Remember me
▼ Content

Here in China, anyone who talks about global warming will be labeled a liberal and arrested and locked up



Page 1 of 212>
Here in China, anyone who talks about global warming will be labeled a liberal and arrested and locked up11-02-2016 18:38
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
So I have no idea why Americans are so gullible about global warming. Perhaps Americans have become too soft.

Edited on 11-02-2016 18:39
18-02-2016 17:24
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
No comment.
18-02-2016 17:31
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
I'm "no. 14 on the list of most active users" even though I haven't posted here for a few days.
That's how worthwhile it is posting here.
18-02-2016 20:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Earthling wrote:
I'm "no. 14 on the list of most active users" even though I haven't posted here for a few days.
That's how worthwhile it is posting here.

So how is it you allow warmizombies like Patriot AKA Bozo bend you over his knee and spank you time and time again?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-02-2016 22:53
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
I didn't know bozo was here.
18-02-2016 23:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Earthling wrote:I didn't know bozo was here.

I didn't say he spanked you here.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2016 01:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Earthling wrote:
I didn't know bozo was here.


And what has that got to do with the price of cheese on Luna?


The Parrot Killer
19-02-2016 05:19
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
I'd like to see Greenpeace try their liberal BS in China. They never dare do that in China, India, Russia. They only dare do that in western European countries, North America, Australia.
Edited on 19-02-2016 05:23
19-02-2016 13:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I'd like to see Greenpeace try their liberal BS in China. They never dare do that in China, India, Russia. They only dare do that in western European countries, North America, Australia.

Strangely, PETA never protests the flourishing fur trade in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, etc..


...and where are the women protesting for equivalence in this region? Aren't liberals aware that there are far greater disparities in this part of Asia?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: A readership of 1319-02-2016 13:34
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Only 13, not all of whom bother responding.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
14-09-2016 00:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
... I fail to see how liberalism is such an awful thing that just being associated with it makes any argument fall down. Also, and in an unrelated note, I am in fact liberal. So the idea that "not locking up people who we disagree with" is bad makes me actually scared. Green Scare anyone? "If you think that the world is doomed to a heat extinction, we'll lock you up!"
14-09-2016 01:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
jwoodward48 wrote:
... I fail to see how liberalism is such an awful thing that just being associated with it makes any argument fall down. Also, and in an unrelated note, I am in fact liberal. So the idea that "not locking up people who we disagree with" is bad makes me actually scared. Green Scare anyone? "If you think that the world is doomed to a heat extinction, we'll lock you up!"


Then you fail to see.


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2016 03:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Are you kidding me? How is liberalism so obviously bad that it deserves all of zero words to describe its badness?

Also, I never said that liberalism wasn't bad, I said that it's not bad enough that like Hitler, any association with it makes the argument awful, evil, and invalid. There's a difference. Unless the world is black and white... I live in the gray.
Edited on 14-09-2016 04:01
14-09-2016 05:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Still waiting on a response.

How is liberalism so bad that it deserves to be criminalized?
Edited on 14-09-2016 05:26
14-09-2016 21:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Still waiting, Into. What do you mean by your post.
14-09-2016 21:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Still waiting on a response.

How is liberalism so bad that it deserves to be criminalized?


Because it constantly breaks the law to achieve its ends today.

It wasn't always so.

The United States has this thing called the Constitution. So do each of the States. The purpose of these documents is to define and limit the agents they create. In the case of the federal document, the States authorize this contract and they own it. The Constitution defines specifically what the new agency (the federal government) can do, and everything else they can't do. It also defines how the agency is to be organized.

The agency cannot redefine the contract set up by the owners (the States).

Both parties attempt to do so all the time. The problem with today's liberals is that they are far worse at it. They actively want to destroy the Constitution completely and replace it with their own oligarchy. To this end they have been largely successful.

They have been pretty successful in the individual States as well.

It is the reason the nation is so polarized today and in such turmoil.

Trump is not going to fix it. He can't. He will do far less damage to it than Hillary and Bill though.

The President is only part of the problem. The bulk of the problem is in Congress.


The Parrot Killer
14-09-2016 21:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
How exactly are liberals trying to "destroy the Constitution"? Don't give me answers like "gun control". We have amendments for a reason.
15-09-2016 15:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:How exactly are liberals trying to "destroy the Constitution"? Don't give me answers like "gun control". We have amendments for a reason.

They want to prohibit people from giving the answers as to how liberals are trying to destroy the Constitution, e.g. gun control.

Why do you feel the need to shut "gun control" from the conversation?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 17:42
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Because the militia needed to be made up of the people, and they didn't have enough money as a government back then, they allowed people to have whatever guns. A necessary evil, in my mind.

But now, the military needs tanks and ICBMs. Should the people be allowed those too? No! Do the people need assault rifles? No! The world changes, and if laws cannot change with it, we will be left behind.
15-09-2016 18:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote: Because the militia needed to be made up of the people, and they didn't have enough money as a government back then, they allowed people to have whatever guns.

Aaaah, so if I go back and read the 2nd Amendment a little more closely I'll find the fine print that clarifies that the right to bear arms, to prevent a tyrannical government, goes away once the tyrannical government acquires enough money to legitimize its tyranny.

I'll go check right now.

jwoodward48 wrote: A necessary evil, in my mind.

So your hoplophobia is the problem, not the inanimate objects of your irrational fear.

jwoodward48 wrote: But now, the military needs tanks and ICBMs. Should the people be allowed those too?

Aaaah, so if I go back and read the 2nd Amendment a little more closely I'll find the fine print that clarifies that the right to bear arms is tied to the US military that was yet be established, as a baseline for what arms are to be permitted.

I'll go check right now.

jwoodward48 wrote: Do the people need assault rifles?

What's an assault rifle?

I'll answer that for you. An assault rifle is any firearm whose mean/cool/awesome/slick appearance excessively riles a gun-craven's hoplophobia.

i.e. it's a purely superficial and subjective term used by dishonest leftists to magnify their fear-mongering hype.

It's not enough that they choose to not have any firearms themselves, they need to render ALL law abiding citizens defenseless in the face of violent crime, even if it means destroying the Constitution. Gun cravens endanger ALL law-abiding citizens.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 18:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Why should it stop there? Why can't I get a tank? Why can't I install a giant ****ing nuclear warhead launcher in my backyard?

There is a necessary degree of control over civilian weapons. Civilians should not be allowed to use nuclear weapons. Civilians can kill with stones, and the black market will always exist, so some type of firearm should be legal. The position of the line drawn somewhere between that is the controversial part - no sane person wants everyone to have nuclear weapons. No sane person would disallow stones. I am mostly fine with the current gun control; I am arguing for it because people are arguing against it. If I do not tug the rope, they will bring us back to worse gun laws.

And besides that, am I walking to your home and stealing your guns? No? Then according to the First Amendment, I am doing nothing illegal. Free speech, remember? Or does that not count as part of the Constitution?

Disagreements exist. I am not trying to lock you up. Kindly give me the same decency. Do you know what that word means?

I would like to end with one word: amendment. (The Constitution can and should be changed to react to the changing world. Do you think that the 19th amendment could have been part of the original Constitution? Do you think that adding it later on was "destruction of the Constitution"?)
15-09-2016 19:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote: Why should it stop there? Why can't I get a tank? Why can't I install a giant ****ing nuclear warhead launcher in my backyard?

Great question. I support your ability to own a tank, as long as you aren't tearing up the asphalt with it.

I don't support the possession of extremely hazardous materials/toxins/biomatter.

By the way, if your approach is to convince others to be equally terrified of inanimate objects, you are bound to be highly unconvincing. If your approach is to resort to fear-mongering, you aren't likely to be convincing.

Can you tell me why leftists want the government to prohibit me from protecting my family in my home? Does the answer have to do with "gun phobia"?

Can you tell me why leftists want me to not be able to hunt with whatever firearm I wish? Does the answer have to do with "gun phobia"?

Can you tell me why leftists want my only option in traversing a dangerous neighborhood / bad section of town to be "unarmed"? Does your answer have to do with "gun phobia"?

jwoodward48 wrote: There is a necessary degree of control over civilian weapons.

I notice you switched to the passive voice. "There is a need ..."

Let me check ... nope, I don't have any such need to have my personal firearm inventory micromanaged by ..., ... would that be the government you're talking about?

Let me get this straight. The founding fathers, based on their experience that tyrannical governments begin their tyranny by rounding up all the weapons, intended for the 2nd Amendment to grant any future tyrannical government the vested power to round up all the weapons?

Did I get that right?

jwoodward48 wrote:No sane person would disallow stones. I am mostly fine with the current gun control; I am arguing for it because people are arguing against it. If I do not tug the rope, they will bring us back to worse gun laws.

Let me ask you, how many mass shootings occurred where the victims were armed?

On an unrelated note, are you FOR creating more gun-free zones?

Additionally, are you against open carry laws? Are you FOR making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get the firearms they prefer?

jwoodward48 wrote:And besides that, am I walking to your home and stealing your guns?

Leftists are too cowardly for that. They push for the government to do that.

jwoodward48 wrote: Then according to the First Amendment, I am doing nothing illegal. Free speech, remember? Or does that not count as part of the Constitution?

Did you just attempt an amendment shift?

jwoodward48 wrote:I would like to end with one word: amendment.

OK, but which one are we on?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 21:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Because the militia needed to be made up of the people, and they didn't have enough money as a government back then, they allowed people to have whatever guns. A necessary evil, in my mind.

But now, the military needs tanks and ICBMs. Should the people be allowed those too? No! Do the people need assault rifles? No! The world changes, and if laws cannot change with it, we will be left behind.


You fail to see the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

The militia (which still exists) and the people are two different things.

The founders recognized two things.

First, the States needed to protect themselves. The new Federal government (which was created by the States and is owned by them collectively), was prohibited from preventing a State from forming militias to protect themselves.

Secondly, the Federal government was limited from preventing the PEOPLE to protect themselves.

Protection for the States, AND protection for the people. The Federal government has NO authority to mess with this.

The 2nd amendment is actually superfluous. The powers the Federal government is given is described in Article 1, Section 8. They have no other power (except for what was specifically granted to them by amendment).

Since then, the agent created by this Contract of the States has decided it wants to be the master of it's own destiny and seized power beyond that granted by the States.

We have little more than an oligarchy now.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2016 21:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Why should it stop there? Why can't I get a tank? Why can't I install a giant ****ing nuclear warhead launcher in my backyard?
It doesn't stop there. You can have a giant ****ing nuclear warhead launcher in your backyard as long as it doesn't violate local zoning laws.
jwoodward48 wrote:
There is a necessary degree of control over civilian weapons. Civilians should not be allowed to use nuclear weapons.
Why not?
jwoodward48 wrote:
Civilians can kill with stones,
True. Stones are cheaper, too.
jwoodward48 wrote:
and the black market will always exist,
A great example of why the free market is immortal. You can't kill it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
so some type of firearm should be legal.
Fine. Using this logic, since you can buy nuclear warheads on the black market (you have to know where to go), I should be able to have one.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The position of the line drawn somewhere between that is the controversial part - no sane person wants everyone to have nuclear weapons. No sane person would disallow stones. I am mostly fine with the current gun control; I am arguing for it because people are arguing against it. If I do not tug the rope, they will bring us back to worse gun laws.
The basic trouble with this argument is WHO decides what the line is? The Federal government has no power to define any such line. All but two States have no such power either, according to their own constitutions.

What if I build a rock launcher that hurls a rock close to the speed of light? That effectively turns a rock into a nuclear warhead. I'm still just using a rock. Only the launching device has changed.

Whether it's a snowball, a rock, a dagger, a baseball bat, a sword, a shurikan, a muzzle loading gun, a semiautomatic pistol, a rifle that can accurately place a bullet a mile away, a fully automatic gun, a bomb, a nuclear warhead, a high speed rock launcher, there is NOTHING that describes any kind of line of what is a 'legitimate' arm and a 'non-legitimate' arm. There is also NOTHING that absolves me of the responsibility for having or using that type of arm.


jwoodward48 wrote:
And besides that, am I walking to your home and stealing your guns? No? Then according to the First Amendment, I am doing nothing illegal. Free speech, remember? Or does that not count as part of the Constitution?
Theft is not free speech. Theft is theft, and the States have all the authority they need to pass laws against it.

The Constitution of the United States does not grant rights. That is not the purpose of the document. It's purpose is to define an agency created by the States, how it is organized, and what powers it has.

The constitutions of the individual States operate the same way. The people of that State have created an agency, defined how it is organized, and what powers it has. The People OWN the State constitutions, just as the States OWN the federal Constitution.

The People retain all rights, except for they've specifically granted to the powers of their State government, including the power to negotiate a contract to create a federal agency we call the U.S. government.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Disagreements exist. I am not trying to lock you up. Kindly give me the same decency. Do you know what that word means?

I would like to end with one word: amendment. (The Constitution can and should be changed to react to the changing world. Do you think that the 19th amendment could have been part of the original Constitution? Do you think that adding it later on was "destruction of the Constitution"?)


The amendment process is built right into the Constitution. If it is followed, the Constitution stands as modified. It is no different for a State constitution.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-09-2016 22:00
16-09-2016 00:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I don't actually want to argue gun law. I am kind of torn on it myself. (Keep on insulting, IB, I don't care.) I am really not the most liberal person on gun laws. More moderate myself.

Keeping in mind that governments pretty much always become corrupt, I find myself partially agreeing with you. Reducing the government's ability to become the only power around is good, especially when Citizens United pretty much allowed the corporations to bribe infinitely, in effect a sort of merge of the government and the corporations.

Can you give some other example of how I, as a liberal who does not particularly support gun laws, am still so awful that I should be locked up?
Edited on 16-09-2016 00:32
16-09-2016 01:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I don't actually want to argue gun law. I am kind of torn on it myself. (Keep on insulting, IB, I don't care.) I am really not the most liberal person on gun laws. More moderate myself.

Keeping in mind that governments pretty much always become corrupt, I find myself partially agreeing with you. Reducing the government's ability to become the only power around is good, especially when Citizens United pretty much allowed the corporations to bribe infinitely, in effect a sort of merge of the government and the corporations.

Can you give some other example of how I, as a liberal who does not particularly support gun laws, am still so awful that I should be locked up?


If you wish me to show you the ugly things the Democratic party has done, it's going to get nasty. Are you sure you want to go there?


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2016 02:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Remember my off topic post about the Gray? My own personal goal, pretty much? Part of it is reaching the understanding that few things are black and white. If liberals seem white, I have a problem.

So I can handle this. I could use an opinion from outside the Blues, regardless of whether I believe you or not. To do otherwise would be ignoring a potentially-true statement simply because the speaker isn't in my ingroup. That is, I'd be biased. Besides, ideals and real-life organizations are often at odds. I can be liberal while believing that most liberals are "no true Liberal," where true is defined as my type. Heh. Funny. That's another reasonable statement that sounds like a fallacy, except now I'm saying it. Funny how it seems so obviously okay when it comes from me. Wonders of the human mind.
Edited on 16-09-2016 02:26
17-09-2016 05:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
TL;DR: yes, I would like to hear what the Dems have done. (Btw, though, I'm pretty disenchanted with the Democratic Party, so what you say may not be news to me.)
17-09-2016 17:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:I don't actually want to argue gun law.

That's the point. You won't recognize the issue for what it is, i.e. individual protection and state protection from tyranny, of their persons and their liberties

You want the states and the people to be at the mercy of an omnipotent Federal government and of violent crime so you just dismiss the entire topic as merely "gun law" and hope the discussion just goes away.

... and then you will demonize those who don't want to be at the mercy of an invasive, omnipotent government and violent crime, and who don't let the discussion just go away.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-09-2016 18:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What I am saying is that I do not strongly support gun laws! You want to talk about other "infringements of freedoms"? Go ahead! Gun law discussion is unlikely to produce any fruits for anybody, me or you or Into. (Mostly because I can't put up a good defense for them, but I've already been convinced by other people to be more moderate. I'm not coming over to the Right on this. I can't teach you anything. I've already been taught as much as I can handle. Let's move on...)
17-09-2016 21:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
jwoodward48 wrote:. I can't teach you anything. I've already been taught as much as I can handle. Let's move on...)

What is clear as that you need me to blame for your denial and your EVASION.

You are intellectually dishonest. Period.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-09-2016 21:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
jwoodward48 wrote:
TL;DR: yes, I would like to hear what the Dems have done. (Btw, though, I'm pretty disenchanted with the Democratic Party, so what you say may not be news to me.)


They actively move the nation further and further away from a republican form of government by installing oligarchies everywhere they can. These implement fascist policies and rules over a large sector of society. (No, fascism is NOT necessarily Nazism).

They fail to uphold the law, and actively try to subvert the law.

They are the founders of the Ku Klux Klan. They are the most racist SOBs in the United States. Obama himself has taken racism back 50 years. He has even turned against his own race by continuing to preach victimhood to them. In many ways he is directly responsible for the increasing racial violence against cops.

Guns ARE an issue. That can't be ignored, much as you don't want to talk about it. Hillary wishes to override the 2nd amendment completely.

They have built a complex web of 'protections' and divided the nation while violating the 1st amendment doing it. You are not allowed to speak out against politically unpopular subjects without persecution by the government.

They create an atmosphere of changing 'laws' and rules so that no one knows which way to plan anything. By leaving the various constitutions, there is no 'ground' anymore. It is government by oligarchy, driven by the wind and the personal desires of a few people.

They try to micromanage businesses, sectors, and even whole economies. They fukc up doing it every time. No one can micromanage these things successfully. It always brings the same misery and pain.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 00:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Here's my personal theory.

The rich and powerful are to blame for pretty much every problem, at least partially. You wouldn't even be considering these anti-global-warming thoughts if real science hadn't been drowned out by corporate-funded pseudoscience. Unlike the government, corporations are free to silence any studies that they run. So when the 1% of studies that don't support GW becomes the 100% of displayed studies, science is wrecked.

The country is slipping to the right. Rights and freedoms are being taken away, and discrimination is increasing. Why? Because liberals compromise, and conservatives don't. Hillary is a neo-liberal - basically a moderate. Stein and Sanders were the only true liberals on the ballots, and of course the DemParty wouldn't let either win.

The left and right, though, are so opposed to each other that they can't see the real Big Bad - rich people. There is a conspiracy of interests. They are the oligarchy, not liberals.
Edited on 18-09-2016 00:24
18-09-2016 01:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The funding of research and universities is crucial for America to stay competitive in the global market.
18-09-2016 01:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Here's my personal theory.

The rich and powerful are to blame for pretty much every problem, at least partially. You wouldn't even be considering these anti-global-warming thoughts if real science hadn't been drowned out by corporate-funded pseudoscience. Unlike the government, corporations are free to silence any studies that they run. So when the 1% of studies that don't support GW becomes the 100% of displayed studies, science is wrecked.

The independents I refer to are self-funded, and retired from any corporate or government program.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The country is slipping to the right.
Not true.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Rights and freedoms are being taken away, and discrimination is increasing. Why?
Because the country is hauling ass to the left.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Because liberals compromise,
The Democrats (with few exceptions) have been in power for eight-five years.
jwoodward48 wrote:
and conservatives don't.
They have done nothing but. I am disgusted with these rhinos and wimps.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Hillary is a neo-liberal - basically a moderate.
She's about as moderate as Pol Pot.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stein and Sanders were the only true liberals on the ballots, and of course the DemParty wouldn't let either win.
No, Sanders openly admitted he was a socialist, unlike Hillary, who lies about it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The left and right, though, are so opposed to each other that they can't see the real Big Bad - rich people. There is a conspiracy of interests. They are the oligarchy, not liberals.

corporations have to satisfy its customers and its investors. They are no an oligarchy. To claim they are is redefining what an oligarchy is.

An oligarchy is a government (not a corporation or business) that is a dictatorship made up of not one dictator, but several.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 01:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I don't see most customers at Wal-Mart asking about the sweatshops producing its goods, and becoming unsatisfied by the answer. Nor do I see most investors doing the same.

A government is a "governing body." To govern is to "conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of a state." I don't see anything in there about "except corporations." If the corporations have control over the policy and affairs of a state, as they do ([s]yay citizens united[/s]), then by definition they are the government. Due to their attributes, they are a plural dictatorship - an oligarchy.

Any more terms you need me to Google?
18-09-2016 07:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I don't see most customers at Wal-Mart asking about the sweatshops producing its goods, and becoming unsatisfied by the answer. Nor do I see most investors doing the same.

A government is a "governing body." To govern is to "conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of a state." I don't see anything in there about "except corporations." If the corporations have control over the policy and affairs of a state, as they do ([s]yay citizens united[/s]), then by definition they are the government. Due to their attributes, they are a plural dictatorship - an oligarchy.

Any more terms you need me to Google?


No. Googling stuff you redefine is senseless.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 07:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The funding of research and universities is crucial for America to stay competitive in the global market.


No.

Private educational institutions can do a far better job.

Our best people come from private educational institutions.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 08:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
How did I redefine "government"?
18-09-2016 10:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
jwoodward48 wrote:
How did I redefine "government"?


Don't play innocent with me. That won't work anymore and it's only pissing me off more.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Here in China, anyone who talks about global warming will be labeled a liberal and arrested and locked up:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
I dare Greta Thunberg to come to China or India2003-10-2019 18:02
UN Climate Talks1604-07-2019 23:11
I am in China. China is not corrupt like western countries.2002-06-2019 03:31
I am currently in China and no one cares about CO2 so why should028-05-2019 15:06
Is climate China's key to global domination?2904-05-2019 02:07
Articles
Appendix C - China's Environmental Crisis
Appendix A - Tracing China's Climate Policy
Analysis - Explaining China's Climate Policy
The Dependent Variable - How Ambitious Is China's Climate Policy
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact