More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Peterf]

Name a government you believe has never employed socialism.

And, I'd have thought a reading of Burke would have taught you not to make such hyperbolic statements.

One of thousands of potential examples from history: the government of King Charles I in 17th cent England. But let me mention just three which I personally experienced. The government of the Shah of Iran in the 1960s. The government of Mobuto in 1970s Zaire. The government of Kuwait immediately following Gulf War I.

I leave it to American scholars to explain to you that your first several US administrations were formed before socialism had even been devised.

Socialism began essentially with the Constitution. The Postal Service and the postal road system. The military. There has never been a government that didn't employ socialism.

Oh I see. All you are interested is a cheap little verbal trick. Defining government, any government, all government, as 'socialist'.

I suppose you think you can win this argument, or any other, by setting ever more absurd definitions of the terms used.

 

[Peterf]

"Every government has employed socialism"? complete nonsense. I'll put that down as a contender for the "Historically Illiterate Post of the Year" award.

And btw a reading of Edmund Burke, for example, will teach you all conservative thought stems from a foundation of LIBERTY.

Name a government you believe has never employed socialism.

And, I'd have thought a reading of Burke would have taught you not to make such hyperbolic statements.

Much as I hate to do it, I have to agree with PMS. Government is socialism and visa-versa. Socialism is simply government control. You can't have government without having socialism to some degree. That's one reason for keeping government as small as possible. It's a bad way to run society.

What a pity. Coming from the opposite direction you are as willing as PMZ to violently distort meaning to make what you both imagine to be a clever debating point.

You and I want small government. But I, at least, think government is essential. Without it one ends up with rule by the strongest and most violent criminals.

 

[Peterf]

"Every government has employed socialism"? complete nonsense. I'll put that down as a contender for the "Historically Illiterate Post of the Year" award.

And btw a reading of Edmund Burke, for example, will teach you all conservative thought stems from a foundation of LIBERTY.

Name a government you believe has never employed socialism.

And, I'd have thought a reading of Burke would have taught you not to make such hyperbolic statements.

Much as I hate to do it, I have to agree with PMS. Government is socialism and visa-versa. Socialism is simply government control. You can't have government without having socialism to some degree. That's one reason for keeping government as small as possible. It's a bad way to run society.

Here is another point. The antithesis of socialism is the free market economy. And it won'¨t be free unless it is honest. And it won't be honest unless it is regulated. So government is necessary to keep markets honest and to allow non-socialism to flourish.

In markets in England in the middle ages it was better not to use crooked weights and measures. If you got caught doing so government would slice off one of your ears. Would it not be good for us anti-socialists if there were a few earless guys walking round in Wall Street and the City of London?

So government is not always bad. In fact it can be an essential defence against socialism.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hmmmm........October snow for the first time in 7 years in Chicago!!!!


First Snowflakes Possible Tuesday for Des Moines, Chicago



Oh.....Oh.......for the week in the continental US >>>>










More k00k losing

 

[skookerasbil]

Reality is 95% perception s0ns!!!!



What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up | UK | News | Daily Express


Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns

 

[PMZ]

Reality is 95% perception s0ns!!!!



What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up | UK | News | Daily Express


Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns

Actually, reality is 100% real.

 

[itfitzme]

Reality is 95% perception s0ns!!!!

The perception of reality is 100% perception. Which explains the blow up doll you keep refering to as your date. Reality is 100% real which explains why your posts demonstrate ignorance as you keep ignoring the other 90% then claim realty as being only 10%.

 

[PMZ]

One of thousands of potential examples from history: the government of King Charles I in 17th cent England. But let me mention just three which I personally experienced. The government of the Shah of Iran in the 1960s. The government of Mobuto in 1970s Zaire. The government of Kuwait immediately following Gulf War I.

I leave it to American scholars to explain to you that your first several US administrations were formed before socialism had even been devised.

Socialism began essentially with the Constitution. The Postal Service and the postal road system. The military. There has never been a government that didn't employ socialism.

Oh I see. All you are interested is a cheap little verbal trick. Defining government, any government, all government, as 'socialist'.

I suppose you think you can win this argument, or any other, by setting ever more absurd definitions of the terms used.

If you don't know the meaning of ''socialism'', look it up.

 

[itfitzme]

"WE ARE PAYING THE PRICE WITH WILDFIRES, WE ARE PAYING THE PRICE WITH DROUGHTS."

The head of a United Nations committee on climate change said this week that global warming is "absolutely" linked to a recent spate of wildfires and heat waves, while calling upon international leaders to address the matter with more urgency.

Climate change is 'absolutely' linked to wildfires, says UN chief | The Verge

 

[PMZ]

Name a government you believe has never employed socialism.

And, I'd have thought a reading of Burke would have taught you not to make such hyperbolic statements.

Much as I hate to do it, I have to agree with PMS. Government is socialism and visa-versa. Socialism is simply government control. You can't have government without having socialism to some degree. That's one reason for keeping government as small as possible. It's a bad way to run society.

Here is another point. The antithesis of socialism is the free market economy. And it won'¨t be free unless it is honest. And it won't be honest unless it is regulated. So government is necessary to keep markets honest and to allow non-socialism to flourish.

In markets in England in the middle ages it was better not to use crooked weights and measures. If you got caught doing so government would slice off one of your ears. Would it not be good for us anti-socialists if there were a few earless guys walking round in Wall Street and the City of London?

So government is not always bad. In fact it can be an essential defence against socialism.

''The antithesis of socialism is the free market economy.''

This is like saying that the antithesis of a hammer is a screwdriver.

 

[PMZ]

Name a government you believe has never employed socialism.

And, I'd have thought a reading of Burke would have taught you not to make such hyperbolic statements.

Much as I hate to do it, I have to agree with PMS. Government is socialism and visa-versa. Socialism is simply government control. You can't have government without having socialism to some degree. That's one reason for keeping government as small as possible. It's a bad way to run society.

What a pity. Coming from the opposite direction you are as willing as PMZ to violently distort meaning to make what you both imagine to be a clever debating point.

You and I want small government. But I, at least, think government is essential. Without it one ends up with rule by the strongest and most violent criminals.

Congratulations. A conservative who's not a anarchist. Rare.

Define ''small'' government.

 

[flacaltenn]

Socialism is NOT just establishing postal routes, immigration control and providing for a military..

In OUR CASE, it is a breach of contract concerning the Powers and Duties of the Federal Govt.
You get as MUCH socialism as YOU ALLOW.. It is NOT prescribed in our founding or inevitable..

 

[itfitzme]

Socialism is NOT just establishing postal routes, immigration control and providing for a military..

In OUR CASE, it is a breach of contract concerning the Powers and Duties of the Federal Govt.
You get as MUCH socialism as YOU ALLOW.. It is NOT prescribed in our founding or inevitable..

That is right, and there is no socialism that has or ever will be established in the United States Of America under the Constitutional of the United States. It doesn't matter what we employ, whether it be SSI, Medicare, Medical, or ACA, it ain't socialism by your definition. Why? Because we have a democratic-republic.

And every law that we pass is, by your definition, not socialism. It is free market management, the very reason that the Constitution was drafted.

 

[flacaltenn]

"WE ARE PAYING THE PRICE WITH WILDFIRES, WE ARE PAYING THE PRICE WITH DROUGHTS."

The head of a United Nations committee on climate change said this week that global warming is "absolutely" linked to a recent spate of wildfires and heat waves, while calling upon international leaders to address the matter with more urgency.

Climate change is 'absolutely' linked to wildfires, says UN chief | The Verge

The chicklet that made that pronouncement is a veteran political hack with a degree in social anthropology and a LONG LIST of service to the AGW cause..

Why don't you ask her to back that up??

 

[itfitzme]

"WE ARE PAYING THE PRICE WITH WILDFIRES, WE ARE PAYING THE PRICE WITH DROUGHTS."

The head of a United Nations committee on climate change said this week that global warming is "absolutely" linked to a recent spate of wildfires and heat waves, while calling upon international leaders to address the matter with more urgency.

Climate change is 'absolutely' linked to wildfires, says UN chief | The Verge

The chicklet that made that pronouncement is a veteran political hack with a degree in social anthropology and a LONG LIST of service to the AGW cause..

Why don't you ask her to back that up??

Seeing as we are doing "point" evidence, I threw it out there. That's what this thread is about, right? Anecdotal evidence and peoples opinions.

 

[flacaltenn]

Socialism is NOT just establishing postal routes, immigration control and providing for a military..

In OUR CASE, it is a breach of contract concerning the Powers and Duties of the Federal Govt.
You get as MUCH socialism as YOU ALLOW.. It is NOT prescribed in our founding or inevitable..

That is right, and there is no socialism that has or ever will be established in the United States Of America under the Constitutional of the United States. It doesn't matter what we employ, whether it be SSI, Medicare, Medical, or ACA, it ain't socialism by your definition. Why? Because we have a democratic-republic.

And every law that we pass is, by your definition, not socialism. It is free market management, the very reason that the Constitution was drafted.

Again you fail history and logic and reason..

We cannot cede unlawful powers to Govt. No more than they can USURP them.

Soc Sec was ORIGINALLY designed as a UNIVERSAL program offering approx equal benefits for approx equal contributions to everyone. That's not true today because of the egregious rise in capped income and changes to it's taxation status. It is today -- redistribution and faulty financing.

ACA is CLEARLY redistribution of wealth thru tax policy..

 

[itfitzme]

Socialism is NOT just establishing postal routes, immigration control and providing for a military..

In OUR CASE, it is a breach of contract concerning the Powers and Duties of the Federal Govt.
You get as MUCH socialism as YOU ALLOW.. It is NOT prescribed in our founding or inevitable..

That is right, and there is no socialism that has or ever will be established in the United States Of America under the Constitutional of the United States. It doesn't matter what we employ, whether it be SSI, Medicare, Medical, or ACA, it ain't socialism by your definition. Why? Because we have a democratic-republic.

And every law that we pass is, by your definition, not socialism. It is free market management, the very reason that the Constitution was drafted.

Again you fail history and logic and reason..

We cannot cede unlawful powers to Govt. No more than they can USURP them.

Soc Sec was ORIGINALLY designed as a UNIVERSAL program offering approx equal benefits for approx equal contributions to everyone. That's not true today because of the egregious rise in capped income and changes to it's taxation status. It is today -- redistribution and faulty financing.

ACA is CLEARLY redistribution of wealth thru tax policy..

"Socialism is NOT just establishing postal routes, immigration control and providing for a military.. "

And OASDI, and Medicare, and Medicaid. You lost, live with it.

 

[itfitzme]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

And on and on.

It is a democratic-republic.

 

[flacaltenn]

"WE ARE PAYING THE PRICE WITH WILDFIRES, WE ARE PAYING THE PRICE WITH DROUGHTS."

The head of a United Nations committee on climate change said this week that global warming is "absolutely" linked to a recent spate of wildfires and heat waves, while calling upon international leaders to address the matter with more urgency.

Climate change is 'absolutely' linked to wildfires, says UN chief | The Verge

The chicklet that made that pronouncement is a veteran political hack with a degree in social anthropology and a LONG LIST of service to the AGW cause..

Why don't you ask her to back that up??

Seeing as we are doing "point" evidence, I threw it out there. That's what this thread is about, right? Anecdotal evidence and peoples opinions.

Nope.. I estimate there's been about 2 dozen specific reports and studies quoted on the thread. Only zealots toss up political hacks and pix of forest fires..

 

[itfitzme]

"Climate models project an increase in fire risk across the U.S. by 2050, based on a trend toward drier conditions that favor fire activity and an increase in the frequency of extreme events,"

"Through August of this year, the U.S. burned area topped 2.5 million hectares (6.17 million acres), according to a fire emissions database that incorporates burned area estimates produced from observations by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer instruments on NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites. That is short of the record 3.2 million hectares (7.90 million acres) burned in 2011, but exceeds the area burned during 12 of the 15 years since record keeping began in 1997."

I highlighted "by 2050" because this is typical of the IPCC and other projections. None of these sources is suggesting that the world is going to blow up next year.
2050 is 37 years away, far enough to not be immediate but still in a lifetime.

The official understanding is that the half-life of CO2 emissions is roughly 100 years (5 to 200 years: IPCC, 2001)

"Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable"

"The Keeling curve establishes that the atmospheric carbon dioxide ..... I get about forty years for the half-life of the CO2 pulse"

And, we are replenishing the CO2 daily. Whether it is 5 years, 40 years, 100, 200 or 500 years for the half life, the fact that emissions are increasing means that eventually, by 2050, it becomes too late. If we just keep business as usual, by the time 37 years has come and gone, it will suck. The world still won't have exploded, but it will suck. Why would we choose for things to suck?

From what I've seen, the contrarians first exaggerate the risk then argue that it isn't that bad, that the risk is far less than was even realistically proposed. My sense is that this is an emotional problem, an actual mental disability that makes them unable to deal with reality as it is and leaves them underestimating the risk.

-----

NASA - Climate Models Project Increase in U.S. Wildfire Risk

http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm...d=0&subtop=342&lv=list.listByChapter&r=239797

CO2 has a short residence time

The bombtest curve and its implications for atmospheric carbon dioxide residency time | Watts Up With That?