Dear Liberals/Libertarians herein..

This is from a recent article by Tim Dickinson

So, this is all you got?

 

Look at the political implications of global warming.. Al Gore happened to be the one to "expose it," yet, it's only based on the climate of the past 2 hundred years and doesn't bother to discuss climate before that because it wasn't recorded.

 

You realize we can have this internet source and debunk the source merrygoround until climate change shifted again, right?

 

It isn't enough to say that you want to have a rational discussion with liberals. You have to show that you're willing and able to do it. That doesn't include leaving rep comments for liberals that read like something written by a drunken teenager on 4chan/b/. That's not the way you get somebody to put serious thought into responding to your posts.

Have I ever posted that I think any candidate running for office is perfect or anywhere close to it? We have to pick from whoever is running.

I'll accept that apology. :cheers2:

It goes back even further than that, but I think it's time to call a cease-fire on that front. Agreed?

It's extremely hard to compare dollar values across different eras. So much of our money is spent on things that didn't used to exist. How much did you pay for internet access in 1975? How much did Jesus spend on air conditioning?

How many of them get money from oil and coal companies?

Which of these do you disagree with?

1. Humans burn a lot of stuff every day, to produce energy.
2. Burning stuff produces CO2.
3. CO2 doesn't go away quickly.
4. CO2 holds in heat very efficiently.

I'm having a hard time getting anybody to answer this question. These four basic points may be all that the average person needs to know about global warming. If something else natural is going on, we are definitely adding to it, and there are consequences to be paid.

 

No, what just happened is typical of today's argument. On one hand is the overwhelming majority of independent scientists who believe in the science, and on the other hand are pro-business ideologues who trot out a few "experts" like the ancient Dr. Singer.

 

The reason everything is so expensive is the greed of the big oil industry. in 2005 a barrel of oil went to $150.00, and gas went to $4.00 a gallon. Now oil is only $85.00 a barrel, and gas is still $4.00 a gallon. The high price of fuel makes it more expensive to ship products, so business must charge more. Government doesn't set the price of oil, the oil industry and oil speculators on Wall Street do.

Another reason for high costs is CORPORATE PROFITS, they are through the roof! And CEO salaries are up 600% in the last ten years. Capitalism is all about greed.

Here's another one for you. The American farmer is forced to pay $6.00 an hour for crop pickers, because immigration laws have got rid of the migrant workers from Mexico that used to do the job for $2.00 an hour. At the same time CORPORATE grocery stores, like WallMart, Safeway, Giant, Food Lion and the rest buy most of their produce and meat from South America because the farmers down there pay their crop pickers and ranch hands less than a dollar an hour, so they cans sell their food for less than half of what the American farmer does. Next time you go to the grocery store, check and see where your food is coming from.

That's also why our trade debt has been $50 billion per month for the last 30 years. That cheap Chinese crap is destroying our economy.[/QUOTE]

You had diarrhea of the brain long before you read any of my posts. Less B.S. and more learning will firm your shit.

 

Rods of copper were also used as currency in the ancient world, it doesn't make it a good idea. THERE IS NO INTRINSIC VALUE IN GOLD, any more than there is in paper. Why have a gold standard. Why not a diamond standard? Or to be more abstract a blimp standard, blimps have much value. It's worth something because people say it is. Not to mention gold didn't stop hyperinflation from almost collapsing the Roman economy in the crisis of the second century. It's almost like it's just as easy to debase gold/silver currency as it is fiat money when it's not pegged at a certain value. Meanwhile, pegging currency to gold at a certain value is asinine, money should have the the markets/consumers that make up the nation that back that currency feel like it should have. That's actually a weird cognitive dissonance that comes up in libertarians a lot, they want free markets, except when it comes to the currency that floats in said market.

If you think gold has real value, no one is stopping you from investing in it. In fact, if you believe gold has real value, you should not want it to be part of the monetary system, since your investment will be safe from any possible monetary devaluations.

Or, more realistically, they're all trained professionals and one of them is just wrong since humans are not infallible in their analysis of data.

But speaking of economic gain

 

The funny thing is that BOTH of those things are happening with our tax money. And Obama's the one who was "bribed" to ensure it did. Not that there is an actual conspiracy afoot on the LEFT, you guys just blindly want more government, at the expense of everyone else. And as you see from my sig, I don't believe the "Majority vote," is always the best thing.

As far as the money thing.. Ha! By your logic, we could call foodstamps or cigarette coupons money because they "have value." I'm hardly against our currency being backed by diamonds, but I am against money that based on NOTHING but bad debt and the "word" of our government.

 

Yap,in the Caroline Islands uses carved stone money,some of which are too heavy to even move,so they just change ownership when necessary. They have value--because they want them to have value. Same with our method of exchange. I've never invested in gold--it wouldn't be edible if and when the shit encounters the fan. Guns trump gold.

 

While I agree with you on the gun thing, people need something to hold on to, that one can haggle with, when the dollar crashes (and it will.) So I support both guns and gold. We shouldn't just expect complete Mob Rule, without first giving our fellow man the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe, just maybe, 90% of the country just want to go about their day-by-day, and don't really wish to inflict harm on anyone.

 

Still waiting on LSD response to post #22

 

Sure RjHangover.

Okay, well I don't support the GOP. I support ending the wars (which will hurt the most corrupt people in oil and Wallstreet.)

Also, I used to be very "Liberal," until I actually saw the burden of the middle class with taxes. So, I refute the idea that I support the rich, simply because I believe in less taxes for people. Even the Beatles knew "The TAX Man" was corrupt.

I'm not religious at all, so don't brand me with the GOP and the republican majority, because it's inaccurate, and not constructive to the conversation. I agree with you on taking care of corrupt politicians and fascism. But what do you purpose as an alternative? Because communism is just as bad, on the other end of the spectrum and usually becomes corrupted.

That's like saying, it's okay to commit violent crimes, because violent criminals do it far more. And, I disagree with your premise when you say "percentage," because even OWS acknowledges that it's the top 1%.

But they're rich due to the Military-industrial complex, which is only perpetuated by our GOVERNMENT. So, even though people like you believe taxing every RICH person more, will somehow make the elite bankers and oil industry CEO's, miraculously vanish.


In reality, all those involved with the Military-industrial complex, ought to be tried for High Treason, and imprisoned for life.

And all we're doing by raising corporate taxes, are ENCOURAGING businesses to go overseas, because it's cheaper to run businesses. In other words, when you get a job in America, that corporation has to pay EXTRA taxes for having another employee. This doesn't stimulate growth!

I agree which is why I've said; I don't think benefits should be cut right away. I think we should end the federal reserve, the war on drugs and, every other unconstitutional war. I think that alone would make us more than enough to help those in need. But I'd still like to see all that decided at the state or local level.

I did vote. But our votes don't really matter. Only electoral votes matter, they don't sit there and count every vote. That's an illusion.

We don't control the Government. Enough people believe in the legalization of marijuana but the federal government says "No!" They even arrest people in states where it is legal.

How? Throwing more taxes on everyone?? I agree that money isn't speech and businesses aren't people, but generally taxing more without even questioning the what's or WHO's that got us into this mess. Not ALL rich people are responsible, and those who are will just continue robbing the treasury.

You're the one dreaming!!! The FEDs raiding state dispenserys didn't stop!!! You're acting like OBAMA supports legalization when he has SAID he doesn't time and time again!!!

"Middle Class" is the key term here. The middle class who receive health insurance for the back-breaking jobs they do, don't NEED healthcare. Frankly, it unfair to place more of a burden on them. In reality, it could be a program with less people. If they can give insurance to 313 million people, why not 300 million people??

Obama has raised the debt more in four years, than Bush did in eight. You should get a job in politics, cause you can't defend your own "views," but you can certainly blame the "other guy." Obama can blame Bush till his face turns blue, but at some point, he will have to have some personal accountability to the American people.

as ALWAYS, you ASSUME I support him because he's??? What? Republican? I'm NOT a REPUBLICAN for the millionth time!!!

But just because republicans are stupid rich assholes, doesn't mean Democrats are not. It annoys the hell out of me how you USE faults of republicans to "prove" Obama's legitimacy, but there's no validity behind it.

If Obama was any better than Bush, his policies wouldn't be a continuation of the same shit!!!

 

Well, from a very basic point of view, I think Libertarians only see one branch of potential oppression, which they view as government action. Government actions can and often are oppressive. For some reason libertarians seem to view government as the only source of oppression, and ignore the many cases in which government action protects people from often oppressive business or local government actions.

As an example, look back a page and a half ago, where some poor dopey girl denies global warming. This is now very contentious upon party lines, where it was not a decade ago, despite a strong decade of evidence that global warming has accelerated. So we don't make any investments in alternative energy because the current energy industry has convinced half this country that global warming doesn't exist, and with no investments, the oceans raise several feet and hundreds of millions are displaced.

Global warming is the perfect example of the scale of problem where you need a strong central response. There´s no immediate market incentive to preventing the earth from warming. Another example that came up in the last days of this presidential campaign was disaster response. Mittens said we should get rid of FEMA, after the last republican put an equestrian in charge of FEMA and then New Orleans sank. Disaster relief is the role of government.

 

That Fiscal Cliff they keep talking about, it's the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and supplemental military funding for the bush wars. The deficit will vanish when/if that happens.

 

The Libertarian candidate was a lot better than the two major candidates for Civil Liberties. He was also on the ballot in all 50 states. But people are TOO willing to compromise freedom for security and, COMFORT. Republicans want War and nation building, (security.) and Liberals want government handouts (comfort,) then frankly it's impossible to fix this problem, because Bi-partisonism is what got us in this mess to begin with!

I think we should cease-fire on all fronts.

Me 2 months ago=:army:

Me at this current moment=irate:

I don't feel like that should be the role of the Federal Government. I think stricter liability for companies that would allow citizens to sue for ANY type of destruction to public or private property that doesn't belong to them. In other words, if waste etc. wasn't being disposed of properly that company could literally be sued out of exsistence and have to repay the taxpayer for the hazard their company cause.

But in the current system, the EPA fines them a relatively small amount of money, they stay in business, and keep doing it!! So when people tell me Libertarians views would give corporations ultimate power, just look around you!! We have corporations bribing our political leaders on ALL levels of government. Liberals defend these government programs, when many of them simply don't deliver like private businesses do. I was on Medicare in NY, and it would take HOURS to speak with anyone who worked there!

 

IF is the key word. I think Obama works with the military-industrial complex just as Romney and Bush do. The "war on terror" has become a ploy to get us to surrender civil liberties. Yet, now that Obama's in charge, it seems that even Liberals don't care about Liberty.

 

How would that work for automobiles? Would we sue car companies for burning carbon? That wouldn't work. What about farmers that let their cows crap in rivers? Are the people living downstream supposed to sue the farmer? What if those people don't have money to hire lawyers? Hope they can get it pro bono?

I don't see how that would work. It seems unrealistic, and we seem to be harming society because of what you say the role of government should be. Well I say that role is protecting the general welfare of society.

 

Saying things like "liberals don't care about liberty." is bombastic and not conducive to the civilized discussion you said you wanted to have. Those are things demagogues on Fox News say.

I don't necessarily disagree that Obama works for the military-industrial complex, and I'm a liberal.

 

But it seems that more Liberals are willing to take the abuse of Liberty committed by Obama, and that's Nerve Wrecking. I'm just glad those beautiful people at the ACLU can see through his BS.

 

The negativity and dilution of the right wingers is the reason they lost the election. They have no clue to reality, or refuse to except it. LSD's response to my #22 post is a perfect example. There are so many dilutions, untruths, negatives and misrepresentations, it's just not possible to get him to converse honestly about the real world. He's determined to live in his fantasy land. And it drives him nuts, not being able to get anyone to follow him. LSD continually makes negative threads about "liberals", trying to get everyone to join him in his right wing "BUMMER" land. No realistic solutions to anything, just stupid rants. He's a true right winger, blaming everything on "liberals", even though he denies being in league with the GOP. He's like a "teabagger" that keeps pushing the GOP farther and farther to the extreme right. But even republicans don't want to go there, because they know that this country won't fall for Hitler/Mussolini style fascism. And the cons might be wising up to the fact that the U.S. is sick and tired of all the NEGATIVITY, SLANDER, and OBSTRUCTIONISM they've been drowning this country in for the past four years. If they don't wake up, 2016 will be a replay of the 2012 election.