What YOU have been doing up to this point is called "Affirming the Consequent", and you've also employed the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. To make a long story short, you're saying that it IS possible to conclude that it's universally true that Socialism is detrimental to the environment because Social Democracy is an exception.
For someone making a "reason-based" argument, your logical fallacies are showing...
"Affirming..." - if a pollutant spews more from socialism, then every instance of socialism must spew so?
Oh, wait, that's you!
"Scotsman..." -No. And I posted the dog analogy to teach you how to distinguish between an insightful categorization & a formalized universality claim. Muddling the two is a favorite sanctuary of socialists. Also, I'm not the one here trying to alter or hide the subject.
Do the stubborn inabilities of socialists spawn their toxic politics, or vice versa?
Incidentally, I'm done arguing with a fool. I've officially reached the point where I no longer give a shit if you live as a slave to talk radio for the rest of eternity. Get fucked, lemming. Or better, get a fucking education about Socialism before you go preaching to the masses about it. Either way, I'm done with you. Your reply will NOT be read.
The harder a socialist tries to ape men of reason, the more feral their reaction once their facade crumbles, which it invariably does upon any reasoned inspection.
If I could draw the audience's attention away from South America, China, and (unexpectedly) Southwestern Africa, there's something you should take note of. I would like you to pay careful attention to Western Europe, the primary hub of Social Democracy throughout the video. Notice how its pollution levels are comparable to those of the US? Hmm....
Also, if you think President Reagan singlehandedly destroyed the USSR, you're beyond stupid, you're unsalvageably stupid. Commit yourself.
Whatever that means, the question is WHY would any reasoning mind IGNORE all socialists everywhere on all continents except for only your one spot? Hmm....
Also, "singlehandedly" -- who said that?
Presidents have lots of help. Then again, the Soviets had help too, and not just from their comrades in the Democrat's party and those infesting our "free press". If the teachers' labor unions taught history instead of Green mysticism, you would know this.
Let's see. Why should a reasoning mind ignore all the others? Umm...because I provided a viable counterexample using your own data to illustrate that your conclusion regarding the whole of Socialism is really only representative of regions espousing the more autocratic models, and that in fact there is not a significantly detrimental effect illustrated for the more democratic models' regions? Maybe? ^__^
Quoting YOU: "...following President Reagan's defeat of communism..."
It's all data interpretation. You saw a pattern regarding the dispersion of air pollution and decided that Socialism (not other factors) ultimately contributed to this pattern. I pointed out that Socialist models are employed in Europe, and that the continent does not conform to your expectations. Furthermore, I would argue that you have given a very lax argument with regard to the issue of Socialism as a causative agent. Defend your position, or surrender it.
If I see a dog hopping around on 3 legs, does that mean that dogs are not four legged mammals? Is a missing leg not the "causative agent" of the odd gait?
"It's all data interpretation."
No, it's all data denials on your part, with a lone, questionable exception.
Furthermore, it's an observation based on satellite & political data. That's a bit more than "argument". Your denial of it all, based on ignoring virtually all the data, is what lacks reasoned argument. Surrender it.
You cannot simply combine unrelated data like that! What you call "ignoring virtually all the data" is really simply sorting the data by category. I admitted that the areas espousing more radical forms of Socialism exhibit heightened air pollution, didn't I? And did you account for other factors (such as industrialization)? No, you did NOT. You just can't admit that your blanket statement has an exception, and is therefore invalidated. You just can't stand being wrong, can you?
If you see a dog hopping around on 3 legs, what that means is that not all dogs have four legs. Similarly, if you see a political system which does not act detrimentally toward environmental protection among many similar systems that do, that means that not all such systems contribute to environmental damage. Ergo, a statement that all such systems contribute to environmental damage is demonstrated to be false. Honestly, it's like I'm talking to a god damn third grader!
It is NOT "false" to categorize dogs as four legged mammals, given the evidence, even though you found some hopping about on 3 legs.
Similarly, it is NOT "false" to categorize socialism as the more environmentally detrimental political system, given the evidence, even though you believe you found an anomaly there too.
Ergo, socialists show demonstrably less abilities than "a god damn third grader" to ever learn anything.
Alright, you're just not getting it. Socialism is not, repeat, NOT a political system itself. It is a SERIES of political systems which bear several ideological and (in some but not all cases) functional similarities. This is the chief flaw present in any effort to try to say "Socialism causes ____." Do you understand now? If not here's a turnaround:
Conservatism promotes religious zeal because the highly religious zealots primarily live in the South, which consistently votes red.
"Socialism is not, repeat, NOT a political system"
It was your term. I merely borrowed it in my reply. Don't be so hard on yourself.
Trying to defend socialism from its own observable toxicity by ignoring the data, as you first did, was just silly. To do so by trying to nullifying its own existence as a political system, as you attempt now, is even more spectacular a failure.
See it, or don't?
And stay on topic. I don't allow socialists to proselytize by smearing thier opposition off-topic.
Make no mistake, you're FAR from making a reasonable argument. The truth is, you're unwilling or unable to realize that, unlike dogs, Socialism has no universal standard by which to be measured. Social Democracy, Bolshevism, Maoism, Democratic Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Utopian Communism, these are all Socialism but are also all distinct from one another. Your argument would be valid if you said that Maoism, Stalinism, and models emulating them occurred in areas featuring pollution. See?
Try as you might, covering your eyes and taunting "YOU CAN'T SEE ME" isn't much of a sanctuary for your toxic political system.
What makes your infantile attempt so obnoxious is that socialists have no such problems identifying capitalism or religion, and in fact blaming them for all the ills of the world.
Have you ever taken a deductive logic class? You really should, because you're failing at its practice as it is. You have made a universal statement, that all (not most, all) Socialism is detrimental to environmental causes. I have provided an example of Socialism which is not. The top two lines and the conclusion are you, the third line is me. You need to use reductio ad absurdum, which is what I've asked you to do the ENTIRE TIME.
Here's a hint if you don't know how reductio ad absurdum works: it's basically proof by contradiction. If you can somehow show that Social Democracy is responsible for environmental damage, you reduce my statement that it doesn't to an absurdity. If A = B, and A =/= B is an absurdity, and one assumes A, then one can logically conclude B by QED. Go.
The method that I have been employing (and succeeding at so far) is employment of a logical rule called Modulus Tollens. Basically, this rule states that if you say that it's universally true that Socialism is detrimental to the environment, and I provide an observation of Socialism which is not detrimental to the environment, one can only logically conclude that you're wrong.
If we assume:
U = Not O
and O is observed, the conclusion of U anyway is logically impossible.
The Latin doesn't quite prop up your bogus applications of logic 101. At the core of your 3-post novella is your insertion of a formal universality statement, which you wrongly pose as mine. So your straw man disproved only your own recurring hallucination.
Instead of trying to shoehorn real world observations into such contrivances, simply allow reality to seep into your socialist apologetics. (Ruining them.)
Dogs are four legged mammals. Socialists are the big polluters.
The title of your video is "Socialism = Pollution". You've spoken time and again of "Socialism's toxic pollution", taking absolutely no account of its variants or exhibiting any effort to account for the European exception to the claim that Socialist models inherently cause greater pollution than Capitalist ones (which is implied throughout the video, even if you wish it weren't). Strawman my ass, you got your teeth handed to you and are fumbling to find your balance again.
You hallucinated the other "quote", but it's fine. As for your "Socialist models inherently cause greater pollution than Capitalist ones", you unwittingly acknowledged that in your first post, though oddly only to distract from it. (It's fine too.)
Now, if you were literate AND able to think clearly, then you would know the observation is valid regardless of any claimed partial exception to that norm. (Just as dogs ARE four legged mammals, too.)
When western Germany, after WW2 built up the new economy, all kinds of energy supplies were used. Cleaner natural gas stations, nuclear power stations and even wind power. What happened in Eastgermany? They used old technologies to produce energy from coal. What happened with the nuclear power station in the Ukraine? Did that happen in western Germany? When you let people live free and prosper, they will probably invent better technologies, like it happened throughout history!
Sure, but learning from the lessons of history is blasphemy in the Church of Socialism, which is to say the Church of Liberalism, which is to say the increasingly state-enforced religion of the USA.
This made me laugh. Yes, DAMN those sosialist polluters! It has probably nothing to do with captialism and industry! You see pollution over china and parts of africa because they have a lot of dirty industry there. And cleansing isnt exactly their top priority as they try to drive the costs down. By your logic, Norway should be quiiiiite the polluter, but on the contrary it isnt (funny that you're the one to criticize other peoples logic in your description).
@TylerNull the "as they try to drive costs down" was meant about capitalists. That's the reason western countries dump their hazardous industries to less restrictive countries (which again are less restrictive to be more appealing).
The fact that they have few/no regulations for their industry is caused by exactly capitalism. continued...
@Insolent85 ... And yes, they do have a lot of dirty industry in the third world. Up to 1994 most western nations were exporting their hazardous wastes and industries to the third world. The US were among the countries that continued to dump their shit after 1994. And the pollution/sosialism logic is inconsistant at best. Many nations that are sosialists dont show up as polluters while some of the polluters here arent sosialist nations.
@Insolent85 ... But what do i care, there's nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise (but then again you're probably thinking the same about me), you just go ahead and present this discovery of yours to peer review and enjoy the show!
Your 3-posts include a wad of unreferenced claims, but in the end you are complaining that humanity is producing. You are NOT offering any reasoning why socialism is better by any metric, except to infer that you would be happy to shut down the engine of humanity.
Resources are costs. Capitalism offers incentives to conserve resources. There is ever less pollution per productive unit under capitalism due to the innovation that capitalism fosters. Capitalism is the solution.
@TylerNull I've never claimed that sosialism is better, as such a generalization would be hard to back up, and i'm not trying to present evidence for or against that. I'm not going to debate that part. What i AM saying is that the information you are deriving from that video isnt statistically viable.
"Resources are costs. Capitalism offers incentives to conserve resources", correct. It is cheaper to transfer dirty business to a country with low regulations. continued...
Iron and steel production is ranked as the number one polluting industries by OECD (if you read the rapport i linked to). Now take a look at the steel production by country on wikipedia: *had to remove link, because youtube wont accept it* Chinas production (500.5m tonnes) dwarfs EU (198.0m) and US (91.4) production combined (and note that this is production volume).
Given that the labor price fixing cartels killed America's steel industry, it doesn't surprise me that it is now "dirty".
You might consider those framing all the discussions, the lingo, and cherry picking numbers to paint the picture for you.
How much do they discuss the MASSIVE pollution due to forest fires that burn uncontrollably due to insane environmentalist policies, pushed by eco-socialists, criminalizing effective forest management ?
After all your claims that we got rid of all "dirty" stuff, the USA consumes HUGE amounts of fuel because it produces HUGE amounts of products and services. E.g., we feed the world. And the OBSERVABLE satellite data is just that. Not "derived" or "statistics". Mine is a confluence of OBSERVABLES.
If you don't like the conclusion I draw, then you're going to have to articulate a REASON for forming another one. What is your conclusion and what reason do you have for it?
@TylerNull That must be the dumbest thing i've read in a long time. The US has a fiasco of a trade balance. They dont export shit compared to what they import. They have to import more than half of their oil consumption, look it up at US Energy Information Administration ()links doesnt work well on youtube). The US had an accumulated public debt of over 12 trillion dollars in 2009 (look that up yourself). Most of it was owed to china, since the US are dependant on getting goods from China.
China makes lots of stuff therefore we can't use HUGE amounts of fossil fuels ?
I don't care for you logic.
Did you compare relative GDP ?
If you want to address THIS VIDEO EVIDENCE, then look at the RELATIVE amount of fossil fuel spent between one of the big red plumed nations -- socialist -- and that of the USA.
We use HUGE amounts of fuel and we produce HUGE amounts of goods and services. Yes, we import lots of China's stuff.
If you think the video itself -- the satellite data -- is a false representation of the video, then I can't help you. Talk to NASA, or a psychiatrist.
Evidently, some Germans learned NOTHING from their previous manifestation of pagan socialism which too was based on bizarre mystic notions.
His profile page, translated from German, for your enjoyment ...
"
They poison us with genetic engineering, Aspartam, mercury ... manipulate the weather and our thoughts ... deceive us over the extraterrestial presence on earth, ... afraid that its economic system breaks down by free energy and other technologies. ...
@TylerNull: Dann übersetze mal das hier: Jetzt lachst du noch, aber lachst du auch dann noch, wenn du einen RFID-Chip bekommst? Von mir aus, iss schön weiter dein Aspartam, aber jammer dann nicht über Krebs.
As long as we keep you socialists from lording over us, citizens will maintain the liberty to decide for themselves what they do or do not want to manufacture, buy or sell.
Seriously, find a less toxic political theology to proselytize. Or, at least, drop the space alien stuff.
@TylerNull: Where in capitalism the workers can decide, what they manufacture? You are joking! And you bye things you don't need, from money you not have, to impress people you don't like - only, because TV say it to you. And you want say me, that's freedom?
Bye the way, you want to say me, what I have to belive and think. I don't be your slave! I'm free to belive whatever I want!
"Where in capitalism the workers can decide what they manufacture?"
A "worker" isn't an inanimate thing; they are people. Thus, WHEREVER the government preserves the LIBERTY to start a business, the "worker" (the person) may do so to manufacture anything they can manage -- unless there are socialists around to criminalize the activity, of course.
". . . , that's freedom?" -- yes, but I prefer the term liberty, since the latter implies responsibilities.
I expected it would be a more argumented vid...but visibly not. Then, stop playing with words. China is the largest world population and it isn't really socialist for 30 years. It can't be compared with american consomation so easily. Capitalism works only on short time. It always needs new projects to make money. Socialism planification is applied on several decades and doesn't needs a lot of money each time. Well, now you can find what can be more respectable of the environnent.
According to Deborah Cory Barnes, author of The Money and Connections Behind Al Gores Carbon Crusade, Al Gore started Generation Investment Management (GIM) with co founder Hank Paulson. Remember him? Yes, he was the Treasury Secretary. Guess what? Yes, he is also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. (Didnt Goldman Sachs just get billions in Federal Reserve pledges, bailouts, and or Tarp?)
Another scam to fleece working & middleclass people out of more of their money
... Global Warming conference ..., 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
@TylerNull, It is a more complex situation. Some areas are warming, others cooling. When talking about global warming, we should speak about local warming. All this involves the influence of ocean currents, as well as the greenhouse effect. Man was not entirely responsible, but partly. The real problems of human action are waste pollution, poisoning in industry etc ... And if we want to change, this requires changes in economic growth.
Beyond that, your mythology is based on a rich history of exposed hoaxes that were spawned and proselytized by merciless socialists, and whose policies were the most toxic to all of nature.
Oh, and your notions are incongruous with the video evidence herein.
@TylerNull I'm sorry but you seems a lot far more brainwashed. Read back my texts; I never spoke about global warming as a fact. I contrary said there was a complex system including local warming or coolling (and yes thanks, I know what the weather is).
I already said what I though about the video. You start at year 2000, while there are no real socialist country for 30 years at least (now even Cuba). And you can't concider air pollution alone. Now, I guess you have a very small outlook about socialism (what I can understand as you got alot of propaganda). For you France is a socialist country and also Obama must be a socialist one isn't? Can't see his liberal policies? Once again, it is not about global warming but LOCAL warmings and coolings.
Socialists are always trying to absolve socialism of its toxic effects by claiming those of any actual socialist nation isn't "real socialism".
FAIL.
You tacitly admit the video evidence demonstrates my point, yet you manage to dismiss reality, to move-on and proselytize a new wad of idiocies.
FAIL.
Beyond that, capitalism is the economic model that is viable and effectively conserves resources, while socialism is the failed economic model that is inviable and wastes resources.
@TylerNull WOW! Ok I guess everything which isn't ultra-liberal for you is socialism. In fact, everything which is not ultra-liberal is "FAIL" and socialism. Especially China is socialist cause the party still have the name? Could you tell me what is your definition of socialism? I pray for your brain.
Yes, that the US is second only to China in pollution IS complete bullshit. To the contrary, the US is among the cleanest countries in the world (the correlation between economic prosperity - capitalism - and environmental quality is HUGE). Even in the case of greenhouse gases - where your confusion probably lies - the US produces less emissions per UNIT OF OUTPUT than most other countries - even if the science behing global warming alarmism were valid.
Actually, it shows concentrations (and more are associated with southern Asia than Africa), but that is beside the point. The statement that the US is the number two polluter remains not only factually wrong but so far from reality to be properly classified as imbecilic. The implication at the end of the video that capitalism is better for the common environment (not to mention prosperity for the masses) is objectively correct.
A quick google search for "US polluter number 2", reveals that you know a lot less than you are letting on. The US is the second biggest polluter, this statement is confirmed by BBC, NYT, etc.
A quick google search reveals that you haven't a clue what you are talking about (not that that's a surprise at this juncture). The US is the second largest CARBON DIOXIDE EMITTER (according to the BBC, NYT, etc.). As anyone with even the most basic reading skills can grasp, that's NOT the same thing as being "the second biggest polluter" and is only a problem if global warming is the disaster the Left would have you believe (as opposed to what the science indicates). Learn to read.
NEVER AT ANY TIME was the issue (or even the video) limited to carbon dioxide emissions. Pollution covers FAR more than that and the debate over whether carbon dioxide qualifies as a pollutant is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, settled.
All you do is undermine your own position when you pretend (or become so deluded that you believe) the issues under discussion are limited to what you want them to be or that even the one issue where the US comes in second prives your point.
"Obviously pollution doesn't only mean carbon dioxide..."
A point I have been at some pains to make.
"...but that is what this video is about."
Uh, no. No mention is made of CO2 in the video and NASA satellites are actually capturing ALL reflective ellements (not just CO2). If it did, it would throw an even larger hole in your unsupportable assertions.
No, dimwit, you are too stupid to do basic research. Not only dioesChina produce far more land and water pollutants, it generates more air pollution than any other three countries combned (resulting in the most air pollution deaths per capita. China also has 11 of the 20 most polluted cities on the planet (Tianjin is 4th; Beijing is 16th).
Calling someone an idiot when your facts are so complertely and obviously wrong merely demonstrates your own shortcomings.
Yeah, totally because Africa and South America have extensive industrial capabilities. Do you honestly believe that Africa is producing more pollution than the US does? We are second only to China.
Even if the salt levels even out the balance there are tens more negative effects of pollution besides temperature. In any case, we have no place to start screwing with nature's balance-Bad things would happen.
This isn't necessarily true. It true to say that Scientists have observed high levels of CO2 in the air. However, they only deduced that human industry must be the cause. As I said before, every single instance of an increase in the Earth's global temperature in all of geologic history has either caused or been preceeded by a spike in CO2. There was no industry back then. Where did the gas come from? Could today's spike be caused by a similar natural source?
The way I see it, there are only a few possibilities:
A). Its naturally occurring and we're screwed. Besides, why would we want to mess around with a natural cycle anyway?
B). It's manmade, the damage has most likely already been done, and we're pretty much screwed regardless.
C). It was never really that big of deal to begin with. We just kind of shrugg it off like we've shrugged off every other obstacle in our history and get on with our lives.
In any case, I don't see any reason why we should cripple the global economy (which ensures our modern standards of living and healthcare)to deal with the issue.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for clean and efficient energy, industry and transportation. No one in their right mind wants to deliberately destroy the environment.
However, I do believe that we should be cautious about whatever we do, and that we shouldn't allow Socialists to capitalize on the mass hysteria surrounding the issue.
Well obviously more emmisions come from most of the world than from the US, that doesn't mean we should not change. If the icecaps melt-Millions will be displaced. Climate change is the biggest threat on the board-Food shortages, natural disasters, increased risk cancer, increased UV presence (this would bring plankton to the point of extinction as well bacteria vital to rice crop).
Once again, however; if this melting changes the salination balance in the Atlantic and disrupts the Jet Stream, all such increaes in sea level will be negated in lieu of the rapidly decreasing climate.
"increased UV presence"
Global Warming wouldn't be enough to cause this. It would require an increase in the Sun's net solar output, or at the very least a significant change in the Earth's orbital pattern around the Sun.
Global Warming would not cause a change in UV levels but it's the effect on the atmosphere caused by pollution would let more UV rays in. This would be fatal to many kinds of microscopic life.
Well, then you are comparing one country to tens of others. Everyone has to change their view, but we and a few other countries shold change first because we are the biggest part of the problem. While it's true that these countries are mostly quite dirty in their production, but if we changed, I think we would be able to help them do the same.
"Well, then you are comparing one country to tens of others."
There are well over 195 different nations on this planet. While I'll grant that not all of them are industrialized, a significant portion of those which weren't industrialized before are now moving in that direction. Their technology isn't quite on par with our own and neither is their environmental policy. This leads to their dirty industry.
BTW Many of these wildfires are a result of global warming which is in large caused by huge CO2 emmisions. These huge wildfires are one of the side effects of producing such large amounts of emmisions.
It has been proved that global warming exists-I hope you are willing to acknowledge this fact. Anyway it has been proven that the Earth is heating up, this means that the Earth is going to be drier, wildfires are most frequent during droughts-for obvious reasons. Besides the statistics, that is proof enough for me.
"It has been proved that global warming exists-I hope you are willing to acknowledge this fact."
Oh no, its definitely. I simply don't buy that its completely manmade. If you look back over the geologic timescale, the Earth has been shown to switch between periods of global warming and cooling rather frequently. The presence of human industry wasn't necessary to cause drastic changes in the global climate in past climatic events.
For instance, take the thawing of the artic tundra. How do we know that human actions caused this melting? It is entirely possible that some change in the Earth's rotation around the sun set that process in motion long before human industry had a significant environmental impact, and that the cycle has simply perpetuated itself ever since. We simply don't know enough to draw such sweeping conclusions as environmentalists claim. The whole movement simply assumes too much that isn't hard science.
In my opinion it is almost totally man-made. As to the other, we, China and Russia produce the most pollution-We should change first regardless of the other smaller countries, they want to be like us and if we change, they will, in one way or another, change as well.
To assume that any phenomena is, "totally man-made," is absurd. The Earth's climate flucuates all the time. For every Ice Age or, "Ice House," period in the Earth's geologic history, there has historically been an equal or greater corresponding, "Hot House," period in which glaciers become almost non-existent. All of these events have either been preceeded by or caused (we're not sure which)enormous increases in Green House gasses. Where was our vaunted industry during those climatic events?
Global Warming is much to do about nothing. Another warming cycle in the Earth's geologic history is nothing more than just that; another cycle in a line of dozens of such cycles. Global Warming isn't going to end life as we know it. Anyone who tries to feed you that load of horse excrement is most likely trying to sell you their political agenda as well. While I'll grant that some areas of the Earth will become drier due to Global Warming, most of the world will actually become more humid.
All of this doesn't even account for the fact that if you were to add enough fresh water to Atlantic Ocean through the melting of the polar icecaps, you'd change the salination balance of the jet stream. This would cause global temperatures to drop considerably and most likely negate the effects of any percieved global warming entirely.
Besides, as the satellite shows, the highest concentrations of global air pollution aren't coming from the United States, but rather the developing world.
since we broke away from England and now that pollution has become a major problem our leader chooses not beleive that pollution is a problem. We are one of the biggest and most populated countries and we have a very old and outdated view of pollution.
Not to mention our president doesn't even believe in global warming, we have refused the Kyoto Protocol and recently California attempted to raise emmision standards but was overruled by higher authority-We are not looking so good on this front.
"Not to mention our president doesn't even believe in global warming, we have refused the Kyoto Protocol"
To be perfectly blunt, the Kyoto Protocol is a complete and total load of bull shit (excuse my French.) It intentionally seeks to limit the economic prosperity of the First World (the U.S. in particular), in order to, "level the playing field" (so to speak.) The EU has done absolutely nothing to abide by its provisions, and has resorted to selling, "carbon credits," to compensate.
This seems rather illogical to me because in capitolism businesses have to keep getting bigger to survive and getting bigger means more pollution. Very few companies invest fully in renewable sources of energy.
"As seen by the satellite data, our capitalist efficiencies have so radically reduced the rate of pollution that such from the USA is almost nonexistent."
Not in the slightest. Industry in the US and First World is shockingly clean compared to that found in the Developing World. I know that a lot of people have been brainwashed into believing that American SUVs are the sole cause for Global Warming, but this simply isn't the case. Cattle ranching and forest fires create more air pollution (methane, which is several times more potent that CO2 BTW) than cars ever could.
BTW: I was wrong China has recently overtaken us in CO2 Emmisions. The data displayed in these sources is a few years old, but I can garuntee you that emissions have only gone up since these studies were made. Either way the US is producing huge amounts of CO2. So the statement that we are producing no pollution is totally stupid and without factual support.
"So the statement that we are producing no pollution is totally stupid and without factual support"
I never said that we were, "producing no pollution." I merely stated that the US wasn't the primary contributer to global warming. Additionally, the statistics you've provided are actually rather misleading. The fact that the US contributes a large amount of CO2 in relation to other nations doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. is responsible for the majority of global air pollution.
For instance, how much air pollution does the Developing World, or Europe as a whole produce in relation to the U.S.? I'm sure that the numbers taken under those parameters would be A LOT more proportional. It isn't quite fair to compare the emissions of a nation the size of the US with those of a nation the size of Venezuela when taken alone.
You didn't say that but the person who posted this video did. Besides that, if it isn't us that is polluting (air, water, soil) the most (actually China is, but not by that much), then who is? As I see it, basic logic will point to us. Who is the biggest country? Russia-They produce a lot, but their economy is not that great and has had a lot of setbacks throught the last 100 years. China is big, we know they produce the most pollution. We are big too, we have had almost uninterupted growth
"As I see it, basic logic will point to us. Who is the biggest country?"
No offense, but your logic is flawed. Its not about which country is the biggest or the most developed. First World industry is generally a lot cleaner than that found in the developing world. Its about which regions are having the greatest overall environmental impact. At this particular time in history, it is the Developing World. Their industry is simply environmentally dirty and reckless.
Look at it this way. Suppose a very fat man lets out a very big fart (please excuse the absurdity of this demonstration). Next to him, there are standing about thirty very thin men. All of them emit their flatulence as well. Sure, the fat man's fart was technically larger, but all things considered, who do you think had the greatest impact on the amount of flatulence in the room? The one fat man, or the thirty others?
I guess I must have hit a nerve, seeing as how Leibo07 just blocked me from responding to his hate mail. ;)
If you're reading this Leibo, listen up. You are entirely waaaay too fixated on disproving religion (seriously, I post him something on Capitalism vs Socialism and he responds with a nasty little - totally irrelevant- poem on Christianity). I honestly think its kind of unhealthy. To quote Shakespeare, I believe he, "doth protest too much."
"The greater the lie, the more people will believe in it"
Bravo! I don't think I've ever heard a better explanation of why such throughly debunked theories as Marxism continue to endure to this day. Marxism spreads the biggest lie of all; that utopia is actually possible if you just surrender all individual freedoms and believe.
BTW, posting a whole lot of new propaganda videos from freakin YouTube on your profile proves nothing but your own gullibility and intellectual laziness.
I'm sorry Leech, but for such a devout atheist, you sure put your faith in a lot of absolute nonsense. You've basically replaced God in your life with Socialism, and ST. Peter with Marx. Blind faith in Pseudo-religious/economic theories will not save you from reality.
If you REALLY are a private and will be sent as cannon fodder to Iraq/Afgh, then you seriously need to do something against that paranoia and Angst. You will not survive for two months.
To expand their reach on working class, they mimed some socialism and called themselves thus. Because the fascists really did not have much influence on proletariat. This had to change ...
The Nazis were fascists with a strong conservative and christian tendency. They were very much, like after the more "centre right" with some left rhetorics.
Sheesh, I never thought to be still explaining all THIS ???
The Nazis were secularists. They despised religion, and used it only for control of the masses (like the Soviets did). Secondly, the Nazis considered themselves to be every bit as revolutionary as Socialists (saving society from the weak,etc). They merely approached this goal from a Right Wing point of view. They were State Socialists, which basically meannt that they endorsed the creation of an all powerful socialist welfare state to lord over the masses.
"Well certainly the Church did not think that about Fascitst and Nazi's."
That's pure propaganda; nothing more, nothing less. The Church NEVER supported Hitler. The Pope, in fact, harbored Jews within the Vatican. The Church simply didn't feel like getting bombed out of existence at the moment, so it kept its mouth shut.
Once again, no, they didn't. You're confusing post(and in some cases pre) WW2 Soviet and Communist propaganda with reality. The Nazis threw dozens of priests into concenration camps for opposing the will of Hitler's regime. There undoubtedly were members of the clergy that sided with the Nazis for various reasons (suurvival, pay offs, etc). However, this was the case in Soviet Russia as well (Orthodox Church), so it a moot point. Care to spew anymore factually inaccurate lies?
Observation : the media in our society, and these are > 99% capitalist, fight an ongoing struggle for our minds. Our minds must be penetrated with the free market & 'neo' liberal ideology. Many people have, alas, no defence against this sham that is contrary to their very interests. But the right wing and centre-right have the power over the supply and so they try to put the demand in accordance to their will.
Most of the "media in our society" are self professed Liberals (a.k.a., socialists).
Further, all forms of "media in our society" routinely broadcast devout socialists who proselytize the holy sacraments of their federally sanctioned mythologies, e.g., "Global Warming", "Corporate Welfare", "Undocumented Workers", "Gay Marriage", "Abortion Rights", and "Universal Healthcare".
First of all, I notice several things on your US 'citizen-ship'. You call 'Liberals' socialists! Liberals = 'Democratic Party', right? There might be the odd one around. And there are BTW certainly people in Republ Party who do espouse measures that YOU would call socialist.
(What you call socialist is in fact centre-right wing : to get the sharp edges of capitalism by taking some government policy)
" You call 'Liberals' socialists! Liberals = 'Democratic Party', right? There might be the odd one around."
Actually, a rather large percentage of the members of the Democratic party either espouse Socialist values or are sympathetic to Socialist causes. This is an indisputable fact.
"US is a one-party-system, the Party of Property, and has 2 wings" (Gore Vidal)
Yes, we are, and we're damn proud of it. Don't worry, if not for a little group of individuals we refer to as the FOUNDING FATHERS, that could easily change. ;)
Property is Freedom.
We are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (i.e. Property).
The freedom of property is by far the most important of the fundamental human rights. If you remove a man's property in favor of the collective state, you remove his power. Therefore, making him a powerless slave to the whims of an all powerful state.
But I know that the US has a great tradition of socialism and civil rights. You can be proud of this! I know, too, that there are very many soc/marx partys in US. To some I have connections.
Maybe they will play a fine role in future. Maybe the revolution will come from the heartland of world capitalism---the economic crisis is not only present but it IS in fact deepening. This was a matter of time (as everything is).
"But I know that the US has a great tradition of socialism and civil rights."
We have nothing of the kind. Our current problems with the national deficite are a direct consequence of FDR's, "progressive," New Deal. Welfare seems to breed poverty and slums.
"Maybe they will play a fine role in future. Maybe the revolution will come from the heartland of world capitalism"
If it ever does, you can count on me to be the first one to pull a Francisco Franco.
I'm guessing it was in response to the Francisco Franco comment. Whatever. Franco wasn't a Fascist, he merely used them as a tool to save his country from the communists. He voluntarily surrendred power.
I personally think its amusing how the media likes to demonize the Spanish Fascists. Granted, they were no saints. However, they were absolutely no worse than the Communists they were fighting.
"Knob, I know you are so much in love with lies, fake propaganda and illusions
but don't let this one get you"
You can think whatever you want. However, my viewpoint here is historically factual. The Spanish Republicans were no better than the Fascists. They brually repressed the religious elements of Spanish society, were backed by the Soviets, and often resorted to violence to maintain their rule. The Spanish Civil War ultimately boils down to who you personally agree with.
The Sp Fascists and the Church were so at one, there might be the odd rebelling priest, but that does not say anything about the Church's official stance! They had no problems with fascism and were certainly not "repressed" by them.
"The Sp Fascists and the Church were so at one, there might be the odd rebelling priest, but that does not say anything about the Church's official stance! They had no problems with fascism and were certainly not "repressed" by them."
Once again, you are not only wrong but laughably wrong. The Pope was strongly against the Nazis. The church was actually rather active in the secret distribution of anti-Nazi pamplets throughout Germany. Your viewpoint on this issue is a malacious lie.
What YOU have been doing up to this point is called "Affirming the Consequent", and you've also employed the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. To make a long story short, you're saying that it IS possible to conclude that it's universally true that Socialism is detrimental to the environment because Social Democracy is an exception.
For someone making a "reason-based" argument, your logical fallacies are showing...
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
@Socialist
"Affirming..." - if a pollutant spews more from socialism, then every instance of socialism must spew so?
Oh, wait, that's you!
"Scotsman..." -No. And I posted the dog analogy to teach you how to distinguish between an insightful categorization & a formalized universality claim. Muddling the two is a favorite sanctuary of socialists. Also, I'm not the one here trying to alter or hide the subject.
Do the stubborn inabilities of socialists spawn their toxic politics, or vice versa?
TylerNull 6 months ago
@TylerNull
Incidentally, I'm done arguing with a fool. I've officially reached the point where I no longer give a shit if you live as a slave to talk radio for the rest of eternity. Get fucked, lemming. Or better, get a fucking education about Socialism before you go preaching to the masses about it. Either way, I'm done with you. Your reply will NOT be read.
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
@Socialist
" ... fool ... shit ... slave ... talk radio ... fucked, lemming ..."
The harder a socialist tries to ape men of reason, the more feral their reaction once their facade crumbles, which it invariably does upon any reasoned inspection.
TylerNull 6 months ago
If I could draw the audience's attention away from South America, China, and (unexpectedly) Southwestern Africa, there's something you should take note of. I would like you to pay careful attention to Western Europe, the primary hub of Social Democracy throughout the video. Notice how its pollution levels are comparable to those of the US? Hmm....
Also, if you think President Reagan singlehandedly destroyed the USSR, you're beyond stupid, you're unsalvageably stupid. Commit yourself.
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
@Socialist
"primary hub of Social De..."
Whatever that means, the question is WHY would any reasoning mind IGNORE all socialists everywhere on all continents except for only your one spot? Hmm....
Also, "singlehandedly" -- who said that?
Presidents have lots of help. Then again, the Soviets had help too, and not just from their comrades in the Democrat's party and those infesting our "free press". If the teachers' labor unions taught history instead of Green mysticism, you would know this.
TylerNull 6 months ago
@TylerNull
Let's see. Why should a reasoning mind ignore all the others? Umm...because I provided a viable counterexample using your own data to illustrate that your conclusion regarding the whole of Socialism is really only representative of regions espousing the more autocratic models, and that in fact there is not a significantly detrimental effect illustrated for the more democratic models' regions? Maybe? ^__^
Quoting YOU: "...following President Reagan's defeat of communism..."
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
It's all data interpretation. You saw a pattern regarding the dispersion of air pollution and decided that Socialism (not other factors) ultimately contributed to this pattern. I pointed out that Socialist models are employed in Europe, and that the continent does not conform to your expectations. Furthermore, I would argue that you have given a very lax argument with regard to the issue of Socialism as a causative agent. Defend your position, or surrender it.
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
@Socialist
If I see a dog hopping around on 3 legs, does that mean that dogs are not four legged mammals? Is a missing leg not the "causative agent" of the odd gait?
"It's all data interpretation."
No, it's all data denials on your part, with a lone, questionable exception.
Furthermore, it's an observation based on satellite & political data. That's a bit more than "argument". Your denial of it all, based on ignoring virtually all the data, is what lacks reasoned argument. Surrender it.
TylerNull 6 months ago
@TylerNull
You cannot simply combine unrelated data like that! What you call "ignoring virtually all the data" is really simply sorting the data by category. I admitted that the areas espousing more radical forms of Socialism exhibit heightened air pollution, didn't I? And did you account for other factors (such as industrialization)? No, you did NOT. You just can't admit that your blanket statement has an exception, and is therefore invalidated. You just can't stand being wrong, can you?
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
If you see a dog hopping around on 3 legs, what that means is that not all dogs have four legs. Similarly, if you see a political system which does not act detrimentally toward environmental protection among many similar systems that do, that means that not all such systems contribute to environmental damage. Ergo, a statement that all such systems contribute to environmental damage is demonstrated to be false. Honestly, it's like I'm talking to a god damn third grader!
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
@Socialist
It is NOT "false" to categorize dogs as four legged mammals, given the evidence, even though you found some hopping about on 3 legs.
Similarly, it is NOT "false" to categorize socialism as the more environmentally detrimental political system, given the evidence, even though you believe you found an anomaly there too.
Ergo, socialists show demonstrably less abilities than "a god damn third grader" to ever learn anything.
Honestly.
TylerNull 6 months ago
@TylerNull
Alright, you're just not getting it. Socialism is not, repeat, NOT a political system itself. It is a SERIES of political systems which bear several ideological and (in some but not all cases) functional similarities. This is the chief flaw present in any effort to try to say "Socialism causes ____." Do you understand now? If not here's a turnaround:
Conservatism promotes religious zeal because the highly religious zealots primarily live in the South, which consistently votes red.
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
"Socialism is not, repeat, NOT a political system"
It was your term. I merely borrowed it in my reply. Don't be so hard on yourself.
Trying to defend socialism from its own observable toxicity by ignoring the data, as you first did, was just silly. To do so by trying to nullifying its own existence as a political system, as you attempt now, is even more spectacular a failure.
See it, or don't?
And stay on topic. I don't allow socialists to proselytize by smearing thier opposition off-topic.
TylerNull 6 months ago
Make no mistake, you're FAR from making a reasonable argument. The truth is, you're unwilling or unable to realize that, unlike dogs, Socialism has no universal standard by which to be measured. Social Democracy, Bolshevism, Maoism, Democratic Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Utopian Communism, these are all Socialism but are also all distinct from one another. Your argument would be valid if you said that Maoism, Stalinism, and models emulating them occurred in areas featuring pollution. See?
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
@Socialist
Oops, you did it again.
Try as you might, covering your eyes and taunting "YOU CAN'T SEE ME" isn't much of a sanctuary for your toxic political system.
What makes your infantile attempt so obnoxious is that socialists have no such problems identifying capitalism or religion, and in fact blaming them for all the ills of the world.
TylerNull 6 months ago
@TylerNull
Have you ever taken a deductive logic class? You really should, because you're failing at its practice as it is. You have made a universal statement, that all (not most, all) Socialism is detrimental to environmental causes. I have provided an example of Socialism which is not. The top two lines and the conclusion are you, the third line is me. You need to use reductio ad absurdum, which is what I've asked you to do the ENTIRE TIME.
When:
A
A = B
A =/= B
_______
B
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
Here's a hint if you don't know how reductio ad absurdum works: it's basically proof by contradiction. If you can somehow show that Social Democracy is responsible for environmental damage, you reduce my statement that it doesn't to an absurdity. If A = B, and A =/= B is an absurdity, and one assumes A, then one can logically conclude B by QED. Go.
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
The method that I have been employing (and succeeding at so far) is employment of a logical rule called Modulus Tollens. Basically, this rule states that if you say that it's universally true that Socialism is detrimental to the environment, and I provide an observation of Socialism which is not detrimental to the environment, one can only logically conclude that you're wrong.
If we assume:
U = Not O
and O is observed, the conclusion of U anyway is logically impossible.
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
@Socialist
The Latin doesn't quite prop up your bogus applications of logic 101. At the core of your 3-post novella is your insertion of a formal universality statement, which you wrongly pose as mine. So your straw man disproved only your own recurring hallucination.
Instead of trying to shoehorn real world observations into such contrivances, simply allow reality to seep into your socialist apologetics. (Ruining them.)
Dogs are four legged mammals. Socialists are the big polluters.
TylerNull 6 months ago
@TylerNull
The title of your video is "Socialism = Pollution". You've spoken time and again of "Socialism's toxic pollution", taking absolutely no account of its variants or exhibiting any effort to account for the European exception to the claim that Socialist models inherently cause greater pollution than Capitalist ones (which is implied throughout the video, even if you wish it weren't). Strawman my ass, you got your teeth handed to you and are fumbling to find your balance again.
SocialistCatgirl 6 months ago
@Socialist
The TITLE? Keep impressing yourself.
You hallucinated the other "quote", but it's fine. As for your "Socialist models inherently cause greater pollution than Capitalist ones", you unwittingly acknowledged that in your first post, though oddly only to distract from it. (It's fine too.)
Now, if you were literate AND able to think clearly, then you would know the observation is valid regardless of any claimed partial exception to that norm. (Just as dogs ARE four legged mammals, too.)
TylerNull 6 months ago
You might want to reconsider your choice of the term "liberalism"; better just to say Socialism.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt
You might want to reconsider your choice of the term "socialism"; better just to say Liberalism.
On second thought, that's precisely what socialists did.
Go figure!
TylerNull 1 year ago
When western Germany, after WW2 built up the new economy, all kinds of energy supplies were used. Cleaner natural gas stations, nuclear power stations and even wind power. What happened in Eastgermany? They used old technologies to produce energy from coal. What happened with the nuclear power station in the Ukraine? Did that happen in western Germany? When you let people live free and prosper, they will probably invent better technologies, like it happened throughout history!
eric5335 1 year ago
@eric5335
Sure, but learning from the lessons of history is blasphemy in the Church of Socialism, which is to say the Church of Liberalism, which is to say the increasingly state-enforced religion of the USA.
TylerNull 1 year ago
This made me laugh. Yes, DAMN those sosialist polluters! It has probably nothing to do with captialism and industry! You see pollution over china and parts of africa because they have a lot of dirty industry there. And cleansing isnt exactly their top priority as they try to drive the costs down. By your logic, Norway should be quiiiiite the polluter, but on the contrary it isnt (funny that you're the one to criticize other peoples logic in your description).
Insolent85 1 year ago
@Insolent85 The only thing you can derive from this is the balance between wealth/pollution. You Sir, are just wrong.
Insolent85 1 year ago
@Insolent85
"they have a lot of dirty industry there" -- not relative to the G8.
"as they try to drive costs down" -- as do capitalists.
Redo your "logic".
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull the "as they try to drive costs down" was meant about capitalists. That's the reason western countries dump their hazardous industries to less restrictive countries (which again are less restrictive to be more appealing).
The fact that they have few/no regulations for their industry is caused by exactly capitalism. continued...
Insolent85 1 year ago
@Insolent85 ... And yes, they do have a lot of dirty industry in the third world. Up to 1994 most western nations were exporting their hazardous wastes and industries to the third world. The US were among the countries that continued to dump their shit after 1994. And the pollution/sosialism logic is inconsistant at best. Many nations that are sosialists dont show up as polluters while some of the polluters here arent sosialist nations.
Insolent85 1 year ago
@Insolent85 ... But what do i care, there's nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise (but then again you're probably thinking the same about me), you just go ahead and present this discovery of yours to peer review and enjoy the show!
Insolent85 1 year ago
@Insolent85
Your 3-posts include a wad of unreferenced claims, but in the end you are complaining that humanity is producing. You are NOT offering any reasoning why socialism is better by any metric, except to infer that you would be happy to shut down the engine of humanity.
Resources are costs. Capitalism offers incentives to conserve resources. There is ever less pollution per productive unit under capitalism due to the innovation that capitalism fosters. Capitalism is the solution.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull I've never claimed that sosialism is better, as such a generalization would be hard to back up, and i'm not trying to present evidence for or against that. I'm not going to debate that part. What i AM saying is that the information you are deriving from that video isnt statistically viable.
"Resources are costs. Capitalism offers incentives to conserve resources", correct. It is cheaper to transfer dirty business to a country with low regulations. continued...
Insolent85 1 year ago
@Insolent85 ... @Insolent85 That is why western nations have dumped their hazardous industries to non-OECD nations for quite a while.
Here's an OECD report that talks about the export of dirty businesses to non-OECD countries: w w w . oecd . org/dataoecd/25/4/2076285.pdf
Another factor that should be taken into account is that china has major air pollution from traffic alone.
Insolent85 1 year ago
@Insolent85
Insolent85 1 year ago
@Insolent85 just thought i'd add:
Iron and steel production is ranked as the number one polluting industries by OECD (if you read the rapport i linked to). Now take a look at the steel production by country on wikipedia: *had to remove link, because youtube wont accept it* Chinas production (500.5m tonnes) dwarfs EU (198.0m) and US (91.4) production combined (and note that this is production volume).
Insolent85 1 year ago
@Insolent85
Given that the labor price fixing cartels killed America's steel industry, it doesn't surprise me that it is now "dirty".
You might consider those framing all the discussions, the lingo, and cherry picking numbers to paint the picture for you.
How much do they discuss the MASSIVE pollution due to forest fires that burn uncontrollably due to insane environmentalist policies, pushed by eco-socialists, criminalizing effective forest management ?
Seems "dirty", doesn't it?
TylerNull 1 year ago
@Insolent85
After all your claims that we got rid of all "dirty" stuff, the USA consumes HUGE amounts of fuel because it produces HUGE amounts of products and services. E.g., we feed the world. And the OBSERVABLE satellite data is just that. Not "derived" or "statistics". Mine is a confluence of OBSERVABLES.
If you don't like the conclusion I draw, then you're going to have to articulate a REASON for forming another one. What is your conclusion and what reason do you have for it?
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull That must be the dumbest thing i've read in a long time. The US has a fiasco of a trade balance. They dont export shit compared to what they import. They have to import more than half of their oil consumption, look it up at US Energy Information Administration ()links doesnt work well on youtube). The US had an accumulated public debt of over 12 trillion dollars in 2009 (look that up yourself). Most of it was owed to china, since the US are dependant on getting goods from China.
Insolent85 1 year ago
@Insolent85
China makes lots of stuff therefore we can't use HUGE amounts of fossil fuels ?
I don't care for you logic.
Did you compare relative GDP ?
If you want to address THIS VIDEO EVIDENCE, then look at the RELATIVE amount of fossil fuel spent between one of the big red plumed nations -- socialist -- and that of the USA.
We use HUGE amounts of fuel and we produce HUGE amounts of goods and services. Yes, we import lots of China's stuff.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull I'm off to bed now, so i wont be continuing this discussion.
But you might take a look at this though:
w w w (dot) guardian (dot) co (dot) uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
Kinda falsely represented in this video (seeing as US is 2nd on the list), isnt it?
Anyway, good night.
Insolent85 1 year ago
@Insolent85
If you think the video itself -- the satellite data -- is a false representation of the video, then I can't help you. Talk to NASA, or a psychiatrist.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@Insolent85 sorry, was supposed to read gross debt, not public.
Insolent85 1 year ago
Captalism promotes the common good? Is the luciferian New World Order good? I don't think so.
By the way, Tyler is a title in the freemasonary. Isn't it?
reptohunter 1 year ago
@reptohunter
Evidently, some Germans learned NOTHING from their previous manifestation of pagan socialism which too was based on bizarre mystic notions.
His profile page, translated from German, for your enjoyment ...
"
They poison us with genetic engineering, Aspartam, mercury ... manipulate the weather and our thoughts ... deceive us over the extraterrestial presence on earth, ... afraid that its economic system breaks down by free energy and other technologies. ...
"
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull: Dann übersetze mal das hier: Jetzt lachst du noch, aber lachst du auch dann noch, wenn du einen RFID-Chip bekommst? Von mir aus, iss schön weiter dein Aspartam, aber jammer dann nicht über Krebs.
reptohunter 1 year ago
@reptohunter
As long as we keep you socialists from lording over us, citizens will maintain the liberty to decide for themselves what they do or do not want to manufacture, buy or sell.
Seriously, find a less toxic political theology to proselytize. Or, at least, drop the space alien stuff.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull: Where in capitalism the workers can decide, what they manufacture? You are joking! And you bye things you don't need, from money you not have, to impress people you don't like - only, because TV say it to you. And you want say me, that's freedom?
Bye the way, you want to say me, what I have to belive and think. I don't be your slave! I'm free to belive whatever I want!
reptohunter 1 year ago
@reptohunter
"Where in capitalism the workers can decide what they manufacture?"
A "worker" isn't an inanimate thing; they are people. Thus, WHEREVER the government preserves the LIBERTY to start a business, the "worker" (the person) may do so to manufacture anything they can manage -- unless there are socialists around to criminalize the activity, of course.
". . . , that's freedom?" -- yes, but I prefer the term liberty, since the latter implies responsibilities.
TylerNull 1 year ago
Second:
I expected it would be a more argumented vid...but visibly not. Then, stop playing with words. China is the largest world population and it isn't really socialist for 30 years. It can't be compared with american consomation so easily. Capitalism works only on short time. It always needs new projects to make money. Socialism planification is applied on several decades and doesn't needs a lot of money each time. Well, now you can find what can be more respectable of the environnent.
Greenbat85 1 year ago
Comment removed
pyongyang100 1 year ago
Al Gore Carbon Credit Lord
According to Deborah Cory Barnes, author of The Money and Connections Behind Al Gores Carbon Crusade, Al Gore started Generation Investment Management (GIM) with co founder Hank Paulson. Remember him? Yes, he was the Treasury Secretary. Guess what? Yes, he is also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. (Didnt Goldman Sachs just get billions in Federal Reserve pledges, bailouts, and or Tarp?)
Another scam to fleece working & middleclass people out of more of their money
Thisawareness 2 years ago 2
capitalism = pollution
heliam 2 years ago
socialist vs. satellite data.
socialist vs. reality.
Same as it ever was.
TylerNull 2 years ago
"
It's time to pray for global warming
... Global Warming conference ..., 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
"
TylerNull 3 years ago
@TylerNull, It is a more complex situation. Some areas are warming, others cooling. When talking about global warming, we should speak about local warming. All this involves the influence of ocean currents, as well as the greenhouse effect. Man was not entirely responsible, but partly. The real problems of human action are waste pollution, poisoning in industry etc ... And if we want to change, this requires changes in economic growth.
Greenbat85 1 year ago
It's called "the weather".
Beyond that, your mythology is based on a rich history of exposed hoaxes that were spawned and proselytized by merciless socialists, and whose policies were the most toxic to all of nature.
Oh, and your notions are incongruous with the video evidence herein.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull I'm sorry but you seems a lot far more brainwashed. Read back my texts; I never spoke about global warming as a fact. I contrary said there was a complex system including local warming or coolling (and yes thanks, I know what the weather is).
Greenbat85 1 year ago
I already said what I though about the video. You start at year 2000, while there are no real socialist country for 30 years at least (now even Cuba). And you can't concider air pollution alone. Now, I guess you have a very small outlook about socialism (what I can understand as you got alot of propaganda). For you France is a socialist country and also Obama must be a socialist one isn't? Can't see his liberal policies? Once again, it is not about global warming but LOCAL warmings and coolings.
Greenbat85 1 year ago
Socialists are always trying to absolve socialism of its toxic effects by claiming those of any actual socialist nation isn't "real socialism".
FAIL.
You tacitly admit the video evidence demonstrates my point, yet you manage to dismiss reality, to move-on and proselytize a new wad of idiocies.
FAIL.
Beyond that, capitalism is the economic model that is viable and effectively conserves resources, while socialism is the failed economic model that is inviable and wastes resources.
EVOLVE.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull WOW! Ok I guess everything which isn't ultra-liberal for you is socialism. In fact, everything which is not ultra-liberal is "FAIL" and socialism. Especially China is socialist cause the party still have the name? Could you tell me what is your definition of socialism? I pray for your brain.
Greenbat85 1 year ago
Yes, that the US is second only to China in pollution IS complete bullshit. To the contrary, the US is among the cleanest countries in the world (the correlation between economic prosperity - capitalism - and environmental quality is HUGE). Even in the case of greenhouse gases - where your confusion probably lies - the US produces less emissions per UNIT OF OUTPUT than most other countries - even if the science behing global warming alarmism were valid.
FletchforFreedom 3 years ago
You honestly believe this video. It shows most pollution coming from AFRICA, COME ON.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
Actually, it shows concentrations (and more are associated with southern Asia than Africa), but that is beside the point. The statement that the US is the number two polluter remains not only factually wrong but so far from reality to be properly classified as imbecilic. The implication at the end of the video that capitalism is better for the common environment (not to mention prosperity for the masses) is objectively correct.
FletchforFreedom 3 years ago
A quick google search for "US polluter number 2", reveals that you know a lot less than you are letting on. The US is the second biggest polluter, this statement is confirmed by BBC, NYT, etc.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
A quick google search reveals that you haven't a clue what you are talking about (not that that's a surprise at this juncture). The US is the second largest CARBON DIOXIDE EMITTER (according to the BBC, NYT, etc.). As anyone with even the most basic reading skills can grasp, that's NOT the same thing as being "the second biggest polluter" and is only a problem if global warming is the disaster the Left would have you believe (as opposed to what the science indicates). Learn to read.
FletchforFreedom 3 years ago
Which is what we are talking about isn't it!
LordKingMan 3 years ago
NEVER AT ANY TIME was the issue (or even the video) limited to carbon dioxide emissions. Pollution covers FAR more than that and the debate over whether carbon dioxide qualifies as a pollutant is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, settled.
All you do is undermine your own position when you pretend (or become so deluded that you believe) the issues under discussion are limited to what you want them to be or that even the one issue where the US comes in second prives your point.
FletchforFreedom 3 years ago
Obviously pollution doesn't only mean carbon dioxide, but that is what this video is about.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
"Obviously pollution doesn't only mean carbon dioxide..."
A point I have been at some pains to make.
"...but that is what this video is about."
Uh, no. No mention is made of CO2 in the video and NASA satellites are actually capturing ALL reflective ellements (not just CO2). If it did, it would throw an even larger hole in your unsupportable assertions.
FletchforFreedom 3 years ago
the USA pollutes MORE than china does you idiot!
pyongyang100 1 year ago
No, dimwit, you are too stupid to do basic research. Not only dioesChina produce far more land and water pollutants, it generates more air pollution than any other three countries combned (resulting in the most air pollution deaths per capita. China also has 11 of the 20 most polluted cities on the planet (Tianjin is 4th; Beijing is 16th).
Calling someone an idiot when your facts are so complertely and obviously wrong merely demonstrates your own shortcomings.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Totally!
LordKingMan 3 years ago
Yeah, totally because Africa and South America have extensive industrial capabilities. Do you honestly believe that Africa is producing more pollution than the US does? We are second only to China.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
The satellite video presented to you herein is not about "believe", it's reality.
TylerNull 3 years ago
Scapegoating doesn't help anything.
xXpimpleXx 3 years ago
Even if the salt levels even out the balance there are tens more negative effects of pollution besides temperature. In any case, we have no place to start screwing with nature's balance-Bad things would happen.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
It is to much to be a coninsidence that the increase of industry around the world directly correlates to a rise in temperature.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
"to be a coninsidence"
This isn't necessarily true. It true to say that Scientists have observed high levels of CO2 in the air. However, they only deduced that human industry must be the cause. As I said before, every single instance of an increase in the Earth's global temperature in all of geologic history has either caused or been preceeded by a spike in CO2. There was no industry back then. Where did the gas come from? Could today's spike be caused by a similar natural source?
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
its*
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
"Could today's spike be caused by a similar natural source?"
It could be but I think we should at least try to stop it. If we can't then we can't, but it's worth a shot.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
"it's worth a shot."
The way I see it, there are only a few possibilities:
A). Its naturally occurring and we're screwed. Besides, why would we want to mess around with a natural cycle anyway?
B). It's manmade, the damage has most likely already been done, and we're pretty much screwed regardless.
C). It was never really that big of deal to begin with. We just kind of shrugg it off like we've shrugged off every other obstacle in our history and get on with our lives.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
In any case, I don't see any reason why we should cripple the global economy (which ensures our modern standards of living and healthcare)to deal with the issue.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for clean and efficient energy, industry and transportation. No one in their right mind wants to deliberately destroy the environment.
However, I do believe that we should be cautious about whatever we do, and that we shouldn't allow Socialists to capitalize on the mass hysteria surrounding the issue.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
of a deal*
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
Well obviously more emmisions come from most of the world than from the US, that doesn't mean we should not change. If the icecaps melt-Millions will be displaced. Climate change is the biggest threat on the board-Food shortages, natural disasters, increased risk cancer, increased UV presence (this would bring plankton to the point of extinction as well bacteria vital to rice crop).
LordKingMan 3 years ago
"If the icecaps melt-Millions will be displaced."
Once again, however; if this melting changes the salination balance in the Atlantic and disrupts the Jet Stream, all such increaes in sea level will be negated in lieu of the rapidly decreasing climate.
"increased UV presence"
Global Warming wouldn't be enough to cause this. It would require an increase in the Sun's net solar output, or at the very least a significant change in the Earth's orbital pattern around the Sun.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
Unless, of course, you're talking about some kind of decrease in total cloud cover over the Earth.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
Global Warming would not cause a change in UV levels but it's the effect on the atmosphere caused by pollution would let more UV rays in. This would be fatal to many kinds of microscopic life.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
Well, then you are comparing one country to tens of others. Everyone has to change their view, but we and a few other countries shold change first because we are the biggest part of the problem. While it's true that these countries are mostly quite dirty in their production, but if we changed, I think we would be able to help them do the same.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
"Well, then you are comparing one country to tens of others."
There are well over 195 different nations on this planet. While I'll grant that not all of them are industrialized, a significant portion of those which weren't industrialized before are now moving in that direction. Their technology isn't quite on par with our own and neither is their environmental policy. This leads to their dirty industry.
"we are the biggest part of the problem."
That's just it. No, we're not.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
BTW Many of these wildfires are a result of global warming which is in large caused by huge CO2 emmisions. These huge wildfires are one of the side effects of producing such large amounts of emmisions.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
"These huge wildfires are one of the side effects of producing such large amounts of emmisions."
You can't really prove that. Wildfires have been happening sporadically in certain regions since the dawn of time.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago 2
*since practically the dawn of time*
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
It has been proved that global warming exists-I hope you are willing to acknowledge this fact. Anyway it has been proven that the Earth is heating up, this means that the Earth is going to be drier, wildfires are most frequent during droughts-for obvious reasons. Besides the statistics, that is proof enough for me.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
"It has been proved that global warming exists-I hope you are willing to acknowledge this fact."
Oh no, its definitely. I simply don't buy that its completely manmade. If you look back over the geologic timescale, the Earth has been shown to switch between periods of global warming and cooling rather frequently. The presence of human industry wasn't necessary to cause drastic changes in the global climate in past climatic events.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
its definitely real*
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
For instance, take the thawing of the artic tundra. How do we know that human actions caused this melting? It is entirely possible that some change in the Earth's rotation around the sun set that process in motion long before human industry had a significant environmental impact, and that the cycle has simply perpetuated itself ever since. We simply don't know enough to draw such sweeping conclusions as environmentalists claim. The whole movement simply assumes too much that isn't hard science.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
In my opinion it is almost totally man-made. As to the other, we, China and Russia produce the most pollution-We should change first regardless of the other smaller countries, they want to be like us and if we change, they will, in one way or another, change as well.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
To assume that any phenomena is, "totally man-made," is absurd. The Earth's climate flucuates all the time. For every Ice Age or, "Ice House," period in the Earth's geologic history, there has historically been an equal or greater corresponding, "Hot House," period in which glaciers become almost non-existent. All of these events have either been preceeded by or caused (we're not sure which)enormous increases in Green House gasses. Where was our vaunted industry during those climatic events?
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
Global Warming is much to do about nothing. Another warming cycle in the Earth's geologic history is nothing more than just that; another cycle in a line of dozens of such cycles. Global Warming isn't going to end life as we know it. Anyone who tries to feed you that load of horse excrement is most likely trying to sell you their political agenda as well. While I'll grant that some areas of the Earth will become drier due to Global Warming, most of the world will actually become more humid.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
All of this doesn't even account for the fact that if you were to add enough fresh water to Atlantic Ocean through the melting of the polar icecaps, you'd change the salination balance of the jet stream. This would cause global temperatures to drop considerably and most likely negate the effects of any percieved global warming entirely.
Besides, as the satellite shows, the highest concentrations of global air pollution aren't coming from the United States, but rather the developing world.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
to the Atlantic Ocean*
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
since we broke away from England and now that pollution has become a major problem our leader chooses not beleive that pollution is a problem. We are one of the biggest and most populated countries and we have a very old and outdated view of pollution.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
Not to mention our president doesn't even believe in global warming, we have refused the Kyoto Protocol and recently California attempted to raise emmision standards but was overruled by higher authority-We are not looking so good on this front.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
"Not to mention our president doesn't even believe in global warming, we have refused the Kyoto Protocol"
To be perfectly blunt, the Kyoto Protocol is a complete and total load of bull shit (excuse my French.) It intentionally seeks to limit the economic prosperity of the First World (the U.S. in particular), in order to, "level the playing field" (so to speak.) The EU has done absolutely nothing to abide by its provisions, and has resorted to selling, "carbon credits," to compensate.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago 3
This seems rather illogical to me because in capitolism businesses have to keep getting bigger to survive and getting bigger means more pollution. Very few companies invest fully in renewable sources of energy.
"As seen by the satellite data, our capitalist efficiencies have so radically reduced the rate of pollution that such from the USA is almost nonexistent."
That is BS.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
"That is BS."
Not in the slightest. Industry in the US and First World is shockingly clean compared to that found in the Developing World. I know that a lot of people have been brainwashed into believing that American SUVs are the sole cause for Global Warming, but this simply isn't the case. Cattle ranching and forest fires create more air pollution (methane, which is several times more potent that CO2 BTW) than cars ever could.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago 3
As this video is dealing with air quality;
Top 3 CO2 Producers:
USA - aprox. 6125 million metric tons per/year
China - aprox. 5500 million metric tons per/year
Russia - aprox. 1500 million metric tons per/year
LordKingMan 3 years ago
"Top 3 CO2 Producers:
USA - aprox. 6125 million metric tons per/year
China - aprox. 5500 million metric tons per/year
Russia - aprox. 1500 million metric tons per/year"
Source?
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago 2
BTW: I was wrong China has recently overtaken us in CO2 Emmisions. The data displayed in these sources is a few years old, but I can garuntee you that emissions have only gone up since these studies were made. Either way the US is producing huge amounts of CO2. So the statement that we are producing no pollution is totally stupid and without factual support.
LordKingMan 3 years ago
"So the statement that we are producing no pollution is totally stupid and without factual support"
I never said that we were, "producing no pollution." I merely stated that the US wasn't the primary contributer to global warming. Additionally, the statistics you've provided are actually rather misleading. The fact that the US contributes a large amount of CO2 in relation to other nations doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. is responsible for the majority of global air pollution.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
For instance, how much air pollution does the Developing World, or Europe as a whole produce in relation to the U.S.? I'm sure that the numbers taken under those parameters would be A LOT more proportional. It isn't quite fair to compare the emissions of a nation the size of the US with those of a nation the size of Venezuela when taken alone.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
You didn't say that but the person who posted this video did. Besides that, if it isn't us that is polluting (air, water, soil) the most (actually China is, but not by that much), then who is? As I see it, basic logic will point to us. Who is the biggest country? Russia-They produce a lot, but their economy is not that great and has had a lot of setbacks throught the last 100 years. China is big, we know they produce the most pollution. We are big too, we have had almost uninterupted growth
LordKingMan 3 years ago
"As I see it, basic logic will point to us. Who is the biggest country?"
No offense, but your logic is flawed. Its not about which country is the biggest or the most developed. First World industry is generally a lot cleaner than that found in the developing world. Its about which regions are having the greatest overall environmental impact. At this particular time in history, it is the Developing World. Their industry is simply environmentally dirty and reckless.
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago 4
Look at it this way. Suppose a very fat man lets out a very big fart (please excuse the absurdity of this demonstration). Next to him, there are standing about thirty very thin men. All of them emit their flatulence as well. Sure, the fat man's fart was technically larger, but all things considered, who do you think had the greatest impact on the amount of flatulence in the room? The one fat man, or the thirty others?
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
I guess I must have hit a nerve, seeing as how Leibo07 just blocked me from responding to his hate mail. ;)
If you're reading this Leibo, listen up. You are entirely waaaay too fixated on disproving religion (seriously, I post him something on Capitalism vs Socialism and he responds with a nasty little - totally irrelevant- poem on Christianity). I honestly think its kind of unhealthy. To quote Shakespeare, I believe he, "doth protest too much."
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
lol. Who's the new troll?
Knobbyboy88 3 years ago
By the way, you were correct. There was a, "fanatic," involved in this discussion. However I can assure you it wasn't me.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
"The greater the lie, the more people will believe in it" (Adolph Hitler, 'Mein Kampf')
Leibo07 4 years ago
"The greater the lie, the more people will believe in it"
Bravo! I don't think I've ever heard a better explanation of why such throughly debunked theories as Marxism continue to endure to this day. Marxism spreads the biggest lie of all; that utopia is actually possible if you just surrender all individual freedoms and believe.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
BTW, posting a whole lot of new propaganda videos from freakin YouTube on your profile proves nothing but your own gullibility and intellectual laziness.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
O hi there. Kindergarten's out, it seems.
Leibo07 4 years ago
"O hi there. Kindergarten's out, it seems."
Get your welfare check yet? How does the labor of other men suit you? You know what they say...Once a leech, always a leech.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
I'm sorry Leech, but for such a devout atheist, you sure put your faith in a lot of absolute nonsense. You've basically replaced God in your life with Socialism, and ST. Peter with Marx. Blind faith in Pseudo-religious/economic theories will not save you from reality.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
And I warn you about those thumbs ...
Leibo07 4 years ago
oops...
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
Man, you are so in denial...
If you REALLY are a private and will be sent as cannon fodder to Iraq/Afgh, then you seriously need to do something against that paranoia and Angst. You will not survive for two months.
Leibo07 4 years ago
"Man, you are so in denial..."
The radical leftist declares that I am in denial!?! Oh! The irnoy!!
You can think whatever you want. However, I at least have the comfort of knowing that my system of beliefs actually functions in reality. ;)
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
Excuse me; "Irony."
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
BTW, Knobby, your sole and lonley friend, the Nullity, is since some time starting to give me the thumbs... (and you, ofc)
(Earlier on, he really was anxious for you to come and meddle and try to have the debate saved, ahaha, it was so obvious, funny)
Leibo07 4 years ago
"(Earlier on, he really was anxious for you to come and meddle and try to have the debate saved, ahaha, it was so obvious, funny)"
I don't even know Tyler. You, however; are completely and totally wrong and deserve every bad rating you recieve.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
Are you here wanting to censoring me, amigo?
Because you know what that means ...
Leibo07 4 years ago
Maybe.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
"Fact", ahaha.
To expand their reach on working class, they mimed some socialism and called themselves thus. Because the fascists really did not have much influence on proletariat. This had to change ...
The Nazis were fascists with a strong conservative and christian tendency. They were very much, like after the more "centre right" with some left rhetorics.
Sheesh, I never thought to be still explaining all THIS ???
Leibo07 4 years ago
You're 100% wrong on every count.
The Nazis were secularists. They despised religion, and used it only for control of the masses (like the Soviets did). Secondly, the Nazis considered themselves to be every bit as revolutionary as Socialists (saving society from the weak,etc). They merely approached this goal from a Right Wing point of view. They were State Socialists, which basically meannt that they endorsed the creation of an all powerful socialist welfare state to lord over the masses.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
Well certainly the Church did not think that about Fascitst and Nazi's.
(And Hitler by the way, neither)
Leibo07 4 years ago
"Well certainly the Church did not think that about Fascitst and Nazi's."
That's pure propaganda; nothing more, nothing less. The Church NEVER supported Hitler. The Pope, in fact, harbored Jews within the Vatican. The Church simply didn't feel like getting bombed out of existence at the moment, so it kept its mouth shut.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
The Church was pro because of a lot of philosophical reasons. They had ever so much in common. Never mind.
I can show you dozens of pics with priests making Hitler-Gruss. (Even many officers from Wehrmacht did not want do this..)
Most important : Hitler had, as had Mussolini (Rapallo), vowed to take on the Left, ànd leave the Church alone.
Leibo07 4 years ago
Once again, no, they didn't. You're confusing post(and in some cases pre) WW2 Soviet and Communist propaganda with reality. The Nazis threw dozens of priests into concenration camps for opposing the will of Hitler's regime. There undoubtedly were members of the clergy that sided with the Nazis for various reasons (suurvival, pay offs, etc). However, this was the case in Soviet Russia as well (Orthodox Church), so it a moot point. Care to spew anymore factually inaccurate lies?
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
survival (sticky keys)* its a moot point*
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
Thesis: capitalism = dictatorship.
Observation : the media in our society, and these are > 99% capitalist, fight an ongoing struggle for our minds. Our minds must be penetrated with the free market & 'neo' liberal ideology. Many people have, alas, no defence against this sham that is contrary to their very interests. But the right wing and centre-right have the power over the supply and so they try to put the demand in accordance to their will.
Leibo07 4 years ago
Most of the "media in our society" are self professed Liberals (a.k.a., socialists).
Further, all forms of "media in our society" routinely broadcast devout socialists who proselytize the holy sacraments of their federally sanctioned mythologies, e.g., "Global Warming", "Corporate Welfare", "Undocumented Workers", "Gay Marriage", "Abortion Rights", and "Universal Healthcare".
Your Marxist fantasy is not an observation.
TylerNull 4 years ago
First of all, I notice several things on your US 'citizen-ship'. You call 'Liberals' socialists! Liberals = 'Democratic Party', right? There might be the odd one around. And there are BTW certainly people in Republ Party who do espouse measures that YOU would call socialist.
(What you call socialist is in fact centre-right wing : to get the sharp edges of capitalism by taking some government policy)
continued
Leibo07 4 years ago
" You call 'Liberals' socialists! Liberals = 'Democratic Party', right? There might be the odd one around."
Actually, a rather large percentage of the members of the Democratic party either espouse Socialist values or are sympathetic to Socialist causes. This is an indisputable fact.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
These policies are mostly favorable to Pentagon and police, CIA, etc. In a strict sense not "liberal" at all. (Remember fate of Habeas Corpus)
"US is a one-party-system, the Party of Property, and has 2 wings" (Gore Vidal)
YOU would probably say, this is a dictatorship...
"Neoliberal" paradigm undoubtedly rules US and most of the world's industrialized centers.
Leibo07 4 years ago
"US is a one-party-system, the Party of Property, and has 2 wings" (Gore Vidal)
Yes, we are, and we're damn proud of it. Don't worry, if not for a little group of individuals we refer to as the FOUNDING FATHERS, that could easily change. ;)
Property is Freedom.
We are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (i.e. Property).
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
O yes, the freedom of property,
no dissens on that one
Leibo07 4 years ago
"O yes, the freedom of property,
no dissens on that one"
The freedom of property is by far the most important of the fundamental human rights. If you remove a man's property in favor of the collective state, you remove his power. Therefore, making him a powerless slave to the whims of an all powerful state.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
The worst case to die for...
Get the difference between property and possession, btw.
Leibo07 4 years ago
"Get the difference between property and possession, btw."
I'd rather own than borrow, thank you.
Less chance of the all powerful lender taking everything back on a whim.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
But I know that the US has a great tradition of socialism and civil rights. You can be proud of this! I know, too, that there are very many soc/marx partys in US. To some I have connections.
Maybe they will play a fine role in future. Maybe the revolution will come from the heartland of world capitalism---the economic crisis is not only present but it IS in fact deepening. This was a matter of time (as everything is).
Leibo07 4 years ago
"But I know that the US has a great tradition of socialism and civil rights."
We have nothing of the kind. Our current problems with the national deficite are a direct consequence of FDR's, "progressive," New Deal. Welfare seems to breed poverty and slums.
"Maybe they will play a fine role in future. Maybe the revolution will come from the heartland of world capitalism"
If it ever does, you can count on me to be the first one to pull a Francisco Franco.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
Thank you, thàt I wanted to hear !!!!
Merci ! !
Leibo07 4 years ago
"Thank you, thàt I wanted to hear !!!!
Merci ! !"
What is in response to?
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
Excuse me, "What was THAT in response to?"
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
Seek and you shall find
Leibo07 4 years ago
"Seek and you shall find"
I'm guessing it was in response to the Francisco Franco comment. Whatever. Franco wasn't a Fascist, he merely used them as a tool to save his country from the communists. He voluntarily surrendred power.
I personally think its amusing how the media likes to demonize the Spanish Fascists. Granted, they were no saints. However, they were absolutely no worse than the Communists they were fighting.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
surrendered*
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
Knob, I know you are so much in love with lies, fake propaganda and illusions
but don't let this one get you
I have to deal with reaction limits time and again, just let you know
so welcome back
Leibo07 4 years ago
"Knob, I know you are so much in love with lies, fake propaganda and illusions
but don't let this one get you"
You can think whatever you want. However, my viewpoint here is historically factual. The Spanish Republicans were no better than the Fascists. They brually repressed the religious elements of Spanish society, were backed by the Soviets, and often resorted to violence to maintain their rule. The Spanish Civil War ultimately boils down to who you personally agree with.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago
The Sp Fascists and the Church were so at one, there might be the odd rebelling priest, but that does not say anything about the Church's official stance! They had no problems with fascism and were certainly not "repressed" by them.
Leibo07 4 years ago
"The Sp Fascists and the Church were so at one, there might be the odd rebelling priest, but that does not say anything about the Church's official stance! They had no problems with fascism and were certainly not "repressed" by them."
Once again, you are not only wrong but laughably wrong. The Pope was strongly against the Nazis. The church was actually rather active in the secret distribution of anti-Nazi pamplets throughout Germany. Your viewpoint on this issue is a malacious lie.
Knobbyboy88 4 years ago