More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[itfitzme]

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

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

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

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

You mean like

That is anecdotal. So, you didn't do a balanced survey. Instead, you did a bullshit survey of this thread. Given this example, why should I believe anything you have to say?

 

[PMZ]

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

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

I'm going to stick to the English definition rather than yours. Capitalism and socialism are two different, complementary tools. They have different applications, risks and benefits. What you're thinking of is the monster in the conservative closet.

 

[PMZ]

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

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

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

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

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

You're saying that drought is not linked to wildfires?

 

[PMZ]

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

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

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

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

Again you fail history and logic and reason..

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

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

ACA is CLEARLY redistribution of wealth thru tax policy..

Both, clearly Constitutional as adjudicated by the one source that has that responsibility.

I checked and you opinion is not recognized by the Constitution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

We are paying the price with snow today in Chicago!

Quick, spend trillions!

 

[mamooth]

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

Socialism is the government having control of the means of production.

That's the actual definition of socialism. Other definitions may vary, depending on whether someone wants to define their opponents as socialist.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Socialism is the government having control of the means of production.

That's the actual definition of socialism. Other definitions may vary, depending on whether someone wants to define their opponents as socialist.

Hitler and Mussolini had control of the "means of production".. That's when operations are privately OWNED, but FEDERALLY controlled. And was a version of fascism.

The real hallmark of socialism is "fairness", "social justice" and "redistribution". Taking control of the economy is just a means to that end..

 

[mamooth]

Flac, the dictionaries seem unaware of your definition.

Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

so·cial·ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

[skookerasbil]

Every day....more evidence of not winning!!!! The latest from the EU who are fucking themselves with this obsession with renewables, but the consequences are doing some serious economic damage. Geee.....what a surprise. If you are a dumbass, that is!!!


Today in Forbes >>>>



Energy 10/20/2013

European Economic Stability Threatened By Renewable Energy Subsidies



The stability of Europe’s electricity generation is at risk from the warped market structure caused by skyrocketing renewable energy subsidies that have swarmed across the continent over the last decade.

This sentiment was echoed a week ago by the CEOs of Europe’s largest energy companies, who produce almost half of Europe’s electricity. This group joined voices calling for an end to subsidies for wind and solar power, saying the subsidies have led to unacceptably high utility bills for residences and businesses, and even risk causing continent-wide blackouts

The group includes Germany’s E.ON AG, France’s GDF Suez SA and Italy’s Eni SpA, and they unanimously pointed the finger at European governments’ poorly thought-out decision at the turn of the millennium to promote renewable energy by any means.

The plan seemed like a good one in the late 1990s as a way to reverse Europe’s reliance on imported fossil fuels, particularly from Russia and the Middle East. But it seems the execution hasn’t matched the good intentions, and the authors of the legislations didn’t understand the markets.

“The importance of renewables has become a threat to the continent’s supply safety,” warned senior global energy analyst, Colette Lewiner, referring to a recent report by a Europe energy firm, Capgemini.

“We’ve failed on all accounts: Europe is threatened by a blackout like in New York a few years ago, prices are shooting up higher, and our carbon emissions keep increasing,” said GDF Suez CEO Gérard Mestrallet ahead of the news conference.

Under these subsidy programs, wind and solar power producers get priority access to the grid and are guaranteed high prices. In France, nuclear power wholesales for about €40/MWhr ($54/MWhr), but electricity generated from wind turbines is guaranteed at €83/MWhr ($112/MWhr), regardless of demand. Customers have to pick up the difference.


European Economic Stability Threatened By Renewable Energy Subsidies - Forbes



Good intentions with shitty-ass results. Yep....sounds like modern liberalism to me!! These bozo's who push this crap have no regard for "costs" just like any bonafide lefty asshole!!!


But eventually......the people will punt the fuckers out when the taxes keep going up and the blackouts come!!!

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

I'm going to stick to the English definition rather than yours. Capitalism and socialism are two different, complementary tools. They have different applications, risks and benefits. What you're thinking of is the monster in the conservative closet.

the only "application" socialism has is mass plunder and tyranny. What socialism really means is social relations at the point of a gun. Armed robbery is socialism, and visa/versa.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

Again you fail history and logic and reason..

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

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

ACA is CLEARLY redistribution of wealth thru tax policy..

Both, clearly Constitutional as adjudicated by the one source that has that responsibility.

I checked and you opinion is not recognized by the Constitution.

Social Security clearly is not Constitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says. The SC is just a gang of political cronies who rule however their political masters want them to rule.

 

[Abraham3]

Again you fail history and logic and reason..

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

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

ACA is CLEARLY redistribution of wealth thru tax policy..

Both, clearly Constitutional as adjudicated by the one source that has that responsibility.

I checked and you opinion is not recognized by the Constitution.

Social Security clearly is not Constitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says. The SC is just a gang of political cronies who rule however their political masters want them to rule.

You really don't like this country, do you.

 

[PMZ]

Both, clearly Constitutional as adjudicated by the one source that has that responsibility.

I checked and you opinion is not recognized by the Constitution.

Social Security clearly is not Constitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says. The SC is just a gang of political cronies who rule however their political masters want them to rule.

You really don't like this country, do you.

They hate it and would like to destroy it and build a plutocracy in its place.

 

[PMZ]

Again you fail history and logic and reason..

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

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

ACA is CLEARLY redistribution of wealth thru tax policy..

Both, clearly Constitutional as adjudicated by the one source that has that responsibility.

I checked and you opinion is not recognized by the Constitution.

Social Security clearly is not Constitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says. The SC is just a gang of political cronies who rule however their political masters want them to rule.

Social Security is Constitutional because the federal courts say it is.

It's your opinion that has no relevance in that issue.

 

[bripat9643]

Both, clearly Constitutional as adjudicated by the one source that has that responsibility.

I checked and you opinion is not recognized by the Constitution.

Social Security clearly is not Constitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says. The SC is just a gang of political cronies who rule however their political masters want them to rule.

You really don't like this country, do you.

I don't like the government. Different thing entirely. This country is better than others only to the extent that it has resisted the lure of government. Social Security is one of it's greatest failures.

 

[bripat9643]

Both, clearly Constitutional as adjudicated by the one source that has that responsibility.

I checked and you opinion is not recognized by the Constitution.

Social Security clearly is not Constitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says. The SC is just a gang of political cronies who rule however their political masters want them to rule.

Social Security is Constitutional because the federal courts say it is.

It's your opinion that has no relevance in that issue.

Wrong. Your claim is based on the belief that the SC is infallible.

 

[westwall]

Both, clearly Constitutional as adjudicated by the one source that has that responsibility.

I checked and you opinion is not recognized by the Constitution.

Social Security clearly is not Constitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says. The SC is just a gang of political cronies who rule however their political masters want them to rule.

You really don't like this country, do you.

Who added more debt to this country than all previous POTUS's combined? Oh, yeah that new Democrat guy. Great job! Now go look at what has happened to other countries that were saddled with that sort of debt. Go ahead I dare you.

 

[PMZ]

Social Security clearly is not Constitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says. The SC is just a gang of political cronies who rule however their political masters want them to rule.

You really don't like this country, do you.

I don't like the government. Different thing entirely. This country is better than others only to the extent that it has resisted the lure of government. Social Security is one of it's greatest failures.

Without our government, we're a hunk of land.

You anarchists disgust me. Why don't you have the balls to move to Somalia and find out what anarchy is in real life.

 

[PMZ]

Social Security clearly is not Constitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says. The SC is just a gang of political cronies who rule however their political masters want them to rule.

You really don't like this country, do you.

Who added more debt to this country than all previous POTUS's combined? Oh, yeah that new Democrat guy. Great job! Now go look at what has happened to other countries that were saddled with that sort of debt. Go ahead I dare you.

Only if you believe that dates cause debt. If you believe that government policies cause debt, it's all on conservatives. That's why you're done on our government.

 

[PMZ]

Social Security clearly is not Constitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says. The SC is just a gang of political cronies who rule however their political masters want them to rule.

Social Security is Constitutional because the federal courts say it is.

It's your opinion that has no relevance in that issue.

Wrong. Your claim is based on the belief that the SC is infallible.

My claim is what's said by our Constitution.