You actually counted how many comments later?
Windows must support lots of different types of hardware. OS X probably only supports a limited set, being as it has always run on proprietary hardware. Thus it will be more challenging to get OS X to run on any PC. (I am no OS X expert, but this is my guess.)
My generation grew up with BASIC staring them in the face whenever they turned on their computer. My first computer was bought on lay-away and we didn't have the money to buy the "external hard drive" needed to play all the good games. Until I was able to get a hard drive, I mostly could only tinker with BASIC. There were magazines that had programs and games that one could "type in" and run.
Today's Operating Systems do not come bundled with a programming language. They seek to remove us further from the inner workings of the computer.
While many do get into computer science to program games, what they will soon find out is that programming games is a lot tougher and more competitive than many other comsci jobs. They will work harder and probably earn less money!
250 years? From what I know, the last ice age was around 10,000 years ago and we've been warming ever since. It is possible that humans have sped the process up a little, but by how many years?
Last I checked, it costs quite a bit to live even near San Francisco. I've noticed homeless people there, but are there really poor people living in San Francisco?
Why stoop to name calling just because you disagree with someone? Games want to give the player a good first impression. Many games try to detect what your computer is capable of whenever they are first run or installed. These games base their default settings on the results they get from their benchmarking. If a game is unable to do this for some reason, it should probably set the settings too low than too high. Since this hardware is Mac hardware, it is possible that this could throw off the detection mechanism used by these games.
Since when are scientists/researchers supposed to be activists?
Yes. Give the East a chance to dominate the tropics for a while! Geesh!
I agree. I do lean towards a true "no regrets" approach:
"
A true "no regrets" approach to climate change is not greater government controls on economic activity, but fewer. Economic growth, market institutions, and technological advance are often the most effective forms of insurance that a civilization can have. Policy efforts aimed at freeing up the energy sector, and those segments of the economy that are most energy intensive, will produce both economic and environmental gains. The economic gains will come from greater productivity and efficiency; the environmental gains from increased production per unit of energy expended or emissions released. Such an approach will reduce whatever threat of human-induced climate change might exist while spurring technological innovation and economic development. This strategy is the only approach to climate change that can be pursued with "no regrets."
"
From: http://www.cei.org/gencon/025,01783.cfm
I worry that many of the other approaches will actually do more harm than good.
Thank you for your enlightenment regarding the subject. It is refreshing to actually have an honest discussion about such topics.
I do not wish to approach the argument as an ideologue, but the alarmist argument is often given by ideologues.
My point about unknown CO2 sources is that it changes the percentage of what is natural vs. what is contributed by humans. I understand that burning fossil fuels causes increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if we contributed greater than 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, the question still remains whether or not the global warming is caused by humans. The earth goes through "super seasons" of global warming followed by global cooling. Ockham's razor should tell you to expect this as the more likely culprit.
First of all, Mussolini was not a "free market capitalist." Fascism is really closer to a left-wing ideology as far as the American political system goes. In Europe you basically had right wing socialists (fascists), left wing socialists (communists), and then you had the moderates (regular socialists). He was more a corporatist.
Second, I do not deny that there are pro-free market capitalists who have been convinced by others that humans cause global warming. I also do not deny that companies such as Alcoa are responsive to customers and PR, as they should be. Every game has its pawns. I do believe that the majority of global warming alarmists are largely left leaning people.
The reason that people can predict the climate easier than the weather is also because climate is mostly periodic and consistent. You don't need a scientist or a supercomputer to predict that it is probably going to be warm in summer. If global warming and ice ages were periodic and consistent, you would just be proving that humans are not the cause of global warming.
The earth has been warming for the last 10000 years, which is why we cannot walk across the bering straight. Is this because of fossil fuels? Why did this happen? Has all the ice from the previous ice age that trapped CO2 from the previous Global Warming been melting for the past 10000 years, putting it all back into the atmosphere? Has this process sped up in the last 1000 years because "less ice plus more warm water equals a faster melt?" Do we know how many volcanoes erupted, how much CO2 they put in the air, etc., for the last 10000 years? How many underwater CO2 sources have been accounted for? We found out not long ago that underwater "vents" are more common than we thought.
Many scientists get their research money from government. They work for Universities (the last bastion of communism). They are already working in a socialist system. Many get paid to waste money on nonsense studies about whether caffeine is good or bad for you, etc. It is a never ending cycle of wasted money that every once in a while produces something useful. We tolerate this because it does eventually lead to progress and we don't have a better system.
I don't think that anyone is for pollution. If a company's product converts C and O2 to CO2, then they should probably balance that with something that converts CO2 to C and O2 somewhere else. Call it the environmental "balance" act. I am very suspicious of "credit" scams that lead to government shakedowns and more corruption.
We are not in disagreement regarding the free market, nor on the realities of communism vs. neo-communist or neo-socialist idealism. In previous posts, I have pointed out several examples of how envirnmentalism has become the "new refuge of socialist thinking." (The green party, WWF, greenpeace, "tree huggers", "Captain Planet.") If you were to have a conversation with any of these folks, you would instantly realize this fact.
Scientists cannot even accurately predict the weather out to more than three days (using the best models and supercomputers). Prediction requires data, and 50 to 100 years of data is a drop in the bucket in a geological sense. Where does one come up with an accurate "anthropogenic" number without making a subjective guess? Do those models take into account the new finding that living plants may be giving off methane? Do those models take into account all the known and "unknown" Carbon Syncs? Do these models take into account the weather on the Sun? The difference in water vapor around the world? Is a wild fire considered "anthropogenic"? Do they take into account the time ash stays in the atmosphere after a massive volcano eruption? Do they take into account the new finding that the rain forest growth is during dry seasons rather than wet (the opposite of most plants)? Do they treat things as linear when they shouldn't be? Do they use averaging when they shouldn't be? Computer models are only as good as the people who design them.
First of all, I never said that there was no cause for concern. I am just pointing out that there are political reasons for why certain people would want you to think that humans cause global warming. If you believe that the capitalist system is evil, you are likely to adopt this stance.
Science is based on what can be measured, usually statistically. There are lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics.
I am not saying that we should throw out science or scientific method, but that we should realize its inherent imperfection.
Scientists are human and humans are imperfect.
I stand corrected, I should have said that water vapor plays a MUCH larger role than CO2. Water vapor accounts for anywhere between 65% and 95%, but probably not the low 50% that you give. The budget analysis is debatable and prone to error, and at least one of the authors of that paper is known for his scientific activism. Peer review these days leaves a lot to be desired:
3 43.900
"
IPCC proponents place great emphasis on the merit of articles that have been "peer reviewed." However, peer review for climate publications, even by eminent journals such as Nature or Science, is typically a quick, unpaid read by two or three knowledgeable persons, usually close colleagues of the author. It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations.
In 2004, I was asked by a journal (Climatic Change) to peer review an article. I asked to see the source code and supporting calculations. The editor said no one had ever asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. There is nothing at the journal peer review stage in climate publications that is remotely like an audit.
Although the IPCC and similar agencies have many committees and meetings (usually in nice places), they do not carry out any audit or verification activities.
While insiders have long known this, it was recently admitted in written answers by the author of the hockey stick study (Michael Mann) to the U.S. Senate in the fall of 2003. "It is distinctly against the mission of the IPCC to 'carry out independent programs,'" Mann wrote. Thus, if a paper has passed the cursory journal peer review process, there may not be any subsequent hurdles prior to adoption by the IPCC.
"
From "Climate Alarmists Playing Shell Game with Data": http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16812
There is also a new finding that living plants give off methane, a greenhouse gas:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18925
The earth may be warming, but are humans to blame? The earth has had several periods of "Global Warming" before humans ever existed, followed by ice ages.
"
c le=2899
Contrary to the assertions of climate alarmists, present day atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are NOT significantly above pre-industrial levels. According to testimony by Prof Zbigniew Jaworowski before a US Senate committee hearing last year, the average for the 19th century was 335ppm by direct measurement, not the widely quoted 280ppm derived from ice core measurements, which are prone to gross experimental errors. The picture gets worse for the alarmists .
Current CO2 levels are low by historical standards. Only the Upper Carboniferous/Lower Permian geological periods and the Quaternary, including the present day, show CO2 levels below 400ppm over the last 550 million years. Ironically, to the chagrin of the alarmists, the Late Ordovician saw extensive glaciation, when CO2 levels were nearly 12 times higher than today's at 4400ppm. According to greenhouse theory, this period should have been a hothouse! It wasn't. Average temperatures were no higher than they are today.
The major greenhouse gas is water vapour, not CO2 as the alarmists would have us believe, and accounts for approximately 95% of the total greenhouse effect. The contribution of anthropogenic CO2 is a trifling 0.12%.
To ignore evidence from the earth's long history, and to be mesmerised by computer generated fantasies, is to be deliberately obtuse.
"
An opinion from http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?arti
As for blind followers:
1. People sometimes follow those with an agenda without knowing it.
2. Sometimes the best way to defeat another's agenda is to coopt it and then make it fit your agenda. I think that this is what G.W. has done. He did this because we need to cut our dependence on foreign oil and he needs to give a thousand reasons why we need E85 (sort of like all those arguments for war with Iraq). The democrats won't argue with it because he threw them a bone.
Why do you think the communist party renamed itself to the "Green" party?
Why do you think that Greenpeace and WWF are leftist organizations?
Why do you think that the "Captain Planet" cartoon was done by Ted Turner?
Easy. It isn't humans that are messing up the planet, it is those evil corporations! Humans are slaves to the evil corporations! Geesh.
More people die from diseases other than HIV, yet it gets the most attention in the media. Is it because scientists feel it is more "important" or is it because of a political agenda? The same can be said about "Global Warming." When one sees or hears the phrase "Global Warming," one automatically thinks it means "warming of the earth caused by humans." Why? Because there is a political agenda associated with the term.
Science relies on what can be measured over time, and we have not been measuring long enough in geological time to know if humans are the major cause of Global Warming. The fact that the earth has had several ice ages in the past, and that Greenland used to be green, and that England used to be known for its Wine, is proof enough to me that we have had "Global Warming" cycles in the past and that they were not caused by humans.
Extinction due to an environmental imbalance is a fact of life. Without such a notion, humans would not exist. Humans should take care of the environment and keep it in balance. Nature takes millions of years to correct imbalances, and we should be careful to maintain that balance. But that does not mean that we should move towards some marxist form of economy.
There is mounting evidence that the natural water vapor cycle is the major cause of "Global Warming":
. stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4419880
Although humans do have an impact and should take care of the environment, most of the "Global Warming" alarm is raised by those on the left to further an anti-capitalist agenda. It isn't a coincidence that the "Green" party is a left-wing communist party and that Gorbachev, the former Soviet leader, is a member. Many of these people have no problem telling others how to live their lives while they themselves drive in big SUVs, fly in fuel guzzling jets, and wreck the hillside with their million dollar homes.
I would have never guessed that computing drains battery power. How long did it take them to figure that out?
Leftists are against DRM because they think everything should be "free". I am against DRM because I think that leftists make too much money over there on the left coast.
I think we should take their "cribs" in Beverly Hills and Malibu and redistribute their wealth to the homeless that travel up and down Wilshire Blvd.
Ask them if they think Robin Hood "did the right thing," first though just for kicks.
Didn't Hitler believe that Communism was a Jewish invention, and wasn't Karl Marx Jewish?
I don't know, but I think John Kerry looks a lot like those Easter Island stone heads. I think those people were actually libs who tried to preserve their trees, but froze to death during a freak ice storm because they never learned how to build fire. Then another group came along and chopped down all the trees and sold them for profit in their homeland. You see, those statues were actually built to honor the frozen islanders.
Ben Franklin was a middle child of 15. Many Americans are descendants of so called "rednecks". Many rednecks have farms and live closer to nature than educated city folks. They understand that meat doesn't originally come in plastic wrap or from the local burger joint. They understand sustainability better than most! Many so called "educated" people live in big cities and complain about polution. They probably wouldn't last that long if all the amenities were taken away from them.