US Presidential Debate and what is really important to people

[joeblast]

hehe "they want us to think" that things are going to significantly change and forever the better because of an election. culture rot is resolved by culture change!

 

Well, "deficit reduction" seems a lot better to me than increasing the Pentagon's base budget! We can brush it off by saying, "well he spends a ton in other areas" but at least in regard to this very clear issue, Obama's choice is extremely good and Romney's is extremely bad.

Sure on the cover of the statement, "using it for deficit reduction" is a good idea, but when going so far overboard in other areas that you have to scrape around wherever possible to try and make up for the excess, and that's just getting to the point where its returning to the old continual upward curve and not actual debt reduction...if we're flattening things that far then we can make the case that the defense spending generates a lot more work-revenue for people than the stimulus, omnibus, etc packages that just gave gobs of money away for make-work.

 

At any rate its all well beyond reason, the fact remains that the majority of the country has a severe spending addiction, republicans every bit as addicted as democrats.

 

That's the typical Conservative perspective regarding Romney/Ryan...not to say it's bad, just saying that people agree with you. The only issue I have with it, is that perhaps it's not entirely true. Do we really know all of the facts, and can we predict the future? Anyway, I hope you're right if Romney wins...I'd love to see our country improve.

I'd love to see the u6 (=the real unemployment #) at 7, 8% instead of the 15% and change it is today. I tried asking people what Obama can do to help provide an environment for making that number go down, but I dont get any replies on it - mostly because we've seen the effects of a fourfold increase in any and all regulations, restrictions on energy development, a sharp increase in the burden of hiring someone, plus a ton of new taxes set to take effect january 1. When a business cant accurately plan for the future, they arent going to hire anyone beyond what's absolutely necessary.

 

Oh also...one aspect I don't think would be an improvement is to demand more of people. It's a common Conservative thing these days to blame poor people for not working hard enough (when most of them that I know personally have 2-3 jobs, working more than full time, and still barely make rent). I don't think anyone really likes living on welfare, or unemployment, for instance. It's not nearly as much $ as they'd make in a real job, and it doesn't make the person feel honorable at all. No matter who they are! Sure, it's true that diamonds are formed through intense pressure...sometimes it motivates people to be required to work hard or else starve to death. But most of us are human beings, not diamonds...at other times the pressures of this society can crush us completely. Ever watch "The Pursuit of Happyness"? I don't view that as the American dream, as inspiring as it was to see someone struggling so hard. I view that as unfortunate and not representative of a free country! But, opinions differ...

I'm only very slightly placing the burden on them, but not the majority, because the vast majority of factors are out of their control. Its not like that for everyone, there's tons of people out there that will milk every little bit they can from the system. Others who have a little pride or self respect will take only what they absolutely must, and bust their ass, as it sounds like what your friend is doing. I applaud people with good work ethic.

 

 

I don't know. I have a friend who really needed that, and still wasn't able to land the job he was qualified for. Contrary to what we'd assume about a person getting free money, he was not doing well throughout that whole time. I agree it is excessive, though...you could say that the person should just get it until they can land a job doing anything, manufacturing, while they continue to apply in their field. I don't know why my friend chose to keep collecting.

 

Something to remember is that most people don't collect for the whole time. They use it in an honest way.

Yeah, that's part of it right there - "landing a job he was qualified for" and collecting in the meantime. Continual extensions allow for waiting for that good job instead of taking what you can find.

 

 

 

 

This is a problem I have with employers, not the government. It's unnecessary to demand someone with a master's degree (this is the new "high school ii" these days), for a job that could only require a month of training for a person with a HS degree. So guaranteeing all student loans...that's awesome IMO.

 

Also if you consider our competition with other nations...from what I've seen in the news, we look like idiots when it comes to our education! I think cutting away at student loans is the last thing our government should do...and as your video showed, it's not something that would help the real problem anyway.

 

 

 

I think businesses should do more job training, again. Employers have been the root of the problem; THAT is why post college kids are unemployed with huge debt. They're not sitting at their parent's home because they had access to student loans...they have an education and are more qualified for other jobs because they got student loans! They're better off, even if temporarily unemployed and in debt.

and I see that as downstream effects of other problems and not 'the root cause' of the issue. They're sitting at parent's home with no job prospects because of a multitude of factors, employers are largely just responding to incentives. Look at the ridiculous burdens placed on businesses in places like california, businesses have been leaving there over the last 5, 8, 10 years in veritable droves because there's simply better business climates elsewhere, and you see places like Az, new mexico, utah pick up all sorts of opportunities because the 'burden of the state' is so high in california.

 

Employers hire people when there's business opportunity. When political factors impede business opportunity, less business activity takes place, less people get hired. Make it harder for people to start businesses, increase startup costs for a business, you get less businesses, less "poor people" being able to run their own show and take home their own profits, and maybe hire a few other people in the process. Regulations that increase this threshold are a boon to big businesses (you often see them lobby for such stuff) and a barrier to smaller businesses.

 

 

Here's a story...I dropped out of college a year before graduation. I was going through a rough time, and was thinking about how I was only going to make 35k tops starting out, so I wanted to look at other options. I took an entire winter/summer doing a job search...spending at least 3 hours a day searching every job board, etc. Found absolutely nothing, except one job I ran into out of luck...roofing. I worked 2 days and killed my back. They were paying me $12.50 an hour, which is pretty damn good for someone without a college degree...but doing the math, that's only 24k a year. So, I went back to school and finished up...now am studying for a board exam, and once I pass, can finally work.

 

I am one of the people who used student loans, sitting at their parent's home, with huge debt, unemployed...but for good reason. This is where I have to be right now. Soon enough, I'll land a real job.

 

For someone who really invests themselves in finding a non-college job...they can get something comparable to a well paying job. My little brother, out of luck, recently got a delivery job that's paying him close to 30k a year. My cousin started out as a welder through an apprentice program. Truck driving jobs are constantly hiring (because it sucks, haha).

 

BUT what I'm trying to say is...right now college is still the best option. I know through experience.

Basically what I'm saying is that college is not the best option for everyone across the board to such an extent that it would make sense for 50, 70, 90% of people to have a college degree. Its like microsoft certifications, when they first came out they meant something but then before too long you had scads of people that were certified in the stuff but still didnt understand things well enough to troubleshoot their way out of a paper bag! What it used to mean got severely watered down by too many people having the degree. As opposed to say cisco who made their requirements tougher and tougher and they didnt care of the vast majority of the people who tried to get a CCNA or something failed the test. You cant make up for quality with quantity. Whereas a college degree used to be something special, it is now pretty much the status quo, and a watered down one at that.

 

I just brought my son off to college a month and change ago. I think I'm probably the only person that told him dont just go just to go, if you have no farkin idea of what you want to be then dont sign yourself up for the debt. Developmentally it is probably the absolute best thing for him right now - but I simply dont have much faith in the situation that he will get a degree in something worthwhile, marketable...and then after all that hope for jobs to be available. There's lots of jobs that pay well that dont require a degree or going 50, 100k in the hole to get there, owing the government for perhaps the rest of your life if you dont make enough to pay them off at any substantial rate.

 

Status quo=debt.

[Aetherous]

hehe "they want us to think" that things are going to significantly change and forever the better because of an election. culture rot is resolved by culture change!

 

Definitely.

 

Speaking of culture change...have you read into the Green New Deal? Now that would be some change (maybe not that you'd agree is wise, but still interesting).

 

Sure on the cover of the statement, "using it for deficit reduction" is a good idea, but when going so far overboard in other areas that you have to scrape around wherever possible to try and make up for the excess, and that's just getting to the point where its returning to the old continual upward curve and not actual debt reduction...if we're flattening things that far then we can make the case that the defense spending generates a lot more work-revenue for people than the stimulus, omnibus, etc packages that just gave gobs of money away for make-work.

 

Not a good point...sorry. I don't think defense spending when we're ending the wars will provide much work to American citizens. Private contractors and similar companies who happen to be American, yes, but it's not going to help the economy realistically.

 

It's the common Conservative POV to state that Obama is going way overboard with spending...but not give examples. I know you can. I just don't like when we're theorizing rather than discussing clear facts. They theorize enough (pull the blinders over our eyes) in their campaign promises to us.

 

At any rate its all well beyond reason, the fact remains that the majority of the country has a severe spending addiction, republicans every bit as addicted as democrats.

 

This is the one thing I understand about the economy, though...you must spend/invest in America in order to boost it. Cutting things like education and welfare destroys us, and doesn't make a difference in the deficit. So it's like...why are we even talking about it? I agree with your video...we have to completely rethink the way things are operating, instead.

 

I recall that in the past, our country broke off imports on certain things so that Americans would sort of be forced to buy American products. Why can't we do that these days? One idea.

 

I'd love to see the u6 (=the real unemployment #) at 7, 8% instead of the 15% and change it is today. I tried asking people what Obama can do to help provide an environment for making that number go down, but I dont get any replies on it - mostly because we've seen the effects of a fourfold increase in any and all regulations, restrictions on energy development, a sharp increase in the burden of hiring someone, plus a ton of new taxes set to take effect january 1. When a business cant accurately plan for the future, they arent going to hire anyone beyond what's absolutely necessary.

 

I suppose I will only understand the POV of an employer when I become one. I've heard arguments like, companies aren't hiring people because they think Obamacare will make it more costly for the company (here's that culture rot you were talking about). I just think it's a load of garbage, and is purely speculative. But...I'm not in an informed position on that matter.

 

To answer you about Obama...well I don't think he has much of a say in unemployment. Does he? But if his administration actually is pushing for more green jobs as well as alternative energy, that's one example of job creation.

 

The new taxes that are coming into effect, are they a result of the Budget Control Act ?

 

I'm only very slightly placing the burden on them, but not the majority, because the vast majority of factors are out of their control. Its not like that for everyone, there's tons of people out there that will milk every little bit they can from the system. Others who have a little pride or self respect will take only what they absolutely must, and bust their ass, as it sounds like what your friend is doing. I applaud people with good work ethic.

 

Yeah my friend ended up taking a similar job in another city, where he makes about 1/4 of what he was previously. He feels stuck currently, barely getting by with some spending money while busting his ass and living in a crappy town.

 

Something I wonder about our country...what about all of the people with poor work ethic? Because they certainly exist. Do we put them out on the street? I'm getting philosophical rather than political, but this is how I approach politics...from the heart. When I see an owner of a corporation making millions doing hardly anything, then I see the poor man who isn't fit for busting his ass just to survive....I tend to think that pre-civilization was actually less barbaric than what we have now! At least then we had the freedom to be in nature...to live off the land to survive. It's much easier to go fishing and build a shelter than to get by these days. I see something wrong with the entire system we have...climbing over others to reach the top of the human pyramid (there is no top, the more people the bigger it gets) or at least a height at which you're not absolutely crushed by the weight of it, rather than ensuring that everyone is simply living well. The fault doesn't lie with the people at the bottom, IMO...if they can't pull a Will Smith (in Pursuit of Happyness) that's not their fault. Hardly anyone can.

 

 

Yeah, that's part of it right there - "landing a job he was qualified for" and collecting in the meantime. Continual extensions allow for waiting for that good job instead of taking what you can find.

 

I agree, it's a luxury. But the question...does cutting away at the extended unemployment collection solve our debt problem? The video says no...common sense says it helps but doesn't hardly solve it.

[Aetherous]

and I see that as downstream effects of other problems and not 'the root cause' of the issue. They're sitting at parent's home with no job prospects because of a multitude of factors, employers are largely just responding to incentives. Look at the ridiculous burdens placed on businesses in places like california, businesses have been leaving there over the last 5, 8, 10 years in veritable droves because there's simply better business climates elsewhere, and you see places like Az, new mexico, utah pick up all sorts of opportunities because the 'burden of the state' is so high in california.

 

If the main preoccupation of a company is to make more money at the expense of employees, I can't sympathize at all. And I'm not knowledgeable enough about how businesses are affected...what burdens have been placed on Californian businesses?

 

Employers hire people when there's business opportunity. When political factors impede business opportunity, less business activity takes place, less people get hired. Make it harder for people to start businesses, increase startup costs for a business, you get less businesses, less "poor people" being able to run their own show and take home their own profits, and maybe hire a few other people in the process. Regulations that increase this threshold are a boon to big businesses (you often see them lobby for such stuff) and a barrier to smaller businesses.

 

I've heard that Obama makes it hard for people trying to start up a business...how has he done this exactly? What political factors have impeded small business opportunity and activity?

 

Basically what I'm saying is that college is not the best option for everyone across the board to such an extent that it would make sense for 50, 70, 90% of people to have a college degree. Its like microsoft certifications, when they first came out they meant something but then before too long you had scads of people that were certified in the stuff but still didnt understand things well enough to troubleshoot their way out of a paper bag! What it used to mean got severely watered down by too many people having the degree. As opposed to say cisco who made their requirements tougher and tougher and they didnt care of the vast majority of the people who tried to get a CCNA or something failed the test. You cant make up for quality with quantity. Whereas a college degree used to be something special, it is now pretty much the status quo, and a watered down one at that.

 

Agree...yet it's still a requirement for most jobs. Once that changes significantly, then I think we could reasonably discuss cutting student loans.

 

Another thing that I think should be discussed...college is too expensive, too useless...make college completely free/forgive student debt, and emphasize useful majors as well as helping land the first job...that should totally be one of the university's responsibilites. Those things would directly stimulate the economy. And then we could also stop talking about student loans of course...lol.

 

I just brought my son off to college a month and change ago. I think I'm probably the only person that told him dont just go just to go, if you have no farkin idea of what you want to be then dont sign yourself up for the debt. Developmentally it is probably the absolute best thing for him right now - but I simply dont have much faith in the situation that he will get a degree in something worthwhile, marketable...and then after all that hope for jobs to be available. There's lots of jobs that pay well that dont require a degree or going 50, 100k in the hole to get there, owing the government for perhaps the rest of your life if you dont make enough to pay them off at any substantial rate.

 

Status quo=debt.

 

I got similar advice from my ex girlfriends uncle...haha...he was a cool guy. He also encouraged me to join the Army, even though I didn't at first...later I did, and it proved to be exactly what he said: the best way to learn about yourself and the world. Anyway, good advice to your kid and good luck for him in figuring it out along the way. Looking back, I can say that I regret quite a few things....most of them having to do with not being fully prepared and fully knowledgeable about how to make my living. Pretty much the one thing we're required to do in life. You're a good parent if you really challenge your kid in this area...as much as he might hate it. Reality can sting pretty bad, and it's a huge growth spurt between college kid and working adult. Too huge.

[Aetherous]

http://www.democracy...bate_with_third

 

I enjoyed watching the debate with all of the active presidential candidates having equal talking time. Next debate (the final one, I think Monday), Democracy Now will do the same thing live...I'm just going to tune into that instead of the regularly broadcast one.

 

.......

 

Just editing this post instead of making a new one...on the issue of increasing federal revenue, we should all be talking about completely legalizing and taxing pot...

• The report estimates that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $5.3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $2.4 billion would accrue to the federal government.
  
• The report also estimates that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. (From what I understand, these numbers are all from 2005)
  

Edited October 19, 2012 by turtle shell

[joeblast]

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/55-facts-about-the-debt-and-u-s-government-finances-that-every-american-voter-should-know

 

too long of a reply chain - will get to a couple specifics later!

[Apech]

Had to watch Aljazeera to find an intelligent debate about 3rd party candidates.

 

[Protector]

Hey guys, read this mangaaaaaaaaaa

http://www.mangareader.net/331/akumetsu.html

 

aaaah, whenever I recommend a manga it get's ignored so have a short summary of this one:

Very loosely based on some events that transpired in Japan. Akumetsu is about a mysterious group of terrorists who kill people in power. The motivation is that Japan is in 700 trillion yen in debt and so they kill of people responsible in hopes of improving things.

It's not just a slaughterhouse, the author explain how each person in power makes things worse for the country by abusing their power. Most of people killed in the story are based on real life people who done the same things to Japan.

 

I thought you policy nuts would love it

[ralis]

No matter who is elected next month, 'disaster capitalism', 'vulture capitalism', will continue unabated! This article is a summation of the attitudes of the corporate oligarchy.

 

http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/30/13576968-former-bain-capital-partner-extolled-the-virtues-of-cheap-offshore-labor-said-romney-would-own-bain-capital-record?lite

[ralis]

Forbes which is a conservative business magazine is covering Romney ties with voting machine company.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/10/20/romney-family-investment-ties-to-voting-machine-company-that-could-decide-the-election-causes-concern/

[Protector]

[zerostao]

Forbes which is a conservative business magazine is covering Romney ties with voting machine company.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/10/20/romney-family-investment-ties-to-voting-machine-company-that-could-decide-the-election-causes-concern/

a timely and strategic investment.

conficts of interests have not been considered important for quite some time.

 

in kentucky

gary johnson and jill stein made the ballot.

 

[ralis]

I believe Bain Capital received initial funding from questionable sources in South America.

 

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12231-employees-of-romney-familys-secret-bank-tied-to-fraud-money-laundering-and-drug-cartels

[Aetherous]

Watching the expanded debate tonight (including some of the other active presidential candidates) on Democracy Now...I can't help but want to slap most Americans upside the head for not paying attention. Or paying attention to the wrong thing.

 

[Stosh]

Bama kicked butt but I still gotta go with the elitist

wish there were more credible choices.

Stosh

[joeblast]

I dunno, I always took smirking at your opponent and rolling your eyes as simple bad form, something a poorly disciplined child does. (Probably not as bad form as getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar and denying there's any cookies missing, but I digress.)

 

Why in the hell was this debate made about foreign policy, everyone here cares about how shitty the economy is, so what's the best thing, avoid talking about what the economy has done in the last 4 years? I guess its great when the refs are on your side to make those penalty calls for you when the game's on the line

[zerostao]

i like the trigram joeblast.

foreign policy does happen to be a major part of the presidents job and i feel that foreign policy affects our economy.

recent example is the latest george bush, dick cheney, don rumsfeld, condi rice decision to invade and destroy iraq

and the re-direction(criminal) (mis-use) of resources. this directly led to the state of the economy we are now in.

again , consider the state of the economy when this latest group of criminals politicians took office and the state of the economy when they left office.

it is curious that i have been asking reagan's famous question "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?

and even if 75% of those i ask say that they personally are better off than they were 4 years ago i live in a state that will go romneys way. the issues of public education, (and how i remember the latest bush wanted to be known as the education president,) and the issue of the environment alone tempt me to vote. evil always finds a way to tempt someone i reckon.

personally i am way better off than i was 4 years ago when i was participating in a republican economy.

and had my lifes work savings stripped away in a flash.

if the republicans ever choose to run a true republican, well that might be different, even if i feel the time has come to scrap the 2 party system entirely. i trust the 99% more than i trust the 1%

 

edit. some folks suggest that i am not being responsible in that i do not vote

my view is it is ir-responsible to vote for criminals , thus putting me at least as an accessory to future crimes. i want no part of it

Edited October 23, 2012 by zerostao

[joeblast]

thx. will have to make a prettier one

 

"directly contributed to" and "directly led to" arent quite congruent of course they directly contributed to, but there are so many other issues present that also contribute, most of which are domestic in nature - I disagree with "directly led to" because that assigns a sense of primacy, whereas I fully believe the primacy lies elsewhere.

[joeblast]

just saw that jill stein believes in the pseudoscience of the AGW co2 scam.

 

I lol'd. (not that I'd have voted for her anyway, but that's an absolute disqualifier.)

Edited October 23, 2012 by joeblast

[ralis]

just saw that jill stein believes in the pseudoscience of the AGW co2 scam.

 

I lol'd. (not that I'd have voted for her anyway, but that's an absolute disqualifier.)

 

It is your belief that is pseudoscience. In fact you are in a very tiny minority that fails to accept valid scientific research.

[joeblast]

give it up, ralis. you get schooled into disappearance every time the AGW scam gets brought up and it gets down to bringing about technical points. I accept valid research. I dont accept twistings of data to support foregone conclusions, which is all the AGW scam is - a foregone conclusion that would have fallen by the wayside long ago were it not for the politicians seizing upon it with (tax) dollar signs in their eyes.

[Aetherous]

just saw that jill stein believes in the pseudoscience of the AGW co2 scam.

 

I lol'd. (not that I'd have voted for her anyway, but that's an absolute disqualifier.)

 

Well, I don't think it's a scam at all...listened to scientists and seen a few things. I know you've posted stuff here in the past about how it is...not interested, mostly because I'm not educated enough in the subject to argue. But at least from my POV...you've got probably 90% of educated people against you on this subject.

 

Also...that is a disqualifier? And you're voting for Romney/Ryan? I'm not getting it.

 

Why in the hell was this debate made about foreign policy, everyone here cares about how shitty the economy is, so what's the best thing, avoid talking about what the economy has done in the last 4 years? I guess its great when the refs are on your side to make those penalty calls for you when the game's on the line

 

Well, part of it had to do with addressing this monstrosity. Foreign policy is not really a separate issue in many cases. Of course Romney had to try and ride the tide of the Libya bullshit.

 

By the way...if you watched it on TV, you missed the actual debate and instead simply watched two puppets put on a show. I urge you to check out the expanded debate (starts at like 33:30 mins and includes Obamney's answers) for some real perspective.

[joeblast]

90% nah man, the Goreacle already tried that one attempting to shout everyone down saying the debate is over. Its a lot less than what you're led to believe, like a great many things. 90% is a joke of a stat. Just like the idea that a third order process can somehow overwhelm first order processes without both the first and second order processes showing enough of a weakness, which they have not in any way shape or form. I heard people crying about the arctic sea ice extent earlier in the year, before the curve turned around and became steeper than all of the recent data - now of course you hear nothing of it.

 

Yes, that's a disqualifier. While there may be other good points about her candidacy, its not worth going against the machine for someone who agrees with the machine on such matters. If you want to be an environmentalist, fine, but please for cripes sake be honest and take objective looks at things and dont agree with something merely because it agrees with your ideology, though it flies in the face of scads of data (that has grown to such proportions that at this point you really need to be uninformed or severely ideologically driven to continue accepting the farcical carbon dioxide theory. Either that, or there's still that carrot of all those tax dollars sitting there for politicians to grasp at - why, it could be put towards universal healthcare, even! Its gotten tiring having any semblance of debate with people on this, for every contrived bit of data brought up I say what about this, this and this, until rebuttals simply stop coming for lack of being able to say anything concretely, yet there is still the refusal to admit certain defeat. No matter, time shall reveal the idiocy of the AGW movement - or will it...at what point are they going to say "ya know what, we were wrong"...there's lots of taxes and grant money at stake if you follow the money. The oil and big energy companies are going to get their profits regardless - but AGWers would like to shave a percent off it it and have the other 5, 10 percent of it simply shifted onto the people who buy any sort of energy product, then decry the big businesses for passing on a cost that the government mandates. Like all of these threads, the question is - who's the government really f*king?)

[Aetherous]

90% is a joke of a stat.

 

Definitely, I just came up with it. I was going to say 99%, but I thought I'd be lenient.

[zerostao]

turtle shell just wanted to say i am with ya on the obamney. its rigged deal either way.

crimes of the highest order.

so much deception going on from all sides

how does one see thru the fog that these fog machines are putting out there.

[ralis]

90% nah man, the Goreacle already tried that one attempting to shout everyone down saying the debate is over. Its a lot less than what you're led to believe, like a great many things. 90% is a joke of a stat. Just like the idea that a third order process can somehow overwhelm first order processes without both the first and second order processes showing enough of a weakness, which they have not in any way shape or form. I heard people crying about the arctic sea ice extent earlier in the year, before the curve turned around and became steeper than all of the recent data - now of course you hear nothing of it.

 

Yes, that's a disqualifier. While there may be other good points about her candidacy, its not worth going against the machine for someone who agrees with the machine on such matters. If you want to be an environmentalist, fine, but please for cripes sake be honest and take objective looks at things and dont agree with something merely because it agrees with your ideology, though it flies in the face of scads of data (that has grown to such proportions that at this point you really need to be uninformed or severely ideologically driven to continue accepting the farcical carbon dioxide theory. Either that, or there's still that carrot of all those tax dollars sitting there for politicians to grasp at - why, it could be put towards universal healthcare, even! Its gotten tiring having any semblance of debate with people on this, for every contrived bit of data brought up I say what about this, this and this, until rebuttals simply stop coming for lack of being able to say anything concretely, yet there is still the refusal to admit certain defeat. No matter, time shall reveal the idiocy of the AGW movement - or will it...at what point are they going to say "ya know what, we were wrong"...there's lots of taxes and grant money at stake if you follow the money. The oil and big energy companies are going to get their profits regardless - but AGWers would like to shave a percent off it it and have the other 5, 10 percent of it simply shifted onto the people who buy any sort of energy product, then decry the big businesses for passing on a cost that the government mandates. Like all of these threads, the question is - who's the government really f*king?)

 

Everything you have written on AGW has no basis in fact! Throw false statistics around all you want and that only proves you are in a miniscule minority. Just proves you have no substantive background in the sciences and are unable to analyze research. Further, the reason I don't debate you, is for the very reason that you have no documented peer reviewed evidence to base your arguments on.

 

It seems to me you have the mistaken belief that the participants here are uneducated fools. By posting a few unproven statistics, you will somehow dazzle your audience and somehow prove that you are intellectually superior. I am not deceived by your nonsensical narrative.

Edited October 24, 2012 by ralis