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  .  Carry on there Rocket-man 

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  .  Carry on there Rocket-man 

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 PM

QuoteMmmmm... 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?  oh damn I have to use this one at the next party 

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? 
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.