Defining U.S. Conservatism Down

[ralis]

edit

Edited April 10, 2013 by ralis

[JustARandomPanda]

Hope I didn't offend anyone. I am no expert. Just still nosing about trying to learn things. Sometimes even this old dog can still learn new things.

 

 

Cheers!

[lloydbaker]

Talk about unbalanced rant! Vmarco needs to look in the mirror.

 

There are many types of Conservatism, the best of which attempts to conserve what is good and works in a tradition of society.

 

Since America had large doses of liberty in its founding documents, many conservative ideas are helpful. In other ways, conservatives have fallen away from the Republic's founding ideas and seek to conserve violations of liberty, the overweening power of the State.

 

Progressives, on the other hand, would throw overboard liberty in general in favor of the all powerful STATE as long as they perceive the STATE to be controlled democratically (always an illusion).

Edited April 16, 2013 by lloydbaker

[lloydbaker]

Scientists are bought and sold like lawyers.

 

Appealing to the authority of "scientists" is AUTHORITARIANISM!

 

Global Warming Propaganda is a plot to retard economic development to preserve the environment AT THE EXPENSE OF PEOPLE! Environmentalism was created as a movement by the Club of Rome, a group of the world's richest Billionaires. The Club of Rome sponsored the LIMITS OF GROWTH by Meadows. It was a fake computer program designed to prove economic growth would destroy humanity when the opposite is the case. All of its predictions were wrong!

 

Rapid economic development would endanger the power of the Billionaires behind the environmentalist movement! Evironmentalism kills!

Edited April 16, 2013 by lloydbaker

[JustARandomPanda]

The Club of Rome sponsored the LIMITS OF GROWTH by Meadows. It was a fake computer program designed to prove economic growth would destroy humanity when the opposite is the case.

 

Not sure I agree the Limits of Growth program as it is run is fake. In any case...even if it were or is the principle argument it was making is not.

 

All it simply says is that over time the cost of extracting petroleum will go up as the total amount of available cheap well sources declines. In other words...the "low hanging fruit" (most desirable oil sources - light sweet crude) will decline. Thus more expense will need to be fronted by society to extract the less-cheap-and-easy-to-get-to sources of oil. Ditto with coal and natural gas.

 

At some point the lines will cross and the cost of extracting this harder-to-get-to (and thus more expensive) petroleum will make the extraction turn negative economically. That is - it will take more energy and money to extract the oil, coal and natural gas than that which is used to get it out. It's as if you're paying $2 to buy a $1 bill from a merchant.

 

That's really what the Limits of Growth was about - where the lines cross. It wasn't saying an oil-apocalypse to crush the populace is coming or anything like that.

 

Rapid economic development would endanger the power of the Billionaires behind the environmentalist movement! Evironmentalism kills!

 

Some does. But others...like what JMG (and others like him) teaches does not. Also rapid economic development can potentially increase the power of anti-environmentalist Billionaires as well. One would need to look at the specifics to distinguish which might be the case in any particular instance.

[ralis]

Scientists are bought and sold like lawyers.

 

Appealing to the authority of "scientists" is AUTHORITARIANISM!

 

Global Warming Propaganda is a plot to retard economic development to preserve the environment AT THE EXPENSE OF PEOPLE! Environmentalism was created as a movement by the Club of Rome, a group of the world's richest Billionaires. The Club of Rome sponsored the LIMITS OF GROWTH by Meadows. It was a fake computer program designed to prove economic growth would destroy humanity when the opposite is the case. All of its predictions were wrong!

 

Rapid economic development would endanger the power of the Billionaires behind the environmentalist movement! Evironmentalism kills!

 

What are you talking about? Do you just make this stuff up?

Edited April 16, 2013 by ralis

[JustARandomPanda]

lloyd is here at my request R..

 

He is a longtime friend. He's a noob when it comes to Qigong, chi, tantra, meditation or anything of that sort.

 

I asked him to post a few things in my threads as I was curious as to what he might think. He didn't have time to give a lengthy post. Typically his posts are very well reasoned and well supported. I didn't agree with his last post as anyone can see from my reply but I am not inclined to dismiss him outright before he's had the chance to explain why he came to that conclusion.

 

[ralis]

lloyd is here at my request R..

 

He is a longtime friend. He's a noob when it comes to Qigong, chi, tantra, meditation or anything of that sort.

 

I asked him to post a few things in my threads as I was curious as to what he might think. He didn't have time to give a lengthy post. Typically his posts are very well reasoned and well supported. I didn't agree with his last post as anyone can see from my reply but I am not inclined to dismiss him outright before he's had the chance to explain why he came to that conclusion.

 

 

His post is entirely based on emotion with no foundation.

[JustARandomPanda]

His post is entirely based on emotion with no foundation.

 

1. Agree there is emotion in it.

 

2. Do not agree that emotion = no foundation. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. Until the reasons that led to the emotion-tinged response are known it's definitely a personality-trait that dismisses out of hand rather than suspending judgement pending further information to evaluate.

 

I'm willing to wait and see why he wrote what he did.

 

YMMV

[lloydbaker]

 

Not sure I agree the Limits of Growth program as it is run is fake. In any case...even if it were or is the principle argument it was making is not.

 

All it simply says is that over time the cost of extracting petroleum will go up as the total amount of available cheap well sources declines. In other words...the "low hanging fruit" (most desirable oil sources - light sweet crude) will decline. Thus more expense will need to be fronted by society to extract the less-cheap-and-easy-to-get-to sources of oil. Ditto with coal and natural gas.

 

At some point the lines will cross and the cost of extracting this harder-to-get-to (and thus more expensive) petroleum will make the extraction turn negative economically. That is - it will take more energy and money to extract the oil, coal and natural gas than that which is used to get it out. It's as if you're paying $2 to buy a $1 bill from a merchant.

 

That's really what the Limits of Growth was about - where the lines cross. It wasn't saying an oil-apocalypse to crush the populace is coming or anything like that.

 

 

Some does. But others...like what JMG (and others like him) teaches does not. Also rapid economic development can potentially increase the power of anti-environmentalist Billionaires as well. One would need to look at the specifics to distinguish which might be the case in any particular instance.

 

No, restriction on economic growth cements the power of the oligarchy. That is why the big Foundations: Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc all support the Club of Rome program. Leftist are TOTALLY conned by the environmentalist meme. They have become the supine tools of the STATE CAPITALIST elite they hate! Independent, new capitalist wealth arises in times of growth and reduced economic restrictions!

 

No, the LIMITS of GROWTH recommended RESTRICTIONS on economic growth. It did NOT just predict running out of resources or more expensive resources. If that were the case they would recommend getting rid of all governmental restrictions on development.

 

You may be confusing the LIMITS to GROWTH (late 1960s or early 70s) with the peak oil fraud. I'll believe in peak oil if they remove all exploration and drilling restrictions and then oil production peaks! In fact, the Rockefellers (Petro Dollar Re-cylers along with Soros and Bloomberg) in league with the Saudis and BIG OIL do everything they can to limit drilling and production so as to keep the price high and their profits rolling in. . . The Koch Bros, on the other hand, profit from drilling and pipe lines: more production. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund bragged about how they defeated the pipeline recently by fundiang dozens of environmentalist groups to resist. The world is awash in oil, but the STATE CAPITALIST powers that be to keep an artificial scarcity and high price.

Edited April 16, 2013 by lloydbaker

[lloydbaker]

Meadow's LIMITS to GROWTH was a book, a report on the alleged results of a computer program claiming to simulate the world economy way back in the late 60s or early 70s. It did predict apocalypse and was the basis for the current enviornomentalist paradigm that is strangling the world!

 

That's what we need: The rise of ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALIST Billionaires to defeat the current environmentalist Billionaires intent on world-wide genocide!

Edited April 16, 2013 by lloydbaker

[lloydbaker]

His post is entirely based on emotion with no foundation.

 

Have you studied the Club of Rome? The Rockefeller Foundations? David Rockefeller's AutoBiography? . .No foundation to my thinking? Hardly! Really, it's just a simple application of the supply and demand. Big Oil wants production of oil restricted to keep prices high. Funding environmentalism and global warming propaganda through the UN is how they get the job done.

[ralis]

Meadow's LIMITS to GROWTH was a book, a report on the alleged results of a computer program claiming to simulate the world economy way back in the late 60s or early 70s. It did predict apocalypse and was the basis for the current enviornomentalist paradigm that is strangling the world!

 

That's what we need: The rise of ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALIST Billionaires to defeat the current environmentalist Billionaires intent on world-wide genocide!

 

World wide genocide against? Who are the anti-environmentalist billionaires? Environmentalist billionaires?

 

Why is your view one of not protecting the biosphere from rampant destruction?

[ralis]

Have you studied the Club of Rome? The Rockefeller Foundations? David Rockefeller's AutoBiography? . .No foundation to my thinking? Hardly! Really, it's just a simple application of the supply and demand. Big Oil wants production of oil restricted to keep prices high. Funding environmentalism and global warming propaganda through the UN is how they get the job done.

 

Rockefeller conspiracy? Club of Rome conspiracy? Why not throw in the Bilderbergers or Rothschilds while you are at it. Your post offers no proof except your opinion. As for oil prices, the main problem is rampant Wall St. speculation which there is plenty of evidence.

 

The simplistic view of 'supply and demand' misses the point and is only part of a complex system of global economics. I doubt you are an economist and neither am I.

[joeblast]

the scientific method has not produced a better world for which people can live, but a world in which no one can agree with each other!

 

Too worried about dissecting the universe to experience it, too scared of the unknown to simply leave well enough alone.

 

 

Tell me, what good is the scientific method?

 

I have seen many things derived from using science, but of them, i have yet to see any resolution. I have yet to see an end of poverty, of hunger, of suffering. if anything, science has only brought the quantum of these examples up to a higher digit!

 

So again, i demand: What good is the scientific method?

The scientific method - when followed - is pretty well robust and produced many good results, I mean, take a look at damn near any technological achievement these days and you see a manifestation of the scientific method.

 

Where the problem is - is with the POLITICAL METHOD. While the enviro-nuts are plenty keen on simply limiting human expansion on account of any human expansion somehow equals mother nature raped with a broom handle, as lloyd correctly points out, the overarching mechanism has long since been usurped by the state, mainly as soon as they saw the potential for tax revenue from it, they started subsidizing research and promoting a certain view - well past the bounds of credibility, but, since yes we are dealing with (truly) authoritarian means here, we know "the power of authority" has been aimed and bent at supporting the view that would allow the public to be fooled into thinking that choking off growth was a good and necessary thing, even if it winds up being to the detriment of most and proving to be a huge windfall for those well enough connected to the process.

 

So really, if technology is to end hunger, poverty, suffering - we see things going in the opposite direction, being told that furthering it too much will cost too much in resources, it is good to tax productivity to limit the abusing of resources - but the caveat is this is not gongfu whereby conserving and not using allows one to build a sufficient energetic potential - the energetic potential of the human race must be expressed a little differently than that - so it cannot rely on hardcore austere conservation to grow the potential to such an extent that poverty and hunger are eradicated! Now of course there's that ancient way of living that is all sustainable etc., but cmon - pandora's box has already been opened on human technology and advancement, so closing the lid on pandora's box is not going to reverse the situation and have the world living the sustainable utopian dream - such a thing would be like airlifting a person to the top of mt everst, too drastic of a change in circumstance. That will only happen via significant natural or cosmic disaster. The human race will only eradicate poverty and hunger by reaching that energetic threshold where the individual is able to express his own power sufficiently - having his own and not dependent on the state to provide it. Of course that power can take many forms, but the energetic kind that helps convey food and shelter are in there.

 

It is in the State's interests to keep its grip on power to that it may limit the people's ability to mitigate its stranglehold into the future. Keeping the individual down is the best way for the state to accomplish this.

 

The political method is state serving, or self serving in the case of those well connected to the apparatus that derive their personal benefit by the position in the state. Graft and corruption serve the same, detriment to the people. Denying people information, distorting the information they receive - that is also how the state maintains its control. So from the creation of the fed to the hundred plus millions in al gore's bank accounts - it is all about a raping of the system by those well connected to the system, "human progress" be damned, but you can bet your ass they pay lip service to those things. Gotta keep up appearances and all.

 

and any of yous that still think co2 has anywhere near the heat carrying capacity to kill us all - you still have not addressed a single area I have shown there to be a gaping hole in the AGW CO2 theory. introduce all the straw men you wish, so long as you keep avoiding those, you are running away from the argument.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

ancient ways and technology are both eternal and have both coexisted eternally.

Focusing on one more than the other detracts from its value.

Since technology has been the 100% focus of scientific civilization for the last century, or more, it [technology] has become stagnate and unhealthy. in and of itself as well as in relation to we humans who use it.

perhaps i could do a service to this discussion: It is not science at all... science is not even a "thing" and cannot be blamed for its misuse any more than a gun can be blamed for being shot.

However, the focus on scientific leanings... i cannot see as being healthy at this point. Reduce science and improve mysticism to achieve balance.

[JustARandomPanda]

I'm just gonna pop a quick link to the Tar Sands thread here.

 

If one wishes to reply to any of the above posts and the primary aim of that reply is to discuss Global Warming (or Global Weirding as I like to call it) then please post the reply there. It fits the theme of that thread far better. Plus it's a good thread! Lots of interesting back and forth.

 

As for some of the other things mentioned in this thread that do not specifically have to do with AGW I have my own thoughts I'd like to share.

 

But there's lots of food for thought by other participants.

 

Not the least of which is thoughts on posts from

 

1. lloyd

2. JB

[JustARandomPanda]

Cheers to everyone.

Edited April 17, 2013 by SereneBlue

[lloydbaker]

Rockefeller conspiracy? Club of Rome conspiracy? Why not throw in the Bilderbergers or Rothschilds while you are at it. Your post offers no proof except your opinion. As for oil prices, the main problem is rampant Wall St. speculation which there is plenty of evidence.

 

The simplistic view of 'supply and demand' misses the point and is only part of a complex system of global economics. I doubt you are an economist and neither am I.

 

It is easily verifiable that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers plus other ruling class factions and lesser minions have met at the Bilderberger Meetings since the 1950s to discuss and hammer out the very issues we are discussing. What they decide creates the marching orders on these "big picture" issues. Don't be confused because extremists or ideologists you disagree with also focus on these same players. They are right about the players, but have all manner of interpretation that may be right or wrong.

 

I have studied economics extensively. . . but, there is no reliable consensus in economics. Ya gotta think for yourself!

 

Speculation cannot be a lasting cause of high prices. Speculation is a game of gambling on future supply and demand. If Obama suddenly revoked all the Presidential orders limiting exploration and drilling on Federal Land and Offshore, the price would tumble the next day due to short selling by speculators. Currently, speculators are gambling, with good reason, that OPEC is here to stay along with restrictive environmentalism and bought and paid for global warming scientists via the UN (just coincidentally on land donated by the Rockefellers at the founding).

[lloydbaker]

By the way, there are many brands of conservatism.

 

One brand of conservatism (NeoConservatism) thinks that all the march to the left, ie. increasing collectivism and departures from laissez-faire, must be accepted fait accompli. This brand only wants to alter the direction of future developments some and create more workable welfare statism or "social democracy."

 

More radical conservatives and libertarians want to reverse the New Deal and Great Society programs which they see as destructive.

 

Defining conservatism as mental illness without defining the brand of conservatism you are addressing is just silly leftist propaganda.

[joeblast]

I'm just gonna pop a quick link to the Tar Sands thread here.

 

Or one can go read the other quasi attack thread that eventually fizzled because...perhaps I posted too many things that couldnt be addressed by a CO2-AGW believer.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

....... *blink* (edit: at a deleted message none the less *sigh* i bet it/ was plain silly too._.)


Surprisingly?



Damn logic slaves dont know how to appreciate the intuitive right hempsphere!


That's part of the freakin' problem! Spending too much time logically dissecting reality and not enough time intuitively putting it together! STUPID!



Technology isnt useless, but forever dissecting things is all it can do.
Mysticism isnt useless, but forever integrating things is all it can do.

Why, WHY ever focus on one or neglect the other? Why would we be willing to submit to a society that dominates the minds of its subjects by forever dissecting the world and only putting just barely enough of it back together so as to amass hordes of bottom and middle class slaves?


I can see it with my right hemisphere, not my left, but my left is seeing that it is illogical to be alone in its thinking!

Edited April 20, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[ralis]

Or one can go read the other quasi attack thread that eventually fizzled because...perhaps I posted too many things that couldnt be addressed by a CO2-AGW believer.

 

Belief is irrelevant as I have stated in myriad ways.

[joeblast]

Belief is irrelevant as I have stated in myriad ways.

As have I - just because one is taught to believe something doesnt mean its wholesome, necessary, or true - just like the 6 degree warming coefficient that Witch thought would be more appropriate, "because that would really show everyone how bad CO2 can be" - pure belief, zero grounding in science. However, when I say I believe that our current position along the logarithmic co2 slope is less than 1, that can actually be backed up with scientific things. (Not that you're willing to listen to them, because any source of mine is deemed irrelevant by you...not that it furthers your argument in the least or makes it appear that you have any semblance of understanding whatsoever of the situation, because you cant reply with much aside from ad hominem. Its why you have been and will continue to be on my ignore list, because conversing with you is fruitless and pointless.)

 

Bottom line, you still dont want to attempt to plug the holes that have been shown to exist in the AGW models - nor are you willing to even admit the holes are there, or of any particular size for that matter. It'd be fun to see an actual retort instead of you telling me I have no respect for the scientific method or other unsubstantiated straw men that run away from the questions you cant address. But hey - I can sympathize - you have next to no ground to stand on once things get remotely technical, so I merely expect you to continue acting insolent as a replacement for a substantive reply.

[lloydbaker]

Conservatism:

 

Koch Brothers Exposed documentary -- from building up Stalin's empire to buying out the government for creating their own Stalinism in the U.S.

 

What nonsense! The current Koch Brothers are RADICAL libertarians. Their father liquidated his investments in the Soviet Union and became an inveterate anti-Communist, helping Robert Welch to found the John Birch Society. There is absolutely NOTHING STALINIST about what the Koch Bros. advocate.

 

The Koch Bros. are fighting the uber ruling class in America: The Rockefellers, Big Oil, OPEC, global warming, environmentalism, etc. The Kochs are "little oil" that want more production: pipelines, drilling, exploration! PROSPERITY!

 

Check-out who the Rockefeller Bros. Fund and Rockefeller Foundation fund: THE LEFT! The LEFT is bought and paid for to keep prosperity down for OPEC/BIG OIL in the name of the environment!