...if the left could prove that man-made global warming was dangerous, and there was a solution to be found to the global warming "problem", the solution wouldn't arrive via socialist edicts, the free market would find it.

First off, thanks for proving my point. You have no interest in hearing about any problem that turns your political ideology on its head. This pretty much seals the deal of what your motives actually are.

Which problem would that be? The correlation between man-made activity (industry) and global warming remains scientifically unproven. Plenty of theories, NO demonstrable proof. This would be fine, except the alarmists wish to radically change the world to suit their "vision" in aforementioned ways. Not just tomorrow but 100 years from now. We've seen this collectivist BS repackaged and resold over and over again, and the result is always the same: central planning by elites = failure.

My "motive" is this: I wish to live free, it's my GOD-given right to live free. Or, if you prefer, it's a NATURAL right to live free, and this right cannot be "revoked" by any legit government. Pure anarchy doesn't work, so a free society surrenders some freedom to achieve the maximum amount of freedom possible.

Now along come the warming alarmists. They have declared, in hysterical fashion, that our dynamic ever-changing global climate now poses a threat because it isn't doing what they assumed it would do, without even knowing what is "normal". By some accounts, we're way past due for another ice age.

Private property rights and free markets have proven they're the best ways to manage both themselves and the "common good", which too often is code for non-competitive hangers-on and government incompetence. Capitalism creates ecologically-friendly goods when they're what consumers want. Capitalism creates new, more efficient technologies.

Does this mean capitalism is perfect? NOPE. Humans are selfish and regulation is necessary, but the latter is not a "solution" to all of life's problems any more than capitalism.

In the case of global warming, just for the sake of this discussion, assume that yes, burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming, and that global warming is in fact detrimental to humans.

Then there's still no easy answer. The burning of fossil fuels has made a high standard of living for nations which in turn grow food and build technology to sell to less advanced nations. Global warming (or cooling) simply cannot be detrimental to all humans at the same time. So assuming--for the sake of argument--that the alarmists' theories were somehow proven, there is still no solution, only trade-offs.

Free markets and private property rights are not utopian. HOWEVER, while they may not self-correct to the exacting standards of some, they're a hell of a lot more responsive and 'organic' than governments, whose motives are all over the map.

The most effective way to deal with such a problem for capitalists is simply deny the problem actually exists. Your problem is you desperately want there to not be a problem to fit your capitalist ideology, so you will not ever be convinced that global warming is real and human influenced. This is largely because if it is real, it likely cannot be dealt with using market forces solely, and your ideology will be irreparably destroyed.

This is just a silly ad hominem attack. One more time: the direct correlation between man-made activity (industry) and global warming remains scientifically unproven. Plenty of theories, NO demonstrable proof.

No, heropsycho, I have no interest in personally labeling anyone, as if that would solve anything.

>> ^quantumushroom:

BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week?

You really don't know anything about this subject, do you? There is a difference between predicting a trend and predicting a specific instance. I can say with a reasonable certainty that there will be more sunshine in the 3 months of summer than in the 3 months of winter, but it's much harder to predict whether a given day will be sunny or rainy.

The problem is that climate science is actually really complicated. It's governed by chaotic equations (equations where a small variance in input leads to a large variance in output), and it has to deal with the entire planet. Despite all that, I have yet to see one climate scientist actually come out on the oil companies deniers sceptics side. On the other hand, you have some fool aristocrat with barely a high school maths certificate

So what your saying is no matter how much scientific evidence is given to you, you won't change your mind. Why?

Bring forth some genuine scientific evidence to match the claims.

Tweaked data, theories and worst-case scenario computer models that suggest a direct correlation between man-made warming activity and a rise in global temperature are not scientific evidence.

A consensus is also not scientific evidence. A consensus is a bunch of people sharing a certain idea. At one time the consensus was the earth is flat.

I've never disputed global warming (which was the original alarmist battle cry, now downgraded to "climate change") OR global cooling, as both occur in cycles over millions of years.

Because it doesn't fit your ideology. I don't automatically distrust science because some science is corporate sponsored, and some is gov't sponsored.

The burden of proof is always on the instigator of tyranny. You do have the wherewithal to see where the man-made global warming "religion" is going, don't you? Finally the global tyrants have a way to unite the world. Now they can regulate and micromanage all industry the world over, from which crops will be planted to how many houses may be built to what vehicles will be allowed on the roads. If they had an actual thermostat to regulate earth's temperature precisely I'd hardly trust them with that either.

A good experiment is a good experiment regardless of who sponsored it. What are you gonna do? Trust no science at all because every experiment has designers and participants with potential secondary motives?!

I keep waiting for an 'experiment' from the alarmists that doesn't have its conclusions already in place and loud voices declaring all debate over before the opposing side is even allowed to speak.

Science rarely proves something 100% of the time because it's so hard to account for every variable. If you did an experiment about gravity, you may inadvertently introduce other variables that alter the results, such as wind, or magnetism. So some conflicting evidence is expected. But the majority of the evidence suggests a human element to global warming, and global warming is real.

One-World socialist government based on a "suggested" link between a human element which cannot be quantified (how much human activity changes the earth's temperature and by how many degrees?) does not appeal to me.

BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week? Furthermore, how does the left know that global warming--man-made or otherwise--is not beneficial?

Per netrunner's hokum, if the left could prove that man-made global warming was dangerous, and there was a solution to be found to the global warming "problem", the solution wouldn't arrive via socialist edicts, the free market would find it.


http://videosift.com/video/Saddam-s-WMD-were-moved-to-Syria

There is no way any good liberal would entertain the notion that Saddam moved WMDs into Syria under the cover of a humanitarian mission. Yet the possibility exists and might undermine the narrative of the 'anti-war' left. Invincible ignorance in your court.

Or you could try living in reality.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Yawn. Global warming is debunked. Every premise they have ever had is falling flat on its face.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global
-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/0
7/29/polar-bear-researcher-under-investigation-for-integrity-issues/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
How many of these climiate alarmists have to be brought up on charges, placed on administrative leave, have their findings utterly discredited, or otherwise be proven to be a bunch of liars before the Warmers give up and just admit that humans are NOT the drivers of whatever climate change may or may not be happening?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Yawn. Global warming is debunked. Every premise they have ever had is falling flat on its face.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global
-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/0
7/29/polar-bear-researcher-under-investigation-for-integrity-issues/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
How many of these climiate alarmists have to be brought up on charges, placed on administrative leave, have their findings utterly discredited, or otherwise be proven to be a bunch of liars before the Warmers give up and just admit that humans are NOT the drivers of whatever climate change may or may not be happening?


http://mgilbert.net/ostrich.jpg

Yawn. Global warming is debunked. Every premise they have ever had is falling flat on its face.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/29/polar-bear-researcher-under-investigation-for-integrity-issues/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

How many of these climiate alarmists have to be brought up on charges, placed on administrative leave, have their findings utterly discredited, or otherwise be proven to be a bunch of liars before the Warmers give up and just admit that humans are NOT the drivers of whatever climate change may or may not be happening?

When I speak of "God" to Christians, I usually speak to them in terms of a colloquial personal god, and sometimes I use the Einsteinian meaning of creation or nature. I find it bizarre, and frankly a bit misleading, to use it to mean their fundamental teachings and their effects. That's very bizarre indeed.

Quick point of information: it's not volunteerist society; it's voluntaryist society. I don't want you thinking I'm talking about people volunteering out of the goodness of their hearts to run some form of public works projects.

Just like your bizarre and revisionist definition of God, you're also following a bad trend of modern society to change the definitions of free markets to suit a political end; in your case, conflating free markets with the negative impacts of corporatists. When I point out the differences, you loudly profess that you don't care if you're painting the two with the same broad brush. That's where ignorance begins, dft. And ignorance isn't a moral high ground.

Free markets are as idealistic and utopian as freedom itself. There's no more an invisible deity that guides free people to make free choices than there's an invisible hand guiding their free exchanges.

1. Wait, wait, wait. I never said selfishness was a virtue while empathy and compassion was evil. Please don't put words in my mouth. That said, what assertions in favor of free markets require evidence? That they've helped humanity? I think you mean capitalism. There are loads of examples, dft. The entire industrialized revolution which lifted poorer generations out of poverty is a good place to start. Today live longer, healthier lives which is the result of capitalism. Even Karl Marx understood the necessity of capitalism in the betterment of human lives and saw it as an evolution.

2. Corporations are fair-weather. They enjoy regulated markets as long as they're regulated in a way that benefits them. Corporations hate competition, which is the cornerstone of free markets. There's absolutely zero connection between corporations and free markets (i.e., the free and voluntary exchange of people without coercion).

3. My view isn't "utopic"; it's the real definition. You speak here again about capitalism, which is dangerous, I agree. Corporations collude with government to use unilateral aggression in areas of the world that have plentiful natural resources. It's robbery. It's greed. And it's horrendous. And I stand in open opposition to it. But to me this is ultimately the failing of government and the centralized bank system, but that's a whole other conversation.

4. Meh.

5. Doesn't matter. If we have to change the definition of free markets, then so be it. We had to change the definition of liberal from it's original meaning to now embody anti-liberals like yourself.

6. Surely. But go back and read what you initially wrote. Comes off as alarmist and paranoid.

7. No. This was about government "implementing" reforms as being part of the free market. You're changing the criteria now. I would NOT agree that "taking power away from labor" is a principle of the free markets. Remember, free markets are voluntary exchanges between people without coercion.

8. I have no idea what you're getting at. This started with a comment about chaos where there's no taxation. Still irrelevant.

9. Hahaha. Talk about utopian! That's what we have today.

Nah, you don't need to purchase the book for me. I can do that myself. And, to be honest, I don't want to give you a reading assignment, because I doubt that will benefit our differences in world beliefs.

And I know you're more of a Social Democrat than a Docialist. Funny thing, the social democrat is disliked by both the Libertarians and the Marxists equally. Marxists tend to think Social Democrats perverted the socialist movement. Marxists and Libertarians (don't think the party) have a lot in common in terms of how they view human interactions and the evolution of human society. Tangent.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I argue with Christians, I sometimes use the word God, which is occasionally confusing to them considering the fact that I don't believe in God. When I refer to God, I'm not really talking about God, but rather Biblical doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of its adherents. Abstractly I don't object to an all knowing, all loving God that answers prayers and reunites you with your loved ones after death, but I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of God. If you were to say, "it's not God's fault", you would be correct.

Similarly, when I speak of "free markets", I am not talking about your idealized utopic vision of a volunteerist sociecty, I am actually referring to market doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of it's adherents. Abstractly I don't object to a volunteerist utopia. Abstractly I don't object to any utopia. The problem is that I don't believe in utopia - be it one with invisible hands or one with invisible deities. I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of unfettered markets.

It's not the Free Market's fault.

1. Concepts do not have the capacity for thought or emotion, nor the ability to speak, so I agree with you that free markets do not state anything, however, it's adherents - Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and yourself - in defense of free markets assert their affection for greed and selfishness, while cursing the evils of empathy, compassion and dogooderism. They never provide any evidence to support these assertions, and real world evidence seems to contradict these assertions.

2. I understand that corporatism has no place in your utopic vision of a free market, but that doesn't seem to stop corporations from bankrolling the free market movement. I'm not sure if corporations think they exist within the spirit of the free market or if they are just using the free market as a tool to manipulate people into supporting plutocracy. Either way, corporatism and the free market are in completely solidarity on subjects of taxes, deregulation, privatization and organized labor.

3. Again, I understand that violence and coercion have no place in your utopic vision, but in the real world, as illustrated in great detail in The Shock Doctrine, coercion and force seem to be the only reliable methods of forcing market principles of austerity on an unwilling public.

4. Again, I understand that concepts are not capable of promoting ideals, but adherents to free market ideology use anti-scientific arguments against climate change regulation. I would respect their arguments more if they were based on the principle that regulations should not be used, even in the face of environmental disaster. It wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, but at least it would have some integrity.

5. Write off corporatists and Republicans all you like, but they outnumber you by the billions. If you are all fighting for 'free markets', whose vision of the free market do you think will win the day? Probably not yours.

6. Keeping people from joining together is a time honored totalitarian tactic. I can cite you examples if you need them.

7. Would you agree that deregulation, privatization, taking power away from labor and lowering taxes are free market principals? Is there some reason why these principles should not function as you intend them to if they are implemented by force? Milton Friedman has lavished much praise on the free market reforms put in place by authoritarian regimes. Only one of you can be correct, and I'm siding with you on this one.

8. An unregulated market is an unregulated market is an unregulated market.

9. A better system: A balance of 'pro employee' socialism with 'pro employer' capitalism where free enterprise is allowed to thrive, but abuse of labor, the economy, the political system or the environment is not.

10. This is pretty much the same as 5, but I wanted to make it an even 10, so....

11. Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?


I know you said you didn't want to be spoonfed by a liberal, which I took to mean you don't want to read about "The Shock Doctrine" from the person who wrote "The Shock Doctrine". How's about a bargain, if you read the book, I'll promise to read something you care about of similar length. Freidman? Adam Smith? Selma Von Heyak? Whatever you want me to read, so long as it is a legit, important mainstream book. Also, I'd send you the book in the mail so you don't have to give your money to some pinko commie bitch, and I'll use my own cash to buy 'Road to Serfdom' or whatever it is you want me to read. It's only appropriate for the socialist* to give his book away, while purchasing the capitalist book.

Fair?

In all honesty, I think you'd get a lot out of the book. All of the dirty deeds are carried out by governments, corporations and Chicago based economists. None of it lives up to your ideal of a free market and all of it could be correctly defined as statism. It really makes sense of our foreign policy; which nations are chosen and why; why every president seems to have to have his own conflict... I'm officially anti-Libya now (I'm sure your happy to hear this) because the CIA is a recurring theme in all of these tales and they are usually the ones that teach strategic foreign allies how to torture, kill and disappear anyone who stands up to the despotic puppet of choice. The only negative you might get out of the book is seeing how closely Friedman works with the government, the right wing and despotic dictators. It's all cited and footnoted. If Chomsky were into some nasty shit, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd want to know.

Have a bitchen summer. - dft

*dft is not really a socialist. He wants a system that balances the rights of the worker with the rights of the boss.

>> ^rottenseed:

name me one woman devoid of dick because of the social image of beauty, and I'll show you a broad who is unfuckable by anybody's standards...
What I mean to say, in a less crass fashion now, is that I like what I like, despite what these ads tell me is beautiful. I think a majority of men will agree that the love of their lives aren't represented by these ideals of beauty, rather they fulfill their own interests and fetishes. Unfortunately, in America, there's not a shortage of obese people perpetuating the gene pool, so that just goes to show you that these ads mean nothing other than to those that decide to make them an issue.
>> ^bareboards2:
I agree that it is terrible that this is happening to men now. I don't think that is progress, I think it is a disease that is spreading.
The point you are missing, though, is that these are the VAST MAJORITY of the images that women see. Pay attention to the next movie or TV show you watch. How many "normal" guys are cast in parts? How many "normal" women?
While you are watching, switch the genders in your mind and imagine a woman who is of the same attractiveness level as the men. I think it will shock you when you realize that you see normal looking men ALL THE TIME and rarely do you see normal looking women.
What percentage of all posters/images are JUST male body parts? What percentage of men in the media fit this impossibly high


Good fucking point. If this is such an epidemic why are there so many fat people spawning?

This isn't feminism. This is more alarmist nonsense from people who want to shape society in their image or in a way that contradicts aspects of our instinctual humanity which makes them uncomfortable. The vocal people in here are the new prude prohibitionists who see what they perceive as ills in society (sin by another name) and want to stamp them out somehow. In this case, photoshop is the weapon, the cigar-gnashing Mad Men executives at the advertising agency are the culprits, and the mindless impressionable women are the victims.

Give it a rest. You want to be proponent of feminism? I say stop putting women down and making them into victims by reducing their intelligence to mindless sponges that uncritically absorbs everything fed to them. You know, maybe treat the women you're trying to claim are intelligent as actually being intelligent. That's probably a good place to start.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^criticalthud:
Seismic activity has increased

Source, please.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2439&from=rss_home
"Scientists say 2010 is not showing signs of unusually high earthquake activity. Since 1900, an average of 16 magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes — the size that seismologists define as major — have occurred worldwide each year. Some years have had as few as 6, as in 1986 and 1989, while 1943 had 32, with considerable variability from year to year."
Increasing population densities do mean earthquakes will be more devastating than before.

yes
http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
i'm not a geological scientist, but i think we should be concerned


*sigh*... you're doing the common alarmist and conspiracy theorist thing of ONLY looking at sites which are non professional. ONLY believing people who take whatever data there is and come to YOUR conclusion. Ignoring any that use ACTUAL proper science and CORRECT data analysis to disprove your line of thinking. You do this saying 'I don't trust the major sources of information'... which just means that you only believe those that don't grasp it properly.

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php

I don't know if TSA scanners are dangerous or not. The manufacturers claim they are safe, while this guy says they are not. He says they MAY be dangerous. However, he has NOT tested the machines themselves. No one outside of the manufacturers have tested them. Therefore independent testing needs to be performed.

BTW, there are actually two types of scanners in use at airports: millimeter wave scanners and X-ray backscatter machines. It's the X-ray backscatter machines that have some experts concerned. Read the transcripts from an actual interview with Dr. Brenner, the same one Dr. Corsi referred to. Dr. Brenner suggests independent testing because they can only guess at the radiation levels from the machines based on the images they've seen. He thinks they radiation levels are higher because of those images, but he (along with other experts) are NOT sure.

This guy is being alarmist, which is totally irresponsible, and he's also misrepresenting Dr. Brenner's comments on the subject, which is downright deceitful.

Like Dr. Brenner suggests, let there be independent testing on the machines. Maybe they ARE bad. But we can't draw conclusions based on what we know right now.

Downvote for the scammy link embedded in the video, for the melodrama of the entire situation, and for the sincere claim that the game is some kind of synthetic, life wrecking drug. Seriously, if some old senator were making that claim on the floor of congress you'd all be raising hell about how alarmist it was.

WoW is actually pretty good as far as discouraging endless grinding. It also makes sure that you can never benefit in game from paying money. If you want to talk about a sleazy game, think about Farmville, where every game play mechanic is designed to get at your wallet as frequently as possible.

http://videosift.com/video/Countdown-Obama-Authorizes-the-Killing-of-American-Citizen

In reply to this comment by griefer_queafer:
Thanks for putting this so well!

geesussfreek, i downvoted this video for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the alarmist rhetoric of monsieur paul, who does indeed exacerbate the already violent feelings about obama by whackos. and lets remember that monsieur paul (albeit involuntarily) spawned what is today known as the tea party.

i also felt compelled to downvote this video because of your caption about the need to get more guns and ammo. i think this is an unreasonable reaction, especially since, as volumptuous reminds us, OBAMA is actually trying to bring these things more out into the open.

>> ^volumptuous:
Wait. What American citizen has Obama assassinated?
And if I remember correctly, not only has Obama signed documents over a year ago to close GITMO, but he's also pushing for criminal trials of terrorists. But, it's the congress that is holding this shit up, not Obama.
So, maybe Dr.Paul here needs to have a R3VOLUTION to push these things forward. Not just give a fucking speech on an empty house floor.

The video is definitely on the alarmist side of things, therefore the fear.>> ^choggie:
Oh...sorry long and fear...yer fear, not mine baby....how bout a vote one way or the other there Gee-oh

>> ^bmacs27:
Is it me, or is it impossible to assassinate a citizen, unless that citizen also happens to be a high ranking public official of some sort?


Assassination to me has always been essentially murder of a state or public official. But it has been slagged out to mean a "hit". Basically an murdered that has some organization behind it be it the mob, or the government. So where you are right to be puzzled by its use; the use of assassination to mean a "hit" is fairly common place.

and to address griefer_queafer. As I have mentioned in a early part of this thread, more people have been executed by totalitarian governments than by terrorists. It is right to be afraid of many things, bears, lions, tigers, and even terrorists. But, the plain and simple truth is the deaths from those things pail in comparison with dictator states. The fear of the latter should be mountains greater than any of the former. There is a different between raising the alarm and being an alarmist. Were Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul alarmists when they warned of the impending house recession crash? It is one thing to be unjustifiably angry with Obama as you point out. But to do as Dr. Paul is, whom is legitimately concerned about the direction of this country, and call him out takes a bit of gumption. Would you of said the same to all the Bush haters?

Also, if you didn't get my hyperbole in my caption I am sorry. Most things are lost in translation from my head to words. However, Obama isn't about transparency...at all. All the closed door meetings that lead to the bail out of the banks and the rush job to pass legislation through before his touted "7 day for Americans to review legislation" policy flew right out the window. Make no mistake, Obama is better at dressing up the turd that is our current government. But a large pile of poo it still is.

And for something completely different. By 2022, by my limited projections; at current spending levels (which will actually go up because of medicare) the interest on the federal debt will be equal to the entire federal budget of this year. Bad stuff happens then.