Remember me
▼ Content

Man-Made Causes



Page 4 of 6<<<23456>
08-04-2017 13:07
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Are you saying that the family farm produces food less well than the corperations?


No not at all. I'm saying corporations will have the deeper pockets than a family farm, allowing them to hold and store grain, waiting for high market prices to sell. This will farther drive up grain and food prices.

Agree on marginal land, although there isn't much of that around here where I live.


So all those farms on marginal land will stop and the ones where you live will then thrive. ALthough they may well have to accept lower yeilds per acre and use less intensive, less costly production techniques. Maybe different crops.

The corperations need to make a profitthe same as the family farm.

This thing about futures trading and holding onto produce waiting for a hgher price. Once you actually have the stuff harvested and inspectable there must be a way to finance it.
08-04-2017 18:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
I think that if the govenment get sout of farming the family farm will look like a sensable economic business plan over the dodgy financing of the corperate management structures.

Are you saying that the family farm produces food less well than the corperations?

I don't care who grows the stuff. I care that we should not be driving the price up.

If the price is below production costs then the marginal land will stop being farmed. OK. If we stop driving the price up the only land being farmed will be the most economic to do so given the then even lower price than now. Good thing. Unless you are a farmer.


Tim, there is nothing new about industrial farming. The strongest reason we had slavery in the US for so long was cotton. This was an industrial farming technique.

I should note that the worst enemy of the corporate farm was industrialization which would have made it FAR cheaper to use machines for pick and process cotton than using slaves. So the slave trade was on it's way out. Only 1% of people in the south owned slaves and only 20% of those slave holders had more than one slave. Emancipation proclamation or no all slaves would have been free in another decade or so. Question - what do you suppose blacks would feel like if they were thrown out on the street because of automation?
08-04-2017 18:43
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: So the slave trade was on it's way out. Only 1% of people in the south owned slaves and only 20% of those slave holders had more than one slave. Emancipation proclamation or no all slaves would have been free in another decade or so. Question - what do you suppose blacks would feel like if they were thrown out on the street because of automation?

I agree. However, minority white rich people would (& still do) wish their workers (of whatever color) to work at sub-survival rates, while the rich are NOT described as millionaires any longer, but as billionaires.
08-04-2017 19:20
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1391)
litesong wrote:
minority white rich people would (& still do) wish their workers (of whatever color) to work at sub-survival rates, while the rich are NOT described as millionaires any longer, but as billionaires.


Another typical liberal feels entitled to someone else's money.

I hire people all the time. Said work for said compensation. You know what? They have the right to negotiate higher or say no.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
08-04-2017 19:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
minority white rich people would (& still do) wish their workers (of whatever color) to work at sub-survival rates, while the rich are NOT described as millionaires any longer, but as billionaires.


Another typical liberal feels entitled to someone else's money.

I hire people all the time. Said work for said compensation. You know what? They have the right to negotiate higher or say no.


I suggest that you do not respond to Chief Dumbass. He probably has so little native American in him that he is not considered to be native American but in his insanity he will believe anything he wants to believe.

The sign of a psycho is multiple postings to himself not to mention that idiotic prologue. Don't even waste your time reading anything he has to say.
08-04-2017 19:51
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I think that if the govenment get sout of farming the family farm will look like a sensable economic business plan over the dodgy financing of the corperate management structures.

Are you saying that the family farm produces food less well than the corperations?

I don't care who grows the stuff. I care that we should not be driving the price up.

If the price is below production costs then the marginal land will stop being farmed. OK. If we stop driving the price up the only land being farmed will be the most economic to do so given the then even lower price than now. Good thing. Unless you are a farmer.


Tim, there is nothing new about industrial farming. The strongest reason we had slavery in the US for so long was cotton. This was an industrial farming technique.

I should note that the worst enemy of the corporate farm was industrialization which would have made it FAR cheaper to use machines for pick and process cotton than using slaves. So the slave trade was on it's way out. Only 1% of people in the south owned slaves and only 20% of those slave holders had more than one slave. Emancipation proclamation or no all slaves would have been free in another decade or so. Question - what do you suppose blacks would feel like if they were thrown out on the street because of automation?


My personal view is that the slave system was the thing holding back the automation of cotton farming.

If a new machine came along which rendered your primary asset of zero value your mortgage is suddenly more than your worth. How much opposition do you think all the cotton growers had tp that?

That the mechanisiation of cotton picking happend in a decade shows that it was being repressed somehow.

Slavery is s system which is very difficult to change swiftly. The use of freemen as the labour force means that they themselves are always keen to learn new skills and embrace change far more than any other system.
08-04-2017 19:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
minority white rich people would (& still do) wish their workers (of whatever color) to work at sub-survival rates, while the rich are NOT described as millionaires any longer, but as billionaires.


Another typical liberal feels entitled to someone else's money.

I hire people all the time. Said work for said compensation. You know what? They have the right to negotiate higher or say no.


Fair point but you do need an element of progressive taxation or wealth redistribution.

The natural tendancy for the rich and powerful to get more so has to be countered or we will end up in an aristocracy with the rest of us as serfs.
08-04-2017 19:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I think that if the govenment get sout of farming the family farm will look like a sensable economic business plan over the dodgy financing of the corperate management structures.

Are you saying that the family farm produces food less well than the corperations?

I don't care who grows the stuff. I care that we should not be driving the price up.

If the price is below production costs then the marginal land will stop being farmed. OK. If we stop driving the price up the only land being farmed will be the most economic to do so given the then even lower price than now. Good thing. Unless you are a farmer.


Tim, there is nothing new about industrial farming. The strongest reason we had slavery in the US for so long was cotton. This was an industrial farming technique.

I should note that the worst enemy of the corporate farm was industrialization which would have made it FAR cheaper to use machines for pick and process cotton than using slaves. So the slave trade was on it's way out. Only 1% of people in the south owned slaves and only 20% of those slave holders had more than one slave. Emancipation proclamation or no all slaves would have been free in another decade or so. Question - what do you suppose blacks would feel like if they were thrown out on the street because of automation?


My personal view is that the slave system was the thing holding back the automation of cotton farming.

If a new machine came along which rendered your primary asset of zero value your mortgage is suddenly more than your worth. How much opposition do you think all the cotton growers had tp that?

That the mechanisiation of cotton picking happend in a decade shows that it was being repressed somehow.

Slavery is s system which is very difficult to change swiftly. The use of freemen as the labour force means that they themselves are always keen to learn new skills and embrace change far more than any other system.


You are looking at this totally backwards. What good are slaves if your neighbor mechanized and took your customer base away?
08-04-2017 20:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
minority white rich people would (& still do) wish their workers (of whatever color) to work at sub-survival rates, while the rich are NOT described as millionaires any longer, but as billionaires.


Another typical liberal feels entitled to someone else's money.

I hire people all the time. Said work for said compensation. You know what? They have the right to negotiate higher or say no.


Fair point but you do need an element of progressive taxation or wealth redistribution.

The natural tendancy for the rich and powerful to get more so has to be countered or we will end up in an aristocracy with the rest of us as serfs.


You most assuredly do not. Unionization and employers looking out for their own good is all it takes and government is the enemy of both.

Henry Ford changed the entire world by paying his workers a wage so that they TOO could afford to buy their own cars. Can you explain why the government should order this?

The government is the enemy of the people. It absorbs huge amounts of gross national product and produces almost nothing. We need it to provide public education and military protection and almost nothing else.
09-04-2017 00:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
minority white rich people would (& still do) wish their workers (of whatever color) to work at sub-survival rates, while the rich are NOT described as millionaires any longer, but as billionaires.


Another typical liberal feels entitled to someone else's money.

I hire people all the time. Said work for said compensation. You know what? They have the right to negotiate higher or say no.


Fair point but you do need an element of progressive taxation or wealth redistribution.

The natural tendancy for the rich and powerful to get more so has to be countered or we will end up in an aristocracy with the rest of us as serfs.


You most assuredly do not. Unionization and employers looking out for their own good is all it takes and government is the enemy of both.

Henry Ford changed the entire world by paying his workers a wage so that they TOO could afford to buy their own cars. Can you explain why the government should order this?

The government is the enemy of the people. It absorbs huge amounts of gross national product and produces almost nothing. We need it to provide public education and military protection and almost nothing else.


I think we will have to disagree on that.

I think I have said before on this forum that I am a liberal, possibly even something of a social democrat. Odd to find myself describing myself as that given that in the 1980's I was a Thacherite (right wing of UK politics) and whilst I have not changed my views at all I find myself on the left of British politics.
09-04-2017 01:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
minority white rich people would (& still do) wish their workers (of whatever color) to work at sub-survival rates, while the rich are NOT described as millionaires any longer, but as billionaires.


Another typical liberal feels entitled to someone else's money.

I hire people all the time. Said work for said compensation. You know what? They have the right to negotiate higher or say no.


Fair point but you do need an element of progressive taxation or wealth redistribution.

The natural tendancy for the rich and powerful to get more so has to be countered or we will end up in an aristocracy with the rest of us as serfs.


You most assuredly do not. Unionization and employers looking out for their own good is all it takes and government is the enemy of both.

Henry Ford changed the entire world by paying his workers a wage so that they TOO could afford to buy their own cars. Can you explain why the government should order this?

The government is the enemy of the people. It absorbs huge amounts of gross national product and produces almost nothing. We need it to provide public education and military protection and almost nothing else.


I think we will have to disagree on that.

I think I have said before on this forum that I am a liberal, possibly even something of a social democrat. Odd to find myself describing myself as that given that in the 1980's I was a Thacherite (right wing of UK politics) and whilst I have not changed my views at all I find myself on the left of British politics.


And to the distinct left of most of the people of Great Britain who intend to Brexit. If you doubt the power of that group watch what happens if the Parliament refuses to act on that vote more rapidly than they have been doing.

Inasmuch as the farmers of Great Britain are not being subsidized to any extent why would you be arguing that there is any food being taken off of the market by a government?
09-04-2017 02:11
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1391)
The natural tendancy for the rich and powerful to get more so has to be countered or we will end up in an aristocracy with the rest of us as serfs.


And it is the said goal if liberals to take more money and give more power to the federal government. Who will counter them?

More of us, including us, should really study what made the US a great nation. It was in fact the people, with limited gov that has made us great. It was a great experiment, never tried before, that went so perfectly well. Why we ever decided to go the opposite direction is way beyond stupid.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
09-04-2017 06:01
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed:
litesong wrote:
minority white rich people would (& still do) wish their workers (of whatever color) to work at sub-survival rates, while the rich are NOT described as millionaires any longer, but as billionaires.

I hire people all the time.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" ken't hol' on ta good workers fer da mon'y it pays. & it still ken't call itself a millionaire. Mus' be all da low-ball gas it burns.
09-04-2017 06:31
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1391)
Fair point but you do need an element of progressive taxation or wealth redistribution.


Wealth redistribution makes me puke. It is penalizing success. Period. And then people like Litehead bitch about rich people, when wealthy in fact are paying the bills.

Wealth redistribution in pure form would look like this...

WalMart......poor person in front of you in line purchases a $100 item.
He slides his card with his tax bracket code embedded in his debit card.
His total with sales tax comes to $101 and he's out the door.

You purchase the exact same item.
Your tax bracket is embedded in your card.
Your total comes to $155, and you're out the door wondering why you bust your ass like you do.

If I were president of this great nation, my first item of business would be an executive order making it illegal for employers to withhold taxes from paychecks. At tax time everyone would be responsible for writing that check to the IRS. I think a lot of people would wake up to the insane shit show we call government.

What does all this have to do with climate change and global cooling? I have no idea.



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 09-04-2017 06:33
09-04-2017 06:55
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed:
Fair point but you do need an element of progressive taxation or wealth redistribution.

Wealth redistribution makes me puke.

Must be all the rich caviar ya been suckin' down. Got any other richman diseases?
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" doesn't care that rich people redistributing wealth building of scientists, technologists, secretaries, blue collars & min. wage earners, into the pockets of upper crustees. Yeah, so much wealth redistributing goin' on, that millionaires are now billionaires. & what are all these 100 million dollar bonus, stock option & retirement packages for the undeserving upper crust paper shufflers & people shovers? & the Hedge Funds dumping billions of dollars into the hands of one person? More wealth redistribution away from the large majority who build company wealth.
09-04-2017 06:57
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1391)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed:
Fair point but you do need an element of progressive taxation or wealth redistribution.

Wealth redistribution makes me puke.

Must be all the rich caviar ya been suckin' down. Got any other richman diseases?
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" doesn't care that rich people redistributing wealth building of scientists, technologists, secretaries, blue collars & min. wage earners, into the pockets of upper crustees. Yeah, so much wealth redistributing goin' on, that millionaires are now billionaires. & what are all these 100 million dollar bonus, stock option & retirement packages for the undeserving upper crust paper shufflers & people shovers? & the Hedge Funds dumping billions of dollars into the hands of one person? More wealth redistribution away from the large majority who build company wealth.


Ignorance on full display.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
09-04-2017 12:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Fair point but you do need an element of progressive taxation or wealth redistribution.


Wealth redistribution makes me puke. It is penalizing success. Period. And then people like Litehead bitch about rich people, when wealthy in fact are paying the bills.

Wealth redistribution in pure form would look like this...

WalMart......poor person in front of you in line purchases a $100 item.
He slides his card with his tax bracket code embedded in his debit card.
His total with sales tax comes to $101 and he's out the door.

You purchase the exact same item.
Your tax bracket is embedded in your card.
Your total comes to $155, and you're out the door wondering why you bust your ass like you do.

If I were president of this great nation, my first item of business would be an executive order making it illegal for employers to withhold taxes from paychecks. At tax time everyone would be responsible for writing that check to the IRS. I think a lot of people would wake up to the insane shit show we call government.

What does all this have to do with climate change and global cooling? I have no idea.


Yes, i thnik we have wandered off topic a bit but what the hell...

I have only respect for those who have made their money themselves. Good luck to them and you.

The issue for me is one of inherited wealth. If the situation is that your son needs to go to university but the fees are that he must pay $200,000 up front he cannot.

Today that is sort of overcome.

However today your son will need to work and earn money when he leaves. The rich man's son will do 5 years of internship and when your son and his compete fro the best jobs which lead to the actual power and leadership of society your son will find the door closed.

Tax has to be raised from somebody. Taxing the dead seems the best over taxing work.
09-04-2017 17:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The natural tendancy for the rich and powerful to get more so has to be countered or we will end up in an aristocracy with the rest of us as serfs.


And it is the said goal if liberals to take more money and give more power to the federal government. Who will counter them?

More of us, including us, should really study what made the US a great nation. It was in fact the people, with limited gov that has made us great. It was a great experiment, never tried before, that went so perfectly well. Why we ever decided to go the opposite direction is way beyond stupid.


What gives me pause is that I come from a family of small farmers. All of most of them had their land stolen out from under them by the government to be used to build more housing so that the government could collect more taxes.

City regulations stopped us from having a food garden and keeping chickens.

Now we hear from Tim that more government is better because they protect us from the occasional rich man who competition can put out of business. But of course nothing can put the government out of business.

So tim - all hail the powerful government.
09-04-2017 18:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The natural tendancy for the rich and powerful to get more so has to be countered or we will end up in an aristocracy with the rest of us as serfs.


And it is the said goal if liberals to take more money and give more power to the federal government. Who will counter them?

More of us, including us, should really study what made the US a great nation. It was in fact the people, with limited gov that has made us great. It was a great experiment, never tried before, that went so perfectly well. Why we ever decided to go the opposite direction is way beyond stupid.


What gives me pause is that I come from a family of small farmers. All of most of them had their land stolen out from under them by the government to be used to build more housing so that the government could collect more taxes.

City regulations stopped us from having a food garden and keeping chickens.

Now we hear from Tim that more government is better because they protect us from the occasional rich man who competition can put out of business. But of course nothing can put the government out of business.

So tim - all hail the powerful government.


No. There is a mouch more intelligent argument about how society works and is governed than just the size of said governement.
09-04-2017 18:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
No. There is a much more intelligent argument about how society works and is governed than just the size of said government.


You're quite right Tim, the problem is that it doesn't work and never has. And never will. When you hand power over your own life to someone else they cannot help themselves but to grow to think that they know better than you.
09-04-2017 21:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
I don't normally get involved in the political discussions, but I would like to point out that the US is one of the very few countries in which the state is actually permitted to kill its own citizens in the form of capital punishment as well as locking more of them in prison per capita than any other country. The "land of the free" rhetoric does ring a bit hollow sometimes.
09-04-2017 22:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Surface Detail wrote:
I don't normally get involved in the political discussions, but I would like to point out that the US is one of the very few countries in which the state is actually permitted to kill its own citizens in the form of capital punishment as well as locking more of them in prison per capita than any other country. The "land of the free" rhetoric does ring a bit hollow sometimes.


China kills more prisoners than we do.

As far as incarceration rates are concerned, a simple number tells almost nothing. It doesn't say WHY the U.S. locks up so many people (as opposed to just killing them.

If you're going to get involved in political discussions, you'll find that quoting statistics from various governments (many of which lie, many of which report a statistic by itself without showing why the statistic occurred).

There are two basic reasons we incarcerate more than other nations:

1) We have a drug problem.
2) We are losing the 'drug war'.
3) We have many juveniles locked (and included in the statistics) due to gangs, drugs, and poverty in the inner cities. They usually get out in less than a year to re-offend again.

ALL failures of the Democrats.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-04-2017 22:30
09-04-2017 23:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
I don't normally get involved in the political discussions, but I would like to point out that the US is one of the very few countries in which the state is actually permitted to kill its own citizens in the form of capital punishment as well as locking more of them in prison per capita than any other country. The "land of the free" rhetoric does ring a bit hollow sometimes.


You obviously don't get involved because you have no idea what you're talking about. 38% of all murders are committed by black gang members. Usually over drug turf. My brother's answer to it is to give every addict the best dope he can find anywhere for free. Let him have clean needles and all the drugs he could want. And the problem will take care of itself. Given free access to drugs the vaste majority of addicts will overdose within a month.

Another 42% of murders are committed by Hispanic drug gangs and almost all of them are illegal aliens.

So without the drug gangs - black and Hispanic - the USA would be the third safest and lowest crime country in the world.

But we're all sure that you're more than willing to argue with that because you don't normally get involved in political discussions.
10-04-2017 00:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
There's really not much point arguing with someone who invents their own statistics and whose reasoning amounts to: if you don't count the people who commit crimes, we'd have the lowest crime rate.
10-04-2017 00:58
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1391)
I agree with the drug problem solution. They'll either be dead or hot rock bottom, which is what turns a lot of people clean. Problem is we're not willing to step over them lying in the street. We have to have a gov funded safety net on every corner. We don't let people get to the bottom, we try to "save" them from stupidity. It can't be done. Rock bottom turned my life when I was 25 digging in my couch cushions for change to buy a loaf of bread. Hey dumb dumb! Time to find a job.
10-04-2017 01:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
There's really not much point arguing with someone who invents their own statistics and whose reasoning amounts to: if you don't count the people who commit crimes, we'd have the lowest crime rate.


Gee, just like the global warming BS of yours you don't know how to go to the FBI crime statistics and know how to interpret them. Now that's a big surprise.
10-04-2017 01:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I agree with the drug problem solution. They'll either be dead or hot rock bottom, which is what turns a lot of people clean. Problem is we're not willing to step over them lying in the street. We have to have a gov funded safety net on every corner. We don't let people get to the bottom, we try to "save" them from stupidity. It can't be done. Rock bottom turned my life when I was 25 digging in my couch cushions for change to buy a loaf of bread. Hey dumb dumb! Time to find a job.
10-04-2017 01:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I agree with the drug problem solution. They'll either be dead or hot rock bottom, which is what turns a lot of people clean. Problem is we're not willing to step over them lying in the street. We have to have a gov funded safety net on every corner. We don't let people get to the bottom, we try to "save" them from stupidity. It can't be done. Rock bottom turned my life when I was 25 digging in my couch cushions for change to buy a loaf of bread. Hey dumb dumb! Time to find a job.


I have heard of people "getting clean" but I've never seen it. Not only am I living on the edge of Oakland but my brother died from drugs - not from the drugs immediately but from the damage to his heart. He died at something like 45. I played in several bands as bass player and backup singer and every single one of all of those bands died at the latest in their 50's. And every one of them said the same thing, "I can handle it."
10-04-2017 01:54
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1391)
Exactly...you can lead a horse to the water.....
10-04-2017 05:14
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed:
...you can lead a horse to the water.....

Exactly, you can lead an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner to water but you can't wash away its old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner filth.
Edited on 10-04-2017 05:15
10-04-2017 05:29
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1391)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed:
...you can lead a horse to the water.....

Exactly, you can lead an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner to water but you can't wash away its old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner filth.


What Litehead meant to say was this,
I know we disagree on damn near everything, but I'm truly sorry for the loss of your brother and and the family turmoil the drugs surely caused. My condolences.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
10-04-2017 12:33
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
No. There is a much more intelligent argument about how society works and is governed than just the size of said government.


You're quite right Tim, the problem is that it doesn't work and never has. And never will. When you hand power over your own life to someone else they cannot help themselves but to grow to think that they know better than you.


We have publicly funded roads. Privaye ones don't work.

We have publicly funded parks. I like that.

We have publicly funded education. I like that.

We have publicly funded police and courts and jails. I like that.

We have publicly funded incaceration of dangerous nutters and the lick. Do you want the mad wandering about randomly killing people?

We have publicly funded care for the mad in gemneral (not good enough but..) I like that.

We have publicly regulated water supplies and ensurace of qulaity. I like that.

We have publicly funded regulation of polution. I don't want the chemical plant to spew toxic crap into the river. Oversight of this might need a tweak.

I do want some additional state. I want a law that says it is considered the same as being on oath when you claim something or present something as science.

That is you can go to jail for lying and calling it science.
10-04-2017 15:41
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1391)
Tim,
As conservatives, we do support gov to create and provide a few things.
1. Infrastructure
2. Public safety and national defense.
3. Education


We have publicly funded roads. Privaye ones don't work.
Infrastructure

We have publicly funded parks. I like that.
Iffy

We have publicly funded education. I like that.
Education


We have publicly funded police and courts and jails. I like that.
public safety

We have publicly funded incaceration of dangerous nutters and the lick. Do you want the mad wandering about randomly killing people?
public safety


We have publicly funded care for the mad in gemneral (not good enough but..) I like that.
Public safety

We have publicly regulated water supplies and ensurace of qulaity. I like that.
infrastructure

We have publicly funded regulation of polution. I don't want the chemical plant to spew toxic crap into the river. Oversight of this might need a tweak.
Public safety

I do want some additional state. I want a law that says it is considered the same as being on oath when you claim something or present something as science. That is you can go to jail for lying and calling it science.
Can't agree on that one. Once you squelch the right to say something, you head down a path of tyranny. I would even defend the rights of Lifebeer to speak whatever brain fart comes out today. However, I could support it if the scientist was gov funded, even if that funding was at only at 1%.

But, you may not be the lib you think you are.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 10-04-2017 15:49
10-04-2017 16:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Can't agree on that one. Once you squelch the right to say something, you head down a path of tyranny. I would even defend the rights of Lifebeer to speak whatever brain fart comes out today. However, I could support it if the scientist was gov funded, even if that funding was at only at 1%.

But, you may not be the lib you think you are.


We do not have the unrestircted right for free speach as is. The law of libel stops us saying something about somebody else unless we can back it up.

The freedom of speach would not be restricted but when you call it science you would be in a similar position to being on oath. That's all. Just not allowed to say a falsehood and know it was false. I would even have an exception of playing devil's advocate, better tell the ethics committe before hand though.
10-04-2017 17:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
We have publicly funded roads. Privaye ones don't work.

We have publicly funded parks. I like that.

We have publicly funded education. I like that.

We have publicly funded police and courts and jails. I like that.

We have publicly funded incaceration of dangerous nutters and the lick. Do you want the mad wandering about randomly killing people?

We have publicly funded care for the mad in gemneral (not good enough but..) I like that.

We have publicly regulated water supplies and ensurace of qulaity. I like that.

We have publicly funded regulation of polution. I don't want the chemical plant to spew toxic crap into the river. Oversight of this might need a tweak.

I do want some additional state. I want a law that says it is considered the same as being on oath when you claim something or present something as science.

That is you can go to jail for lying and calling it science.


I live in California. In the last five years they have raised several taxes three times and have just now raised gas taxes, already the highest in the nation, another $0.12/gal and doubled license and registration fees to fix the roads. They have never ONCE "fixed the roads" to the point where you can't even ride a bicycle down many of the since they are filled with potholes. Instead they have used the extra funds for city services for illegal aliens.

They have been shutting down parks and their services such as mobile home campers etc. People have been staying as long as possible in these parks and then shifting to other parks because there is no affordable housing. Americans are put far, far behind illegal aliens in California and many cities have councils that voted to become "sanctuary cities". This is illegal and these councilmembers should be arrested and put in jail. But as I said, Americans come last.

Our police are ordered to do as little as possible. They do not ticket the most blatant traffic violations except running red lights and since the cops are not on the street they don't even catch most of those.

Are you unaware that we have had people being killed on the freeways for the fun of it? Not intergang warfare but innocent people just driving down the roads. The cops often label this as "road rage" but it's funny that no one did that until the illegal aliens in this state hit the 10 million level. In short since illegals are a protected species they do what they want without fear. They haven't even solved the last 15 freeway shootings despite having camera footage of them.

Here they do not have hospitals specifically for crazy people. They do not even fund the Veterans hospitals - these are all Federally funded. We have 6 billion dollars presently in financial shortfall and have another 550 billion in unfunded liabilities including putting illegal aliens through college. Citizens have to pay their own way.


We had two dams fail this last winter and the water supplies have never been properly controlled despite the fact that we get droughts every six to ten years.

The largest pollution cases in the last eight years were CAUSED by the EPA.

That isn't the way science works. Virtually all science is presenting theories and theories are just that - wild ass guesses. So if most of these were spoken out loud they would be false science. But without having a theory to test you cannot prove it false which in itself is a positive finding.

Government is the most dangerous thing on this planet. Increasing it's power is wish slavery upon yourself.
10-04-2017 17:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Can't agree on that one. Once you squelch the right to say something, you head down a path of tyranny. I would even defend the rights of Lifebeer to speak whatever brain fart comes out today. However, I could support it if the scientist was gov funded, even if that funding was at only at 1%.

But, you may not be the lib you think you are.


We do not have the unrestircted right for free speach as is. The law of libel stops us saying something about somebody else unless we can back it up.

The freedom of speach would not be restricted but when you call it science you would be in a similar position to being on oath. That's all. Just not allowed to say a falsehood and know it was false. I would even have an exception of playing devil's advocate, better tell the ethics committe before hand though.


What do you believe "the laws of libel" to be? You CANNOT be put in jail for libeling anyone and that includes the President.

Science is advanced by being wrong as much as by being right.
10-04-2017 19:05
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Can't agree on that one. Once you squelch the right to say something, you head down a path of tyranny. I would even defend the rights of Lifebeer to speak whatever brain fart comes out today. However, I could support it if the scientist was gov funded, even if that funding was at only at 1%.

But, you may not be the lib you think you are.


We do not have the unrestircted right for free speach as is. The law of libel stops us saying something about somebody else unless we can back it up.

The freedom of speach would not be restricted but when you call it science you would be in a similar position to being on oath. That's all. Just not allowed to say a falsehood and know it was false. I would even have an exception of playing devil's advocate, better tell the ethics committe before hand though.


What do you believe "the laws of libel" to be? You CANNOT be put in jail for libeling anyone and that includes the President.

Science is advanced by being wrong as much as by being right.


You can be bakrupted.

I have no trouble with scientists being wrong. Very occaisionally a scientist lies. More often a manager of a science body lies. Very often a news organisiation lies as to what the scientist has said.

i do not consider the requirement to be honest an imposition on the branch of human activity that relies on honesty more than anything else.
10-04-2017 19:11
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1391)
i do not consider the requirement to be honest an imposition on the branch of human activity that relies on honesty more than anything else.


You are in effect trying to legislate integrity.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 10-04-2017 19:12
10-04-2017 19:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
i do not consider the requirement to be honest an imposition on the branch of human activity that relies on honesty more than anything else.


You are in effect trying to legislate integrity.


Exactly. You most assuredly cannot legislate Freedom of the Press out of existence. And that's where the real problem lies. The media is more than willing to lie to support ANY liberal cause.

How many people here support AGW? Four. And not one of them is a scientist. And every one of them will lie or misrepresent any piece of science to support their religion of AGW.
10-04-2017 19:49
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: And not one of them is a scientist.

AGW advocates told you your exponents were not correct & you tried to bulldoze people, because you were embarrassed that your bent mathematics were caught. It is AGW denier liar whiners who are the least numbered scientists & mathematicians. It is so lonely, "wake-me-up" makes up data.
Edited on 10-04-2017 20:32
Page 4 of 6<<<23456>





Join the debate Man-Made Causes:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Man-Made CO2?2630-08-2019 22:36
Florida Man...121-08-2019 20:51
There is no evidence there is global warming, either natural or man made8006-08-2019 19:38
No man can fool god.028-04-2019 18:43
How can hippies beat CO2? CO2 is power of nature? Man is nothing compared to nature.224-02-2019 22:55
▲ 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