Let me start by acknowledging my own political sympathies. My beliefs are rooted in classical conservatism and classical liberalism but if I had to choose a label I'd go with constitutionalist. I start off with that because I wanted to attempt a discussion without bias, if possible on a political forum. We're routinely told that political ideologies fall on a left-right spectrum with Communism on the left, Fascism on the right, and everyone else in between. I think that's irrational. Total government is total government isn't it? Regardless, there are other paradigms such as the authoritarian-libertarian punnet squares measuring beliefs on economic freedom vs social freedom. Isn't economic freedom a social freedom? Aren't social and fiscal issues related often? Is homelessness a social issue, a fiscal issue, or both? And if two people agree that the state has a role in something but just disagree on how to implement its involvement, are they really polar opposites when they both acknowledge a desire for state influence in said situation?
I'm asking these questions because I don't think the political spectrum makes any sense. It's based off of semantic arguments and false categories. Such as socialism and nationalism being opposites. When you socialize an industry you're nationalizing it. When you nationalize an industry you're socializing it. These are distinctions without differences. Is a country that subsidizes chattel slavery less mercantile than a nation that subsidizes railroads and steam boats?
I submit that if a political spectrum should exist, it should be based on the role of the state, or rather the power of the state. It's a common trend in history that a new ideology criticizes those of the past while in reality building upon it or at the very least presuming the continuation of state organs but for new ideological purposes. In my spectrum one side represents oligarchies of a variety of forms though totalitarian, and the other side represents the lack of a state for governance. And again, I'm only human but I tried to ignore my own doctrines for the sake of accuracy. While I personally prefer a republic I can't pretend a republic has less state control than a stateless society like anarcho-capitalism. And again, my beliefs were kept out of this to the best of my ability. So while I despise Marxism, I acknowledge that the socialist dictatorship is a means to an ends, and that final stage Communism is meant to be stateless. I try to make distinctions when possible or needed.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg607.imageshack.us%2Fimg607%2F6795%2Fi3q8.png&hash=ab69c400633aa2d304bd1257dd688fdaff69c8af)
CLICK TO ENLARGE (http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/74/2v3p.png)
Anarchy is the absence of a state authority. My understanding is that anarchy is Greek for one rule or self rule. Now I'll admit I spend very little time studying anarchism. So if I'm off base please feel free to correct me.
Anarcho-primitivism preaches a return to pre-agriculturalism which would mean less social organization than the other anarchist concepts so I put it at the end of the anarchist spectrum but really stateless is stateless. All anarchist systems could be called voluntarism.
Anarcho-capitalism is capitalism without the state, free interaction and free markets and essentially individualist. Even courts and policing would be done with private planning rather than central planning.
Anarcho-syndicalism combines anarchism and syndicalism, creating what I suppose could be called stateless collectivism. People freely unite into a syndicate without relying on the coercion of the state to achieve objectives.
As I acknowledge, Communism represents what Marx and the Communist Manifesto claim Socialism would become or lead to - a stateless and classless society; the dictatorship of the proletariat is transitioning to this final stage. I stuck it between syndicalism and democracy because of the notion that a true Communist society would be a worker's collective but also democratic.
Now we get to small states to total government...
Classical-Enlightenment
Democracy represented by Athenian lawmaker Solon. Democracy is often called mob rule and unstable. However Athens was quite stable according to my understanding of ancient Greece, and it was in fact because mob rule wasn't how things were and in fact the people were jealous guardians of their freedom and this was represented in the closest thing Athens had to mob rule - ostracism (the process in which citizens banished the most destructive politicians for 10 years). And as a city-state, direct democracy was rather small and while suffrage wasn't universal, power rested directly with the voters and thus the people were the state, not its subjects.
Minarchism represented by Objectivist Ayn Rand. Anarchists believe any state violates non-aggression, however many libertarians, Objectivists and others support a minimal state responsible only for courts, police and national defense to protect property and deter aggression/fraud. Often called a night-watchman state. I put this after democracy because Athens never really had a developed justice system like most true states do. Justice was often sanctioned for the individual to execute. Minarchism conceivably has more power and control than democracy.
Republic represented by Roman lawmaker Cato. There are *many* definitions of a republic, some similar, many different. Usually a republic is defined by not having a monarch. But that doesn't really tell us how much power the state had. Republic comes from Latin. Res publica. A public affair. Laws may not be decided by the people directly but they are decided by varying levels of representation. Ultimately the state gets its authority from the people, in theory, but the fact is that the state makes the laws and yields more power than a democracy. My definition for a republic here is a typical sovereign state in which policy decisions are a public matter/affair rather than bureaucratic or oligarchic. Usually limited with a fixed body of law (constitution).
Now here's where my bias comes in. I wanted to make things related to as many people as possible, and to me that means other Americans. So. The next few are American-centric statesmen or documents to get a point across about the growth of state power.
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union represented by fierce anti-federalist Patrick Henry. Confederation, a loose union of sovereign states with a weak central government. So take a democracy or republic and join them with a bunch more under a compact for the sake of common defense. The central government has little power or control over its constituents.
Republican Party of Jefferson. Fiercely state's rights and against federalism though accepted the Constitution with a Bill of Rights. I included a few political parties based on their original premises and foundations to demonstrate where I think American politics was and has gone.
The United States Constitution and its architect James Madison. Like the Federalists Madison supported a new Federation system, however he also supported limiting centralized government like his dear friend and ally Jefferson and thus helped draft a Bill of Rights. A federation is more powerful in scope than a confederation. War powers, greater commerce coordination, official fiscal/monetary policy, revision of trading system and a greater emphasis on organized government branches. Federalism includes duel sovereignty, where sovereign states retain their freedom but loan powers to a strong central authority for fundamental needs. This is not a unitary, top-down system, but a balance of power for common interests.
Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson. The Democratic Party was originally founded on individualism and free markets, state's rights (kind of), and strict constructionist obedience to the Constitution. Jackson opposed federalist efforts to support a central bank and other programs he viewed as unconstitutional, while he also threatened to hang opposition in South Carolina threatening to secede because of tariffs even if he disagreed with the tariffs. Strict construction, no bullcrap. Again, this is just an attempt to place historical political parties. Clearly the Democratic Party of the common man from Jackson's time is not the same as today, and the same can be said of the GOP. Democrats didn't just support free markets, but laissez faire capitalism.
Capitalism with Wealth of Nations author Adam Smith. I placed Smith between Hamilton and Jackson because while he opposed the protectionism of mercantilist economics, he also wasn't laissez faire like Jacksonians. In fact other than the issue of trade barriers, Adam Smith saw a place for state innovation. Public works were acceptable to him just as they were to the Federalists.
Federalist Party with Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist Party supported deviations from the Constitution. A central banking system, internal improvements such as roads, bridges and canals, national debt and tariffs to support young industry.
Whig Party and Henry Clay. The Federalists and anti-Jacksonian Republicans joined to form the Whig Party. Like the Federalists they supported central banks, internal improvements and tariffs. However, during this period Prussian-educated Americans started bringing over concepts from the statist and mandatory Prussian school system. Many Whigs started championing government education.
Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln. I'm not going to talk crap about Lincoln and the Civil War and how he's a bigger tyrant than Hitler or whatever's fashionable to say now. Anyway, in Lincoln's own words he was an old Henry Clay-style Whig. When the Whigs collapsed many became Republicans. Republicans also supported a central bank, internal improvements and high tariffs for industry. However two things of note- During this time the Congress started supporting quasi-mercantilist policies beyond trade barriers. Railroads and steamships were being contracted, chartered and subsidized by Congress. The second thing was the creation of the Department of Agriculture which Lincoln called "the people's department". The is the first time I'm aware that the federal government made agriculture a federal policy.
Mercantilism/Imperial Monarchism with King George III. If you're British, it's nothing personal against George. He was our king too, right? Honestly I just didn't know who else to put so I played it safe. Originally I was going to have a separate place for monarchism and Mercantilism as I was going to have with Capitalism. However, Monarchism is more of a constitution than a description of power. Traditionally, monarchs claim the divine right of kings to rule, however that rarely meant anything substantive. Well, that's not entirely true. Regardless, monarchism at its strongest was absolutism or absolute monarchy and the very concept of such a system ever existing is debated. The Czar would be an example of an absolute monarch. However, compared to today, monarchs had little control. They had internal conflicts to struggle with, often couldn't control wealth, and needless to say they didn't have control over the sheer amount of resources or government constructs that exist today. Monarchs at their most controlled war, diplomacy, the treasury, trade, taxes, and land management and a few other things perhaps. Absolute monarchism was only absolute by the standards of those times. Compared to today absolutists look like amateurs at control. Regardless, I define mercantilism as the system used to expand an empire's wealth through imperialism and colonial acquisitions, internal improvements, state-backed monopolies (East India Company anyone?) and elimination of competition, trade barriers beyond protectionism (trade prohibition), and usually tariffs against competing empires though free trade tended to catch on after Adam Smith came around. I'd also say the GOP under McKinley could fit around here, perhaps between the protectionist Lincolnian Republican Party and mercantilism.
And now for Socialism. Well, not really. Or maybe so. Socialism can mean anything. It doesn't have to be Marxist to be socialist. Anyway.
Soft socialism-
Social Democracy/Progressivism with Otto von Bismarck. Admittedly Bismarck was not an ally of the socialist revolutionaries of the 1800's. However, to cement his power and prevent socialists from making advances, Bismarck essentially found a way to give the socialists everything they wanted except power - the welfare state. Bismarck created the first modern welfare state and other countries would follow. Senior pensions, accident, unemployment and health insurance. Otto von Bismark is quite possibly the most influential person you've never heard of. And as I've said, systems carry over. This welfare state still retained the economic, military and political control of a powerful imperialist nation and now gained control over social programs and insurance schemes. And again, to be intellectually honest, Bismarck does not represent the Social Democrat community, I'm sure. He was the Realpolitik man after all, and he did what he needed to win the support of the nation. Regardless, he found a way to give his opponents the socialism they wanted but without the revolution. I would posit that men like Theodore Roosevelt and *early* Progressives would fit here.
.............. ....... ....
I didn't have the patience to list every socialist country or model or learn every tiny difference. So I left a gap between Social Democracy and the totalitarian systems of the 20th century. This is where most modern states seem to be either by design or by incrementalism.
Totalitarianism ("Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.")-
Corporatist socialism. National Socialism, Fascism/Corporativism, Falangism, National Integralism where the state controls the means of production in some way or form and property exists but must serve the government's interests either openly or behind the scenes. The state decides what to make, when to make it, how much to make, who to sell it to, how much to charge, et cetera. You live to serve the state because you are part of an organic whole.
State Socialism and not even the illusion of property. Soviet socialism, Maoism, North Korean Juche (maybe?), National Bolshevism?
The point in which the State has total control over affairs as opposed to a public affair state (republic) or stateless society. More powerful than any king or tyrant of the past. Essentially human farming.
As for the Goldman Sachs thing, I was half joking and half not. It could be said the US is an oligarchy but that's not the argument, rather the scope of the state vs the individual. I will defend the placement on the chart though. Federal departments for war, foreign affairs, the treasury, justice, education, labor, agriculture, commerce, land management, energy, health and human services, housing and urban development, transportation, and numerous independent agencies and state corporations for mail, communications, intelligence, banking, the environment, business and oversight, science and technology, et cetera. A military-industrial complex, a prison-industrial complex, welfare statism. Taxes, regulations and subsidies, corporatism and bailouts. A lack of duel federalism and perpetual strengthening of each branch of government rather than checks on power. I'm making the observation that the government in the US controls more in America than even the British did. But I'm getting ideological.
Anyway, I'm just some dickhead with too much time to think about things like this. Let me know what you think and if you have any corrections you'd like to make. Again, this isn't me trying to be ideological. This is purely about evaluating the level of government control over the people for better or worse. If you feel I misrepresented your ideology or philosophy or system by all means have at it, because I can edit the model no problem. Or maybe you have a better model.
Mmmmm... maybe.
But probably not.
Quote from: kopema on November 24, 2013, 06:17:18 PM
Mmmmm... maybe.
But probably not.
No no no, a definite maybe and a probable not.
Or a slim chance of possible, with a heavy dose of nah...
I got down to the pretty picture, then noticed how long the post was.
So, about the pretty picture: I've seen graphics like that before. It's really not that new. I think it's a good snapshot of the political spectrum, but it tries too hard. The bigger the government, or the more control it has, the more leftist the country. Okay, sure. But there resides the confusion. What's more socialist? Nazism or fascism or democracy? Or this or that or the other thing? Well, in the case of democracy, I guess, democracy would be the biggest, or at least a direct democracy would be. If the people are the government, then the government can't get any bigger. Next to anarchy, it's probably the most oppressive form of government. But generally, to my mind, government is either oppressive or it isn't. And they're all oppressive. They're all coercive.
Except, perhaps, for republicanism. Historically, republican governments have essentially been monarchies operating within republican frameworks, and so could be easily corrupted. That means, then, that American republicanism has really been the least coercive form of government in history. That is, until it would be corrupted. And of course, it was set upon by "the turbulence and follies of democracy."* In the states, the lower houses, after all, were "the democratic parts of our constitutions."* Because not only can monarchies corrupt republican government, but so too can democracy, or the people. Note California, for example, so much of whose legislation begins as ballot measures.
* Governor Randolph of Virginia
Problem: there's a reason why we've grown to separate social and fiscal liberalism and conservatism. You can oppose government regulation in schools and still support the government's right to bust weed dealers and ban sodomy, for example.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 09:15:19 PM
Problem: there's a reason why we've grown to separate social and fiscal liberalism and conservatism. You can oppose government regulation in schools and still support the government's right to bust weed dealers and ban sodomy, for example.
There's no time! We all about to burn to death! 1.53 degrees! Drop and roll! Drop and roll!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 24, 2013, 09:22:18 PM
There's no time! We all about to burn to death! 1.53 degrees! Drop and roll! Drop and roll!
The 1.53 degrees isn't directly hurting your body, dumbass. Research has quantified its significant affect on, for example, firestorm durations and global ocean levels. That you think your gut feeling trumps scientific and mathematical analysis is why you couldn't predict 2012.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 09:36:52 PM
The 1.53 degrees isn't directly hurting your body, dumbass. Research has quantified its significant affect on, for example, firestorm durations and global ocean levels. That you think your gut feeling trumps scientific and mathematical analysis is why you couldn't predict 2012.
Just show me some evidence. Show how we are hurting.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 24, 2013, 10:45:03 PM
Just show me some evidence. Show how we are hurting.
I've presented plenty of links to peer reviewed studies. That you responded with your retarded monkey hollering is your problem.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 10:50:36 PM
I've presented plenty of links to peer reviewed studies. That you responded with your retarded monkey hollering is your problem.
Contrary to your really groovy studies no ones life has been altered in any way...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 24, 2013, 10:53:33 PM
Contrary to your really groovy studies no ones life has been altered in any way...
There we go again; refuting the science with your own say-so.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 10:55:45 PM
There we go again; refuting the science with your own say-so.
Show me. And I don't mean posting a link. Show me.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 24, 2013, 10:57:36 PM
Show me. And I don't mean posting a link. Show me.
Show you with what? Math and correlations? You clearly don't think those are real. Do you want me to post graphic images of people dying from hurricanes or something...?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 10:59:05 PM
Show you with what? Math and correlations? You clearly don't think those are real. Do you want me to post graphic images of people dying from hurricanes or something...?
A real-time weather map'll do fer starters. It's -6c (20f) here now, with a wind-chill of -12c (9f).
http://www.toledonewsnow.com/weather (http://www.toledonewsnow.com/weather)
Where's the heat that Gore promised us?
But back to the subject, I just use the Silk Road template to evaluate sociological and political trends. The time for being in the weeds was in-college. The paradigm endlessly shifts, depending on conversational avenue.
I actually managed to make my way through all of that. After reading it... I ask: just what is your question?
Quote from: Rhea_Markable on November 25, 2013, 04:11:16 AM
I actually managed to make my way through all of that. After reading it... I ask: just what is your question?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Me too, I read the whole damn thing last night, then hit the pic and thought someone started out with an idea and started doing drugs.
Then I remembered, he said he had a question, so I scrolled further down, only to discover he, like the artist, got too high and...see the bunny?
I like red, oooh, cool pic of Stalin....ummmm, more red....cooool...so ominous...., dude, pass that shit over here, I want another hit...
Uhhh ...what bunny?
Quote from: Rhea_Markable on November 25, 2013, 04:11:16 AM
I actually managed to make my way through all of that. After reading it... I ask: just what is your question?
I don't know, but he just keeps beating that God Damn Drum.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi190.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz73%2Frobertjacob%2Fbth_caveman_beating_drum_lg_nwm.gif&hash=e4dd9f33b3517b8eef1cf29730851cf3e3600db5)
Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 04:51:57 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Me too, I read the whole damn thing last night, then hit the pic and thought someone started out with an idea and started doing drugs.
Then I remembered, he said he had a question, so I scrolled further down, only to discover he, like the artist, got too high and...see the bunny?
I like red, oooh, cool pic of Stalin....ummmm, more red....cooool...so ominous...., dude, pass that shit over here, I want another hit...
Uhhh ...what bunny?
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Rhea_Markable on November 25, 2013, 06:23:00 AM
:thumbsup:
:biggrin:
I shouldn't post before my first cup o coffee....
Excellent post, OP.
The left-right paradigm is flawed and the paradigm of zero government- total government is the superior model.
I would place myself in the anarchist camp, specifically, with the anarcho-capitalists.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 25, 2013, 08:17:07 AM
Excellent post, OP.
The left-right paradigm is flawed and the paradigm of zero government- total government is the superior model.
I would place myself in the anarchist camp, specifically, with the anarcho-capitalists.
Perfect anarchy cannot exist, with humans. Hence
anarchy cannot exist.
Quote from: kit saginaw on November 25, 2013, 08:45:09 AM
Perfect anarchy cannot exist, with humans. Hence anarchy cannot exist.
Well, obviously that is not true.
For anarchy has existed.
And it does today.
Though I am not sure what "perfect" anarchy is. I probably dispute it's existence.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 09:36:52 PM
The 1.53 degrees isn't directly hurting your body, dumbass. Research has quantified its significant affect on, for example, firestorm durations and global ocean levels. That you think your gut feeling trumps scientific and mathematical analysis is why you couldn't predict 2012.
How high have the ocean levels risen?
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 25, 2013, 09:05:47 AM
Well, obviously that is not true.
For anarchy has existed.
And it does today.
Though I am not sure what "perfect" anarchy is. I probably dispute it's existence.
Someone bringing rationality to a sociological structure, defeats the anarchistic model. For example, you don't give a 3-year-old equal say on how to manage a farm and protect the family. That's perfect anarchy.
Follow the imperfect model to its final conclusion and you're left with the
Never Trust Anyone Over 25-syndrome. Because the elders have the wisdom and life-experience. There's never been an anarchistic-movement that wasn't led by a hastily slapped-together poltiburo. That's not anarchy.
Quote from: kit saginaw on November 25, 2013, 09:38:02 AM
Someone bringing rationality to a sociological structure, defeats the anarchistic model. For example, you don't give a 3-year-old equal say on how to manage a farm and protect the family. That's perfect anarchy.
Well, that sounds rather silly.
I join you in denouncing this "perfect anarchy."
Quote
Follow the imperfect model to its final conclusion and you're left with the Never Trust Anyone Over 25-syndrome. Because the elders have the wisdom and life-experience. There's never been an anarchistic-movement that wasn't led by a hastily slapped-together poltiburo. That's not anarchy.
I take issue with your 2nd to last sentence.
There are plenty of examples of anarchy that are horizontal orders. Just look to the various customary law societies.
Or even modern day commercial dispute arbitration.
In comparative politics the most often used model is the left-right libertarian-authoritarian "paradigm" but it is just bs as a ploy to show socialists as liberty loving left wingers in contrast to Stalin and conservatives as authoritarian right wingers up there with Hitler.
First came over this "new" paradigm you describe here waching John Birch Society: Overview of America and in line with occam razor this model is much better because it is so simple and it makes it impossible for socialist to argue that they are for liberty when every edict they want to make transfers more power to the state.
Then again freedom to socialist does not mean the same as to us, to us freedom is private property rights but to the socialists freedom means "ability to make any legislation you want without any hinderance" or something more eloquent to that effect.
You didn't really leave much to be discussed in the OP and you are preaching to the choir here. My own Country of norway would fall in between Social Democracy on small enterprise and agriculture but Corporatist socialism and statism on the commanding heights to varying degrees.
Quote from: Mountainshield on November 25, 2013, 11:09:19 AM
In comparative politics the most often used model is the left-right libertarian-authoritarian "paradigm" but it is just bs as a ploy to show socialists as liberty loving left wingers in contrast to Stalin and conservatives as authoritarian right wingers up there with Hitler.
First came over this "new" paradigm you describe here waching John Birch Society: Overview of America and in line with occam razor this model is much better because it is so simple and it makes it impossible for socialist to argue that they are for liberty when every edict they want to make transfers more power to the state.
Then again freedom to socialist does not mean the same as to us, to us freedom is private property rights but to the socialists freedom means "ability to make any legislation you want without any hinderance" or something more eloquent to that effect.
You didn't really leave much to be discussed in the OP and you are preaching to the choir here. My own Country of norway would fall in between Social Democracy on small enterprise and agriculture but Corporatist socialism and statism on the commanding heights to varying degrees.
Found it in video form, near the end of the video, but well worth the watch overall.
John Birch Society - Overview of America - Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_ciT1psaPc#)
Quote from: kopema on November 24, 2013, 06:17:18 PM
Mmmmm... maybe.
But probably not.
I've reached a stage in my life--WHATEVER WORKS! If government can do better at something, let government do it. (I sure as hell don't want the clowns on any of the state/local goverment authorities trying to fix the nearby INTERSTAE. TRUST ME, the government is not gonna want to do what I do--they have 'contracted' to me for 23 years for my tiny little slice of expertise. If private industry can do it better, let private industry do it! If we go to single payer for health insurance and IT WILL WORK, let them do it. GOVERMENT got us to the moon--NASA was a GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY using private contractors. The PENTAGON
'outsourced' except the fighting 2 wars and PRIVATE INDUSTRY OVERCHARGED and OFTEN FAILED!! From tranports to broken guns to private protection--we paid through the NOSE for all of it and were held HOSTAGE for water and food to the troops unless payment was made when 'audits' clearly found waste, fraud and abuse!
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 01:19:56 PM
I've reached a stage in my life--WHATEVER WORKS! If government can do better at something, let government do it. (I sure as hell don't want the clowns on any of the state/local goverment authorities trying to fix the nearby INTERSTAE. TRUST ME, the government is not gonna want to do what I do--they have 'contracted' to me for 23 years for my tiny little slice of expertise. If private industry can do it better, let private industry do it! If we go to single payer for health insurance and IT WILL WORK, let them do it. GOVERMENT got us to the moon--NASA was a GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY using private contractors. The PENTAGON 'outsourced' except the fighting 2 wars and PRIVATE INDUSTRY OVERCHARGED and OFTEN FAILED!! From tranports to broken guns to private protection--we paid through the NOSE for all of it and were held HOSTAGE for water and food to the troops unless payment was made when 'audits' clearly found waste, fraud and abuse!
NASA contracts with private industry. So does the DoD. This element of competition is what helped us send men to the moon and helps make our fighting forces second to none.
Government acting on its own, however, is what indulges in pork barrel spending, plunders industry, and puts us $17 trillion in debt.
Quote from: Rhea_Markable on November 25, 2013, 04:11:16 AM
I actually managed to make my way through all of that. After reading it... I ask: just what is your question?
[/quote
Doesn't the JACKASS do all the heavy lifting--beast of burden and such?? Actually, it was from a POLITICAL CARTOON from a cartoonist mind so who knows HIS true meaning. Maybe that was all the 'clipart' he had on hand. (PS Their NEW D logo sucks!)
Quote from: taxed on November 25, 2013, 09:07:12 AM
How high have the ocean levels risen?
Over six miles in some places.
Quote from: kopema on November 25, 2013, 02:00:53 PM
Over six miles in some places.
:biggrin:
Only in the shade though, kinda like a flat tire, it's only flat on the bottom.
Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 03:51:26 PM
:biggrin:
Only in the shade though, kinda like a flat tire, it's only flat on the bottom.
I have my snorkel ready...
Quote from: taxed on November 25, 2013, 03:52:56 PM
I have my snorkel ready...
I bought your TEA bagger water-wings.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 09:15:19 PM
Problem: there's a reason why we've grown to separate social and fiscal liberalism and conservatism. You can oppose government regulation in schools and still support the government's right to bust weed dealers and ban sodomy, for example.
And the BIGGIE--wage war!
Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 04:00:52 PM
I bought your TEA bagger water-wings.
Now you're on an enemy list... but they'll keep you afloat!
Quote from: taxed on November 25, 2013, 04:17:04 PM
Now you're on an enemy list... but they'll keep you afloat!
Lib life preserver used once on the Titanic/
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nigelbrown.me.uk%2Fimages%2Fanchor.jpg&hash=2d83fe5661a7479e2ac9e922a94ed8c5f3d5bdcc)
Quote from: kit saginaw on November 25, 2013, 03:40:08 AM
A real-time weather map'll do fer starters. It's -6c (20f) here now, with a wind-chill of -12c (9f).
http://www.toledonewsnow.com/weather (http://www.toledonewsnow.com/weather)
Where's the heat that Gore promised us?
That's not what global warming predicts. Please don't try to talk about something you have no understanding of.
Quote from: taxed on November 25, 2013, 09:07:12 AM
How high have the ocean levels risen?
Before I waste more time with you, why don't you answer this question for me:
How much work does is done on an object along a vector field of varying strength <x^2, 2xy^3, yz^2> in the path <t, t^2, 2t> from t = 1 to t = 3?
This is an elementary problem you would have to be able to solve to even pass a first year physics or engineering course. If you do not know the answer, maybe you should stop trying to learn how to run before you walk, and defer to the opposition...aka
every scientific organization on the planet. Because right now you sound like a drug addled hippie trying to walk into a business executive meeting to tell them how to cut a profit that quarter. Or worse yet, an inbred redneck trying to substitute for a neurosurgeon in a life or death operation.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 26, 2013, 01:08:00 PM
That's not what global warming predicts. Please don't try to talk about something you have no understanding of.
Before I waste more time with you, why don't you answer this question for me:
How much work does is done on an object along a vector field of varying strength <x^2, 2xy^3, yz^2> in the path <t, t^2, 2t> from t = 1 to t = 3?
This is an elementary problem you would have to be able to solve to even pass a first year physics or engineering course. If you do not know the answer, maybe you should stop trying to learn how to run before you walk, and defer to the opposition...aka every scientific organization on the planet. Because right now you sound like a drug addled hippie trying to walk into a business executive meeting to tell them how to cut a profit that quarter. Or worse yet, an inbred redneck trying to substitute for a neurosurgeon in a life or death operation.
First, ya gotta explain your
"How much work does is done"... That's improper sentence-structuring, since you're referencing engineering. The position vector moves as t varies, so there is no 2t. It's F(t) = f(x(t), y(t)), where f(x, y) = 2xy + y3, x(t) = t2 + 3t + 4, y(t) = t2... if that's what you meant by 'path'. The vector-field is parallel to the x-axis and zero on the yz-plane; 2xy. (x2 + y2)2 −. 2yx. (x2 + y2)2. = 0...
So what do vector-fields, divergence-calculus, and line-integrals have to do with meteorological prognostication?
And I've known hippie weed-dealers that hit projected profit-targets like veteran CPA-backed account executives, including 'import' expenses and municipal-airport bribes.
So tell me something about climate-science that I have no understanding of. I can't wait.
Quote from: kit saginaw on November 26, 2013, 04:16:41 PM
First, ya gotta explain your "How much work does is done"... That's improper sentence-structuring, since you're referencing engineering. The position vector moves as t varies, so there is no 2t. It's F(t) = f(x(t), y(t)), where f(x, y) = 2xy + y3, x(t) = t2 + 3t + 4, y(t) = t2... if that's what you meant by 'path'. The vector-field is parallel to the x-axis and zero on the yz-plane; 2xy. (x2 + y2)2 −. 2yx. (x2 + y2)2. = 0...
So what do vector-fields, divergence-calculus, and line-integrals have to do with meteorological prognostication?
And I've known hippie weed-dealers that hit projected profit-targets like veteran CPA-backed account executives, including 'import' expenses and municipal-airport bribes.
So tell me something about climate-science that I have no understanding of. I can't wait.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi93.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl60%2Fvenus160%2FFunny%2FOUCH.gif&hash=ed579bb442886441f87f2835ef5027acf2002717)
Quote from: kit saginaw on November 26, 2013, 04:16:41 PM
First, ya gotta explain your "How much work does is done"... That's improper sentence-structuring, since you're referencing engineering.
This sentence sounds smart but makes no sense whatsoever. I said physics
or engineering, and "work" is not precluded from the latter.
Quote
The position vector moves as t varies, so there is no 2t.
What are you talking about? <t, t^2, 2t> can be the vector equation of a line. The question asks taxed to integrate from t = 1 to t = 3. I don't see how this is confusing.
Quote
So what do vector-fields, divergence-calculus, and line-integrals have to do with meteorological prognostication?
Solar is the same person who once claimed that gases "are not significantly affected by gravity". Taxed himself has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic physics concepts, and the notion that he has the knowledge and expertise to realistically contradict the entire scientific community is simply ridiculous on its face. His attitude towards the issue amongst various threads have demonstrated this quite to my convenience. You're free to look at them if you wish.
Quote
And I've known hippie weed-dealers that hit projected profit-targets like veteran CPA-backed account executives, including 'import' expenses and municipal-airport bribes.
Taxed has based his dismissing of a "mere" 1.5 degrees increase in temperature over the past century on the basis of his personal incredulity and his personal incredulity alone. So you'll forgive me if I contest his argument from "authority" with one of my own.
Quote
So tell me something about climate-science that I have no understanding of. I can't wait.
You tried to disprove global warming theory by pointing to how cold it is over where you are one day in the middle of fall. :rolleyes:
If you're going to remap the political spectrum, why go by half measures?
Go 3D!
X-Axis - Power of the State vs. Power of the Individual
Y-Axis - Focus on the Aristocracy vs. Focus on the Common Man
Z-Axis - Control at whim of current office holders vs. Fixed Framework of Limitations and enumerated powers. (Constitutional Federalism)
You could add other dimensions as well, such as Power at Federal Level, vs. State and Local Government.
The point is, Politics is, and has always been, far too complex to map on a simple sliding scale, or even a group of them.
-
Quote from: Kurmugeon on November 26, 2013, 05:04:23 PM
If you're going to remap the political spectrum, why go by half measures?
Your point notwithstanding this might actually work. Sort of. Maybe.
Quote
X-Axis - Power of the State vs. Power of the Individual
Liberals and conservatives are essentially at the same locations, with liberals maybe slightly further to the left on balance. Patriot Act, NSA, gay marriage, porn, religious worship, death penalty. Libertarians are far, far to the right.
Quote
Y-Axis - Focus on the Aristocracy vs. Focus on the Common Man
Quote
Well liberals are quite far to the "right" over here, reverse for conservatives and libertarians.
Z-Axis - Control at whim of current office holders vs. Fixed Framework of Limitations and enumerated powers. (Constitutional Federalism)
Liberals veer to the right (throughout world and modern history constitutionalism is considered a liberal ideal). Libertarians veer fanatically to the right. Conservatives operate a broad spectrum based on their convenience.
Wow this topic didn't get derailed at all...
Quote from: iustitia on November 27, 2013, 07:28:51 AM
Wow this topic didn't get derailed at all...
Who's fault is that, were you here to make your point and keep it on track? :rolleyes:
I made my point in the opening point. Then after a few snarky comments it devolved into debating global warming. That's my fault?
Quote from: iustitia on November 28, 2013, 10:31:58 AM
I made my point in the opening point. Then after a few snarky comments it devolved into debating global warming. That's my fault?
Reading comprehension an issue as well I see.
"were you here to make your point
and keep it on track?"Three posts, and you have yet to respond to anyone's points.
If you're not going to expand on the topic or your point, then you have no control over where it goes.
I think your comprehension should be questioned here. This topic was created seeking alternatives to or appraisals of my system, not to control the discussion. The fact that virtually nobody actually made relevant points is why there were no responses from me. All I got were rude remarks and internal bickering of global warming. It's fine, though, because I've gotten more than enough feedback on other forums.
Quote from: iustitia on November 28, 2013, 11:07:27 AM
I think your comprehension should be questioned here. This topic was created seeking alternatives to or appraisals of my system, not to control the discussion. The fact that virtually nobody actually made relevant points is why there were no responses from me. All I got were rude remarks and internal bickering of global warming. It's fine, though, because I've gotten more than enough feedback on other forums.
Well you ignored what I tried to tell you, which is that modern political dichotomies reveal a flaw in your system; opinions on government depend as much on the area as they do on the scope. For example, conservatives will gladly support an amendment preventing by law gays from marrying, but God forbid if we try to mandate that people strap their kids in seatbelts before they go out driving! Even though the latter activity poses an objective risk while the latter does not; conservatism is divided between fiscal and social measures. It's not "does this pose a rational risk", but rather "does this conflict with my personal intuitive feelings?"
Quote from: iustitia on November 28, 2013, 11:07:27 AM
I think your comprehension should be questioned here. This topic was created seeking alternatives to or appraisals of my system, not to control the discussion. The fact that virtually nobody actually made relevant points is why there were no responses from me. All I got were rude remarks and internal bickering of global warming. It's fine, though, because I've gotten more than enough feedback on other forums.
Some did respond, you ignored them, but you phrased your questions in biased opinion.
Homelessness for example, is neither social or political, if someone wants to be homeless, that is their option, it's a freedom, if they choose otherwise and wind up homeless by no fault of their own, it is neither the govts responsibility or their neighbors to fix another's station in life.
They are free to seek charity of the church, it worked just fine in our Country's infancy, it wasn't until recently the govt usurped this freedom and community responsibility, and stole taxpayers treasure to raise the finical standing of the poor.
Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2013, 12:07:18 PM
if they choose otherwise and wind up homeless by no fault of their own, it is neither the govts responsibility or their neighbors to fix another's station in life.
They are free to seek charity of the church, it worked just fine in our Country's infancy, it wasn't until recently the govt usurped this freedom and community responsibility, and stole taxpayers treasure to raise the finical standing of the poor.
Look at pre and post welfare poverty rates in various countries, and tell me church charity was working "just fine". Not to mention social welfare hardly includes the abolishment of private charity; just think of it as the free market applied to humanitarian aid.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 12:13:29 PM
Look at pre and post welfare poverty rates in various countries, and tell me church charity was working "just fine". Not to mention social welfare hardly includes the abolishment of private charity; just think of it as the free market applied to humanitarian aid.
Where did I mention "Other Countries"?
Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2013, 01:50:38 PM
Where did I mention "Other Countries"?
American exceptionalism doesn't give you free reign to dismiss all evidence contrary to your claim. And it still applies to the United States - poverty rates were higher prior to welfare. Today, we have both welfare and charity. Nobody said anything about abolishing the latter.
Well to OP, your "new" paradigm isn't new at all, watch the video Solar posted, it has already been discussed many times on this forum. The semantics in trying to combine terms and definitions with few or one historical examples is flawed as you yourself stated in your own post and was pointed out by other posts in this thread...
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 02:25:15 PM
American exceptionalism doesn't give you free reign to dismiss all evidence contrary to your claim. And it still applies to the United States - poverty rates were higher prior to welfare. Today, we have both welfare and charity. Nobody said anything about abolishing the latter.
Your whole argument is flawed because you are not arguing from a conservative perspective, the role of government is not elimination of poverty, equal redistribution of existing wealth or creation of new wealth, the role of government is quote:
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". Like Solar said, poverty is a choice and in the cases it is not a choice the government that secures liberty still allows poverty struck citizens to "pursue" happiness whatever happiness is to those specific individuals be they of material or spiritual nature.
But lets assume your argument is not flawed just for the fun of it, where exactly does wellfare benefit the poor more than the rich? In both France, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway and USA in general over 60-80% of wellfare goes to the middle class and upper classes from which the poor pay comparively more taxes than the middleclass and upper class. (Source: Public Choice III).
But to adress your point directly about "abolishing private charity", you don't need to abolish private charity to eliminate it or reduce it to a insignificant level, when taxation due to wellfare reaches certain amounts the capital private citizens has for charity is reduced which means that the more wellfare you have the less charity you get due to taxation. US citizens pay on average about 10% of their wealth to charity whereas a Froggie or Kraut only gives a pathetic 2% to charity. This means that that the US citizens having more poverty than the average french still gives 5 times more charity than the french. It is innherently immoral and narcissistic to support wellfare rather than charity.
Quote from: iustitia on November 24, 2013, 05:20:57 PM
Let me start by acknowledging my own political sympathies. My beliefs are rooted in classical conservatism and classical *snip*
You could have just pasted this...
The American Form Of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VogzExP3qhI#)
I've posted it several times here, but it bears repeating.
-Darth
Quote from: Mountainshield on November 29, 2013, 02:29:50 AM
Well to OP, your "new" paradigm isn't new at all, watch the video Solar posted, it has already been discussed many times on this forum. The semantics in trying to combine terms and definitions with few or one historical examples is flawed as you yourself stated in your own post and was pointed out by other posts in this thread...
Your whole argument is flawed because you are not arguing from a conservative perspective, the role of government is not elimination of poverty, equal redistribution of existing wealth or creation of new wealth, the role of government is quote: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men".
Like Solar said, poverty is a choice and in the cases it is not a choice the government that secures liberty still allows poverty struck citizens to "pursue" happiness whatever happiness is to those specific individuals be they of material or spiritual nature.
But lets assume your argument is not flawed just for the fun of it, where exactly does wellfare benefit the poor more than the rich? In both France, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway and USA in general over 60-80% of wellfare goes to the middle class and upper classes from which the poor pay comparively more taxes than the middleclass and upper class. (Source: Public Choice III).
But to adress your point directly about "abolishing private charity", you don't need to abolish private charity to eliminate it or reduce it to a insignificant level, when taxation due to wellfare reaches certain amounts the capital private citizens has for charity is reduced which means that the more wellfare you have the less charity you get due to taxation. US citizens pay on average about 10% of their wealth to charity whereas a Froggie or Kraut only gives a pathetic 2% to charity. This means that that the US citizens having more poverty than the average french still gives 5 times more charity than the french. It is innherently immoral and narcissistic to support wellfare rather than charity.
Well said.
Sometimes when responding to him, I feel like it's literally a clash of cultures, where his is a land of OZ, where one individual is a ruler and illusionist that controls all, yet people are still starving, but since he is trying to feed the wretched masses, he is adored and forgiven, even if he does have to kill millions off to feed the populace.
How is it someone could be against Liberty, the Right to supporting ones own existence and or family?
Quote from: Solar on November 29, 2013, 05:45:46 AM
Well said.
Sometimes when responding to him, I feel like it's literally a clash of cultures, where his is a land of OZ, where one individual is a ruler and illusionist that controls all, yet people are still starving, but since he is trying to feed the wretched masses, he is adored and forgiven, even if he does have to kill millions off to feed the populace.
How is it someone could be against Liberty, the Right to supporting ones own existence and or family?
Was watching "The Hunger Games" last night with my wife, and we had a discussion about the system of government they hypothesize in that scifi universe is in practical terms the same type of society the communists, socialists and green environmentalist wants to implement even though in the movie the visuals of such a society is taken to the satirical.
I think they really do pierceve reality through such a contradictory perspective that there is something as a "free lunch" if the government just legislate it and at the same time they embrace the Malthusian perspective of limited resources that we have to lower the standard of living for the masses to a "sustainable" level at the same time as everything from food, clothing, housing, goods, luxuries and work should be provided by the government for free. Liberty play no role in such a defunct brain chemistry.
Quote from: Mountainshield on November 29, 2013, 06:06:11 AM
Was watching "The Hunger Games" last night with my wife, and we had a discussion about the system of government they hypothesize in that scifi universe is in practical terms the same type of society the communists, socialists and green environmentalist wants to implement even though in the movie the visuals of such a society is taken to the satirical.
I think they really do pierceve reality through such a contradictory perspective that there is something as a "free lunch" if the government just legislate it and at the same time they embrace the Malthusian perspective of limited resources that we have to lower the standard of living for the masses to a "sustainable" level at the same time as everything from food, clothing, housing, goods, luxuries and work should be provided by the government for free. Liberty play no role in such a defunct brain chemistry.
The Hunger Games is the perfect example of a leftist Utopia.
They take the economy, destroy it, dole out what few essentials the masses need to survive, and claim there just isn't enough to go around, so many will sacrifice for the greater good.
Quote from: iustitia on November 28, 2013, 11:07:27 AM
This topic was created seeking alternatives to or appraisals of my system, not to control the discussion. The fact that virtually nobody actually made relevant points is why there were no responses from me. All I got were rude remarks and internal bickering of global warming. It's fine, though, because I've gotten more than enough feedback on other forums.
The "topic" was, with all due respect, a randomly-cobbled pile of nonsense.
In Scifi's defense: yes, of course he is a rabid, mindless dogma-spewing psychotard. But he at least occasionally PRETENDS to have something like what a rational person can squint and marginally treat as a lame attempt to make a point that's worth dismantling. That makes someone with no other potential value to society, at the very least, fun to pick on.
You left a vacuum, so the
useful idiot filled it. If you're the most entertaining troll some other forum has to work with, that's their problem.
Quote from: kopema on November 29, 2013, 06:33:49 AM
The "topic" was, with all due respect, a randomly-cobbled pile of nonsense.
In Scifi's defense: yes, of course he is a rabid, mindless dogma-spewing psychotard. But he at least occasionally PRETENDS to have something like what a rational person can squint and marginally treat as a lame attempt to make a point that's worth dismantling. That makes someone with no other potential value to society, at the very least, fun to pick on.
You left a vacuum, so the useful idiot filled it. If you're the most entertaining troll some other forum has to work with, that's their problem.
Quote
It's fine, though, because I've gotten more than enough feedback on other forums.
One has to wonder what in the Hell he is after, since he admits he only wanted feedback.
Quote from: Mountainshield on November 29, 2013, 02:29:50 AM
Your whole argument is flawed because you are not arguing from a conservative perspective,
You're shooting yourself in the foot right here when you admit that your argument is predicated on some "different" manner of thinking, rather than any objective standards.
Quote
the role of government is not elimination of poverty, equal redistribution of existing wealth or creation of new wealth, the role of government is quote: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men".
Don't wax philosophy; "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" may be the ultimate ends but there are a host of intermediate steps that must be addressed to reach such a vague and general set of promises.
Quote
Like Solar said, poverty is a choice
You think 100% of poor children are there because they didn't work hard enough in the previous life, or something?
Quoteand in the cases it is not a choice the government that secures liberty still allows poverty struck citizens to "pursue" happiness whatever happiness is to those specific individuals be they of material or spiritual nature.
Correct; equal opportunity. Hence, quality education for everyone.
Quote
But lets assume your argument is not flawed just for the fun of it, where exactly does wellfare benefit the poor more than the rich? In both France, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway and USA in general over 60-80% of wellfare goes to the middle class and upper classes from which the poor pay comparively more taxes than the middleclass and upper class. (Source: Public Choice III).
Then why is the poverty rate lower?
Quote
But to adress your point directly about "abolishing private charity", you don't need to abolish private charity to eliminate it or reduce it to a insignificant level, when taxation due to wellfare reaches certain amounts the capital private citizens has for charity is reduced which means that the more wellfare you have the less charity you get due to taxation. US citizens pay on average about 10% of their wealth to charity whereas a Froggie or Kraut only gives a pathetic 2% to charity. This means that that the US citizens having more poverty than the average french still gives 5 times more charity than the french. It is innherently immoral and narcissistic to support wellfare rather than charity.
Correct me if I'm wrong but charity has actually increased over the past few years. It's been well documented that poorer people actually give
more of a percent of their wealth, so higher taxes don't decrease humanitarian aid.
Quote from: Solar on November 29, 2013, 06:25:30 AM
The Hunger Games is the perfect example of a leftist Utopia.
They take the economy, destroy it, dole out what few essentials the masses need to survive, and claim there just isn't enough to go around, so many will sacrifice for the greater good.
I'm a full-grown man with a job. So, of course, I've never actually watched any of that crap. As I understand, it all basically boils down to murdering large groups of children in a way that's pretty much like the standard Socialist genocide, but with a just enough competition to make it seem...
fun... or something.
Did you ever notice how much of liberalism could be chalked up to a quest for real-world melodrama?
The phenomenon isn't just limited to daytime TV anymore. A while back I was flipping channels and stopped for a few seconds on an alphabet network "news" show. Anchors used to just be incredibly boring and pedantic, but now they sound like the kind of wildly over-emotional characters that you'd expect to see on a Soap Opera. They can't just feed you information; they also have to let you know (in absolutely no uncertain terms) how the viewer should FEEL about it too.
Quote from: Solar on November 29, 2013, 06:39:32 AM
One has to wonder what in the Hell he is after, since he admits he only wanted feedback.
There seems to be a lot of that lately. Someone (usually a first-time poster) will start a thread with some bizarre political Rorschach blot, and then ponder: "So what do you guys think about this?"
And when we come back with the perfectly honest (and frankly obvious) answer: "That you're an idiot," he flies into a self-righteous snit fit. What's up with that?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 09:36:52 PM
The 1.53 degrees isn't directly hurting your body, dumbass. Research has quantified its significant affect on, for example, firestorm durations and global ocean levels. That you think your gut feeling trumps scientific and mathematical analysis is why you couldn't predict 2012.
You'll have to take my word for it as I was not on the forum prior to the 2012 election, but I had no delusions that the Kenyan would retain office...NONE. The free-lunch party has successfully built a base of supporting takers and, that coupled with the first incumbent, self proclaimed black president
(never have understood the rules associated with that...but I digress), there was not a chance in hell he would be unseated. The only way this destructive cycle ends is when they over-reach and leave a steaming pile of shit that no amount of political perfume can mask.
Now as to your other point... the global climate change topic is yet another crafty lie developed to push the social progressive agenda. I can only applaud you for your failed attempts to help its bald tires keep traction.
Quote from: LIAMD on November 29, 2013, 08:28:02 AM
Now as to your other point... the global climate change topic is yet another crafty lie developed to push the social progressive agenda. I can only applaud you for your failed attempts to help its bald tires keep traction.
You mean every scientific organization of national or international repute (and I do mean "every" literally) is in on a massive collaborative conspiracy that would put 911, JFK and the moon landing to shame?
But it's rather telling you try to poison the well in place of actually debating the merit of the evidence.
Spin, spin, spin... no traction because the curtain has been raised and the deceit exposed. It's also when those complicit in the lie fight even harder...must admit you're amusing.
Quote from: LIAMD on November 29, 2013, 09:32:46 AM
Spin, spin, spin... no traction because the curtain has been raised and the deceit exposed. It's also when those complicit in the lie fight even harder...must admit you're amusing.
OK "LIAMD", so explain how satellite data is consistently registering an increasing ratio of incoming solar radiation to radiation radiated back into space by our planet. Further explain how the radiation balance of the atmosphere registers greater quantities of wavelengths known to be absorbed by CO2. Further explain how additional CO2 content has had increasingly smaller quantities of carbon 13/14, which can be expected by human made, above ground burnings of fossil fuels. This is just one of the numerous chains of evidence you can find from a variety of independent measurement techniques.
Quote from: LIAMD on November 29, 2013, 09:32:46 AM
Spin, spin, spin... no traction because the curtain has been raised and the deceit exposed. It's also when those complicit in the lie fight even harder...must admit you're amusing.
Come on. Liberals stooping to the level of using propaganda? It has never happened; ergo it never possibly can happen.
If a liberal psychotard says that "every smart person on earth" agrees that only the United States paying trillions of dollars a year to Communist China can possibly save planet earth, then it must be true. And if he repeats the same thing a whole, whole, WHOLE bunch of times, then that makes it even more true.
On the other hand, an "international conspiracy" existing solely to hypnotize us all into thinking that Scififan is a gibbering moron who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.... Now that's just good old fashioned common sense. I mean, what OTHER explanation could there possibly be?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 29, 2013, 09:54:54 AM
OK "LIAMD", so explain how satellite data is consistently registering an increasing ratio of incoming solar radiation to radiation radiated back into space by our planet. Further explain how the radiation balance of the atmosphere registers greater quantities of wavelengths known to be absorbed by CO2. Further explain how additional CO2 content has had increasingly smaller quantities of carbon 13/14, which can be expected by human made, above ground burnings of fossil fuels. This is just one of the numerous chains of evidence you can find from a variety of independent measurement techniques.
I am now clearly making the connection between your forum name and your inability to deal in reality. Tell you what; you guys that believe we'd save the planet if we all reverted back to wearing loin cloths, digging grubs, burning our turds as fuel, and living in dirt huts please lead by example. When the rest of us see it's wonders and become enlightened, we'll all follow...promise :wink:. Carry on there Rocket-man :laugh:
Quote from: LIAMD on November 29, 2013, 03:22:48 PM
I am now clearly making the connection between your forum name and your inability to deal in reality. Tell you what; you guys that believe we'd save the planet if we all reverted back to wearing loin cloths, digging grubs, burning our turds as fuel, and living in dirt huts please lead by example. When the rest of us see it's wonders and become enlightened, we'll all follow...promise :wink:. Carry on there Rocket-man :laugh:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsx9EehiUoNRqr3jio4kkqTxaCRu0ZziT9a4tTf-5sMRO4OOVG)
Quote from: kopema on November 24, 2013, 06:17:18 PM
Mmmmm... maybe.
But probably not.
I hope not. I kinda worry about the
LITERALIST! (Sometimes cloaked in the term ORIGINALIST). What does that interpretation mean for SLAVES, WOMEN and even MEN who don't own property??)
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 29, 2013, 04:49:03 PMQuoteMmmmm... maybe.
But probably not.
I hope not. I kinda worry about the LITERALIST! (Sometimes cloaked in the term ORIGINALIST). What does that interpretation mean for SLAVES, WOMEN and even MEN who don't own property??)
Settle down dude. I meant that figuratively.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 24, 2013, 09:22:18 PM
There's no time! We all about to burn to death! 1.53 degrees! Drop and roll! Drop and roll!
I'll conside these #s by the EESI, ENVIRONMENTAL and ENERGY INSTITUTE -- put together by BOTH houses of congress to advise congress. I guess
renewable energy is a commie plot. By the way 3 degrees on this coast--adios!
1.53 degrees doesn't mean anything?? Really? Call me crazy but it looks statisically significant to me even if you and I don't burn to death. And if I don't catch fire and die, its okay?? You might want to ask those folks in the southwestern corner of the country if they are that cavalier about these numbers? We won't even worry about arctic ice in this post.
•Climate change impacts that scale with temperature include sea ice, wildfires, food crop yields, hot summers, precipitation patterns, and streamflow. With each
degree Celsius of warming (up to 4°C),[/b] the following impacts can be expected:
◦5-10 percent less rainfall in the Mediterranean, southwestern North America, and southern Africa dry seasons
◦5-10 percent more rainfall in Alaska and other high latitude northern hemisphere areas
◦3-10 percent increase in amount of rain falling during heaviest precipitation events
◦5-10 percent less streamflow in some river basins, including the Arkansas and Rio Grande
◦5-15 percent reduced yield of U.S. corn, African corn, and Indian wheat
◦15 percent reduction in the annual average of Arctic sea ice area and 25 percent reduction in the yearly minimum
•With each degree Celsius of warming (up to 2°C), a 200-400 percent increase in the area burned by wildfire in parts of the western United States is expected.•With 3°C of warming, about 250,000 square kilometers of coastal land would be lost and many millions more people would be at risk of coastal flooding.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 29, 2013, 07:01:48 AM
You're shooting yourself in the foot right here when you admit that your argument is predicated on some "different" manner of thinking, rather than any objective standards.
Lets assume then that people judge reality out of objective standards and not of prejudices, from an objective standpoint the goals would be which system ensures the most prosperity and liberty being that we are human beings after all then the answer is obviously private property. Throught all of human history the places where private property has been protected has flourished and the states that has embraced statism has only experienced ruin, decay and experienced perpetual democide that continues in most places of the world even today. The objective standards if exist only supports conservatism.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 29, 2013, 07:01:48 AM
You think 100% of poor children are there because they didn't work hard enough in the previous life, or something?
Thats why I said only liberty and private property is the most successfull in allowing the poor to get work in which they improve their own situation, get better education and hence ensures social mobility.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 29, 2013, 07:01:48 AM
Correct; equal opportunity. Hence, quality education for everyone.
And the Standardization school/Common Core is quality education? Are you fucking kidding me? :lol: oh damn I have to use this one at the next party :lol:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 29, 2013, 07:01:48 AM
Then why is the poverty rate lower?
Are you just seeking to win cheap shots at me? :rolleyes:
The poverty rate is lower because of wellfare, the purchasing power of the poor is however higher in the US than Europe due to lower taxes and lower prices. This is not limited to the US, i.e a poor person in Colombia can buy more food with his salary than a Norwegian can.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 29, 2013, 07:01:48 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but charity has actually increased over the past few years. It's been well documented that poorer people actually give more of a percent of their wealth, so higher taxes don't decrease humanitarian aid.
Actually it does as I presented in the post and which you did not counter. That poor people give higher percentage of income than rich does not invalidate that fact.
Quote from: Mountainshield on November 29, 2013, 11:57:48 PM
Throught all of human history the places where private property has been protected has flourished and the states that has embraced statism has only experienced ruin, decay and experienced perpetual democide that continues in most places of the world even today. The objective standards if exist only supports conservatism.
That's complete bullshit. Go ahead and look at the quality of life figures during the late 19th century "guilded" age and compare it to our "statist" modern society. Just how many people were literate? How many went to college? How many born into poverty died middle or upper class people? You have the "progressive" era to thank for laws even you would consider self evident, from banning child labor to implementing the most basic safety and health regulations.
But yes, being able to keep your own private property is essential to your freedom and quality of life; did you receive the impression that this was the
only relevant factor?
Quote
Thats why I said only liberty and private property is the most successfull in allowing the poor to get work in which they improve their own situation, get better education and hence ensures social mobility.
Nobody here except for maybe the "war on drug" and "gay marriage ewww" conservatives are trying to restrict individual liberty, and since I support social welfare and a progressive tax rate how does giving the poor more money reduce their ability to get work and an education? :rolleyes:
Quote
And the Standardization school/Common Core is quality education? Are you fucking kidding me? :lol: oh damn I have to use this one at the next party :lol:
Our education system is shit, but if you turn the conservative delusional rout it'll be even
more shit; you have people on this very board actually suggesting that schooling as a concept is useless and that we should just go back to the 18th century model of private room and boards. There's a reason why I'm going to ask the following question and it's going to be rhetorical: can you name a single industrialized nation in human history that succeeded without a public education system?
Quote
Are you just seeking to win cheap shots at me? :rolleyes:
The poverty rate is lower because of wellfare, the purchasing power of the poor is however higher in the US than Europe due to lower taxes and lower prices. This is not limited to the US, i.e a poor person in Colombia can buy more food with his salary than a Norwegian can.
I'd be genuinely interested in reading your source for this.
Quote
Actually it does as I presented in the post and which you did not counter. That poor people give higher percentage of income than rich does not invalidate that fact.
No, the fact that we have a welfare system does not abolish but rather compete with the private charity system. Charity has existed for all of human history and yet strangely the poverty rate has decreased dramatically following implementation of social welfare.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1076.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw441%2FKrellkneen%2Ffailed-war-on-poverty_0_zps6b817995.jpg&hash=7ea0111f035529181f5ea168d84acab028946360)
I'm going to give you a chance to spot the flaw in your graphic's title.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 30, 2013, 01:48:07 PM
I'm going to give you a chance to spot the flaw in your graphic's title.
Fancy the chances we would give you?