What Do We Think About Climate Change

All socialists such as the ones you named leaned to the left. Why? Because they were socialists.
The others did share the blood-thirsty characteristics and believed in seizing the wealth of others for political means. Not too much difference there, huh?

 

You confuse socialism with state-ism and central control. Socialism is the will of people...the will of society. It has nothing to do with left..right...dictators...only the will of the people

 

Lomborg has not changed his view on global warming. Instead, in The Guardian interview, he said if money is going to be spent, he wants it to be used wisely. He always said GW may be a problem. I have watched his old stuff and I cannot recall a time when he said GW didn't exist. When the book is released, we'll know the exact quote.
Russian President? Others? I am not going to take the time to find where their quotes were taken out of context as well but rest assured - Whatever they feel does not affect how we should treat climate change one wit.
You buy a solar panel if you like but me (and other people that think)? - If AGW is ever shown to be real, I'll still fight ruining economies over it unless it can be shown that there is a tangible benefit to spending the money. None of us are climate experts, even Boston, so the best we can do is take note of how damned cold it is in Mexico City (snow today), Florida (freezing crops), Norway (you said it's cold) and Alaska (I say). Some pretty diverse stations, it seems, and Troy talked about how hot it was last month in his part of California - from that, I think we can deduce that it is no longer hot.

 

Central control and socialism go hand-in-hand. Give up your freedoms for the common good and be a slave to the state.
How's that socialism workin' out in Spain, BTW, Michael?!

 

no, but Miss Cillie Goos does

 

i love how those mostly on the right claim that the wealth they have came solely from their own efforts

they never give credit to the society they grew up in that put in place circumstances that enabled them to accumulate their wealth and dont feel any obligation to support that society so that others can do well

it's their money, well i got news for them it's the societies money which they have the use of in legal ways

the society establishes currency to facilitate trade and commerce to the benefit of the society, not just them

our currency has united states on it not their name

the accumulation of too much money in too few hands negates the purpose for which money was issued

and the buying off of politicians to make policy that enables the few to garner massive wealth is immoral to say the least and anti social

in early tribal and clan societies that would not have been possible or tolerated

 

I didn't name a single socialist. It's an absurd (and very new) rewriting of history to start claiming that fascists and Nazis were left-wing socialists. You might as well tell me that North Korea is a democracy, simply because it bills itself as 'the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,' when in fact it's a totalitarian dictatorship.

Bloodthirsty and seizing the wealth of others? I'm sorry, but you're going to have to tell me where that's happening in this country. Who are the socialists in the US, who are those socialists killing, and whose wealth are they seizing?

 

Whats incredible is that people try to connect "Socialism " with resource management, pollution and adapting to climate change !!! They even try touse the " thats Socialism" !! soon we will be like Noth Korea line on topics like health care, financial regulation, business practices, gun control, creationism, tea parties, abortion, public transport, schooling, the bible..............................Whoa

 

huh?....

 

I'm not going to, yet again, give the economics lesson - there is obviously simply too much bone but, come on... "they never give credit to the society they grew up in that put in place circumstances that enabled them to accumulate their wealth and dont feel any obligation to support that society so that others can do well". WTF do you think I am trying to do for my entire life? I AM trying to support that system! The system is capitalism, you imbeciles!
Any argument that a statist* that takes over to increase government power and control is even remotely related to the minimalist government that is the ideal of capitalism is absolutely absurd.
There has been more of a concentration of wealth under Obama than at any other time in our lives.
I didn't get Michael's post either and attribute it to a language barrier.


*Statist - Viewing the state as an institution capable of using social power to enact policy on a passive or resisting society composed of the body of people. That is what we have today and we are closer to a dictatorship (in the U.S.) than in any time since WWll. This knucklehead in the WHitehouse and his America-hating spouse are losing it on every front, the man is beaten, in way over his head, and IMO, possibly apt to do something crazy on provocation... I don't know what - police state, silence dissention through controlling the internet, wiretapping, not to find terrorists but to find people that dissent,continue transferring wealth away from the productive members of society, ramp up his Cloward/Piven policies... I just know the F'er scares me and he suredly has no business in the most powerful position on Earth.
No leftist here has proven capable of comprehension of the facts of life, so I'll try to leave this thread alone to permit you'all complete freedom to beat your fool heads against the floor. Bye.

 

the knucklehead in the white house is way too accommodating to the other side to become a dictator

hell his own party is in rebelion

and all this concentration of wealth happened in the last two years?

then why does wall street hate him?

 

I'm still here for a moment. Uh, "Why does Wall St. hate him"? - Because he is anti business? Many of the simpletons there loved him at first. Smart money always thought he was a joke but some supported him if they saw a way to profit from either his largesse or they jsut plain didn't get some very simple economic truisms (Many of those guys are stock brokers, BTW - SALESMEN). No intelligent being could think that Barack Obama could be good for the economy. More fair, maybe. Nicer, presenting well, peaceful...all possibilities before we knew him - but better for the economy? I don't think so. Get a clue!

 

re read your last few posts

 

Yesss?

 

What has Obama done that's so bad for the economy?

I lay claim to being an intelligent being, and I think Obama has been good for it. So do a lot of professional economists. If he hadn't continued and expanded the bailouts started by (and made necessary by) the Bush regime, we'd probably be in the worst depression this country has seen since the Great Depression ... maybe even beating it.

What I really love is all the folks running around waving their flags and screaming 'Taxed Enough Already,' utterly convinced Obama has raised their taxes -- even though most all of them have paid less since he became President, not more.