ALERT: The Anonymous Group - Anarchist Criminals

well see, here is the problem...WE are using real life dictionaries for our definition of words, if you are just going to make up definitions it's gonna be hard for you to debate.

YOU look up 'anarchy' then come back with a source that shows 'anarchy means order'

this isn't 1984 in Orwell's world...black doesn't mean white, up doesn't mean down, anarchy does not mean order.

 

exactly...they dont' know why they are out there, none of them are coherent in interviews, they are just looking to be part of the 'party'...drugs are rampant, people are running around naked, they're passing out condoms and having sex like animals in public...they have a kitchen offering smoked salmon and a library..but can't get a portapotty so they are pooping in the street..

sounds like soooooo much fun...NOT.

if you look a bit closer, it is a bunch of teenagers mixed with a LOT of aging hippies desperately trying to reclaim their youth..

 

does make you wonder how they are making their car payments, their rent payments...who's paying for their cell phones..

of course, I have also heard some are being paid good money to hang out down there..

 

The OP has a monumentally flawed understanding of Anonymous.

 

the fact that some of them admit to going to schools that cost $200,000; the fact that some of them are carrying Iphones, Ipads; some are wearing $300 jeans; some admit to living in the most expensive sections of New Yord..

in other words, we read.

 

LOL!!

sounds an awful lot like "community standards" which is used to determine what is considered pornography.

this 'rule by social pressure' may sound like a great idea to you but to me, it sounds more like worse oppression. By your definition, Prop 8 is a good thing...the 'people' (community) said that they dont' want gay marriage...so going with YOUR ideal, gay marriage should remain outlawed..

by your own ideal, Jim Crow should still be enforced, community pressure ya know..

I would far rather live by rule of law that is clear, easy to understand, written and enforced equally...not by 'laws' made up and enforced by mobs.

and if someone tries to kill me, I would much rather know he was going to go to jail rather than just face 'non cooperation' from his neighbors. (although it is nice to know they aren't going to ASSIST him in murdering me..)

 

It's called stupidity. Each time they tried to steer markets things end up disastrous. They don't learn from history. Which is evident because the left controls academia and indoctrinates the youth. Soviet Propaganda at it's finest.

U mad?

I'm not the one calling it socialist. Actually I am, but the point is no other economist actually believes that it's not socialist either.

The indices actually goes by civil liberties as well as economic liberties. If democracy is the only guideline you are going by then socialism exist in the mere form of a Social Democracy, which is another form of governance Marx has inspired.

Why is he an idiot? Because he saw the light and realized the error in Marxism? Thomas Sowell learned just about as much of Marxism as you did. Probably alot more. He lived through a lot of the Cold War era and realized that Socialism sounded good as a theory. Only after socialism went from being a theory to being an actual economic system in various countries around the world did the fact that become apparent that people who lived in Socialist economies had a harder time affording things than people in Capitalist economies.

In fact, I'm going to give you an early Christmas gift.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465022529/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=objectify-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0465022529"]Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide To The Economy 4th Edition[/ame]​

I'm talking about economically, they are doing much better than the 1970. They've had the highest growth in productivity out of any other country during that time period.

Nope, China still not free. Everyone knows that.

Probably not politically but it has economically.

In capitalism, the person is the employee, the employer, the producer and the consumer all in one. That is the beauty of the free market. It is the best way to serve your fellow man without actually meeting him or her in the first place.

Nope. I've pretty much already proven that Communist Lie and make up their own facts.

How exactly does this prove that the early Soviet Union was open and honest?

It has always existed in theory and in practice. Your definition is merely a loose term which can simply be applied to any country on earth.

Okay so because Lenin believed there was never any Socialism then or will never be any Socialism, that means that Socialism never existed...Riiiight.

 

that seems to be their goal...to go back to the days when tribal leaders could gang rape a woman because her brother 'dishonored' the tribe (current Middle Eastern 'tribes') or when Blacks that whistled at White women were hung from trees (mob rule-community standards)...sad really but telling..

 

Yep, this is a problem. History matters. It's a lesson of past mistakes and success. You know what they say....

 

The Cuban revolution went perfectly well.

I understand the economics of it perfectly well. That doesn't change the fact that they went ahead with the economies without going through the needed steps they needed to go through.

Which probably would have failed either way.

So because it doesn't have a democracy means that it's not socialist either? Are you kidding me?

 

It was big American companies who were instrumental in the rise of the Nazis and the period after they took power. American firms helped Hitler prepare for war and then carry it out, not forgetting the holocaust which IBM did the logistics for.

You cant really rely totally on a dictionary. It's just a couple of words. You need to read what the major anarchist writers said, and what anarchists did in practice.

I'm not an anarchist, I was just saying what their views are

I do believe in that sort of system, but anarchists think you can go there straight away whereas Marxists would say it takes generations, and in the mean time you need a workers state with laws.

 

Ludicrous nonsense. As if the Economist or the FT ever listened to Soviet propaganda.

No, are you a retard? Or just pretending? Nobody with a brain thinks North Korea is socialist. Some pretend to think so, to con people into thinking socialists are all bogeymen.

I dunno what you are talking about. Socialism is democratic by definition, I already proved that to you in quotes from Marx, Engels and Lenin. North Korea is neither democratic nor socialist. It is a military dictatorship headed by the Kims. In socialism, people are heading towards total equality where everyone is paid the same. In NK you have an elite at the top the same as in any Stalinist state.

Kim started off as a nationalist and became a Stalinist. The whole situation in Korea was a result of partition by America and before that Japanese occupation. Also, America installed a brutal dictatorship.

How many (*)(*)(*)(*)ing times do I have to repeat to you there has never been a socialist country?

 

The cost will be too high. Construction for transit lines took nearly two decades.

Buses cost a lot to maintain and buses are still not better than owning your own car.

So is New York City. Both Japan and Britain topography for it. Those islands are more than 50,000 square miles. I'll never see a transit line in any island less than 10,000 or 500 square miles. And both of those places have plenty of cars. Public transportation doesn't take you everywhere you need or what to go. Also pretty much ever government subsidized or publicly owned transit line has been proven inefficient. Contracts no privately constructed transit line has ever gone bankrupt.

New York City transit lines where constructed largely by private companies and operated outside of city control for four decades. It still managed to make a profit and fair has never increased in 40 years.

Out of all the railroads in the US built The Great Northern Railroad was the only which used no government money. In fact, it was the only Railroad which never went bankrupt. Japanese railroads are among the most punctual in the world. All of their railroads are privately owned.

China has the highest pollution rate on the planet and the most natural resource consumption in the world. And with that they have the highest growth rate of productivity from the 1970s to now. If they lived like Americans they would be better off. The only thing that is stopping them is their Government. If China started living like Americans do nothing would happen, in fact the climate would not change a degree.

India is a prefect example of this. It's had the second highest population in the world and the cheapest car for the Indian people was built for the Indian people called the Tata nano. It was the cheapest car the world had ever seen and was sold for $2,000 per car. It brought prosperity to millions and millions of poor people. Who were against it? The radical environmentalist of course. They're not about the environment. They're just radical anti-human, anti-prosperity just like all the socialist in the world.

Actually Qatar is and even if America was the worst CO2 polluters, who cares? CO2 is not a pollutant. America is one of the most environmental stable and cleanest places on the planet. Even against countries like China and Thailand with low emission rates the US is still has less pollution and it's still cleaner and more environmentally stable.

It just goes to show that timeline mean nothing. If China started producing their own cars maybe they'll be able to meet that timeline. As long as they're stuck making goods for America that's not going to happen.

I don't care about the Nobel physicist says. Global Warming is nothing but a religion. It's certainly not a scientific fact. A scientific fact is something no scientist would be able to dispute and yet thousands of scientist dispute Global Warming. Global Warming hasn't even gotten past the hypothesis stage of the scientific method.

Global Warming and Environmentalism is not about helping the environment. It's about controlling people. It's about creating more abject poverty and misery. It's become a morally bankrupt movement which seeks out to harm the poorest people in the world. Africa is prefect example.

Environmentalist is disgusting and Global Warming is merely a farce.

It's funny how 15 Million barrels of oil during the industrial revolution was suppose to last us about 20 years when cars used a lot more fuel and couldn't get even 10 miles to the gallon

Now 1.3 Trillion barrels of oil is only suppose to last about 40 years with all the technology making it easier use less oil to do the same amount of stuff. Now pretty much if you don't get 100,000 miles out of your car people feel like they've been ripped off.

Oh yeah? Well I'm not the one writing songs about how stupid cars are.

Are you not aware that CO2 lags behind Temperature? It certainly never made things warmer in the past. Why would it all of a sudden make things warmer now?

There is no speculation. There is only a price system. What do bread, cereal and spaghetti all have in common? They are all wheat products. All prices are interrelated. When you purchase breed not only does the demand for bread increase, but so does the raw materials for bread increases: wheat. This bids up the price for producers of other wheat products like cereal and spaghetti. It creates incentives for producers of those raw materials to keep producing those materials to offset increasing demand.

Profits in a price coordinated economy sends signals to producers to either do more of what they are doing (because it is profitable) or to do less (because it is unprofitable). However, when you have price controls on your food this takes out the signals in the economy for producers of raw materials to grow more wheat. This in itself creates shortages.

There can be a growing shortage without an increased scarcity or a growing scarcity without a shortage. It doesn't really mean that there are less goods to go around. During the Great Depression, there supposed food shortages and bread lines like during the Soviet Union. But there wasn't a food shortage. There was actually a mass abundance of food. FDR put price controls on all food products. He took 6 million hogs and slaughtered them to keep the price of food at an artificial level.

I am generally going by when man first started recording history.

It's the same thing I've explained to you many times. The price of oil will be so high that other goods are simply going to take over. You don't have to force people off resources that you don't like because you're afraid that their going to run out very soon. Oil and coal right now are the cheapest and the most efficient resources that we have right now. People use the voluntarily. No one forced anyone to get off whale oil or kerosene or crude oil. And just in case you still don't understand, I have provided a link to me explaining the history of this to someone else.

http://www.politicalforum.com/4504822-post191.html

Cute...But that just proves my point. Resources just don't up and disappear. We don't come to an abrupt stop to any particular resource. We gradually decrease and stop using the resource.

I'll see you in Hell too.

You're the only who is talking about water. And that projection is ridiculous. There are over 20 gallons of water in the country.

I didn't say it was easy, but it does recover. There are probably more tress in America than when America was founded.

 

I think you got it backwards, washington is the best example of organized crime. The CIA is always getting in trouble with washington for finding things out they shouldn't have found.

 

Is this all fact? Can you support it all? Anyway, the argument is not private or public funding, it is cars vs public transport. Light rail might be expensive but it is very quick. Buses would be quicker if there were less cars on the roads. Where I live in rush hour, cars and buses are very slow but the tram very quick.

per capita? Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Americans emit 3.5 times more CO2 than Chinese do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

what does this mean??

see above, their CO2 emissions would increase 350%

this is stupid

You are talking rubbish

This is stupid. I see you have now realised that the USA emits more CO2 than China per capita. CO2 causes global warming and is therefore not keeping the environment stable at all.

Clearly you know nothing about science and nothing about global warming. Many bits of science are disputed. Global warming (man made) was a hypothesis 100 years ago, it has gone way beyond that and is now about 95% certain.

How does AGW make Africans worse off? What will affect them badly is if global warming causes droughts and floods.

And when you are old, there will be 4 billion cars, 4 times more than there are now. Are they going to be 4 times more efficient? Bearing in mind a lot of the emissions in a car's life is during manufacture.

I am aware and this is not the thread to get into detail. CO2 lags temperature to an extent. But then feedbacks kick in. This is because the initial driver of glacial cycles is the Milankovitch cycles. There have been over 100 in the current ice age. The current ice age is a result of low CO2. Temperature lags CO2 on the bigger scale.

"Food speculation: 'People die from hunger while banks make a killing on food'

It's not just bad harvests and climate change – it's also speculators that are behind record prices. And it's the planet's poorest who pay
"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/jan/23/food-speculation-banks-hunger-poverty

Right, oil will get harder to find and more in demand so the price will go up so other things will have to take over. As far as may people are concerned, it will no longer be available, it will effectively have run out.

So we need to look at alternatives and in doing so we solve the global warming problem at the same time.

If governments subsidised light rail and buses, people would start to use the instead of cars. Businesses would save billions from the costs of congestion. Road repairs would be lower, less accidents etc. Buses could go quicker as more people turned away from cars. But it needs a government to make some bold moves first, with a massive plan of integrated public transport and energy. Trams and rail can be run on green energy straight away.

It's not just about stuff disappearing, it's about stuff that is scarce getting scarcer. Eg water. And it's about global warming.

20 gallons? Enough for a bath then? No I'm not the only one talking about water, everyone is talking about it except you.

Whether that is true or not is not exactly relevant to the amount of depleted farming land.

 

But think about how much the CIA knows that Washington doesn't. They routinely lie to Congress.

 

The CIA is cool peoples.

 

Then what is human thought?

If ethics are subjective how can you say socialism is objectively better than capitalism?

Why do they need them?

 

Example which wouldn't breach homeland security?

Routinely the CIA calls washington out on corruption, and gets shut up fast.

 

Which parts? The fact that the Great Northern Railroad was the only train line which never went bankrupt?

Or that Japanese Railroads are the most punctual in the world?

Not ever place needs a Tram and the Tram doesn't take you everywhere you want to go. And of course if you live in the city automobile transportation is going to be slow. In places where there are no trains there isn't than much traffic.

That's CO2. It's not a pollutant. I'm referring to just regular contaminants. And maybe you are not aware but China was among the Ten Top nominees for the world's most polluted country in 2007. This was Top Ten of the thirty most dirty places in the world. Contrary to popular belief, the US was not even nominated.

They would be better off. They would have a lot more to eat, they would have a lot more luxuries to enjoy. They can drive around in their cars and go anywhere and do anything they wanted.

But unfortunately they are stuck making things for the US and loaning them money. The best thing they can do is pull the rug from other the US economy and consumer their own products.

And who cares? It's not a pollutant.

Yes I agree. It is stupid. It is stupid to cherish the Earth more than your follow man. Destroying prosperity and civilization, all in the name of saving the planet.

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem - Lamont Cole

Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? - Maurice Strong Secretary General UN Earth Summit 1992

The debate on CO2 as a pollutant hasn't even been settled. The EPA has been suppressing information which has debunked their studies for years.

I never said that I haven't acknowledged that the US is a bigger CO2 polluter than China. I said that it means nothing because the US is cleaner and more environmentally stable. According to the Environmental Sustainability Index.

http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/esi/ESI2005.pdf

China, on the other hand, is ranked number 133. And at the very bottom, North Korea of course.

No it hasn't. It's still a hypothesis as far as I'm concerned because each time someone comes up with something which proves their study inconclusive they come up with a new theory.

The whole theory has a problem with consistency.

Nothing. Environmentalist are just responsible for all the deaths which have occurred in Africa due to Malaria.

Yep, because by the time I'm old we'll either be using electric cars or hoover cars which uses no oil at all. Buy that time gas will probably be 10 cents a gallon again just like it was in 1964 and there will be even less cars which uses gasoline than before.

This is why exponential growth is useless and makes no sense.

Yeah, sometimes my house gets warmer even when the central heating is turned off. Does this mean that my central heating isn't working? No. Maybe it's just hot outside or some other external mechanism. If you look back at Palaeo-Eocene era CO2 never contributed to any of the warming or ice ages. Temperature determines CO2 but CO2 levels do not effect temperature.

It should be a college graduation requirement to have a basic knowledge of the price system. At least the way Karl Marx understood it anyway.

Purchasing commodity stocks (speculation), especially stocks for industrial goods or services, does not increase the price of raw materials. If that were true Gold would be worth $10,000 an ounce and Wal-Mart would have to rename their slogan to "Always High Prices." Instead, gold is only $1,600 dollars an ounce and Wal-Mart still charges 86 cents for liquid soap. When you buy the mining or gathering stocks of a raw material it does nothing to offset the price. Prices of raw materials rise as demand for those materials increase.

All the government is doing is subsidizing failures. If the market thinks a resource is more viable and more efficient it will pursue those resources. There is no demand for trains or public transportation. If there is, the market will provide it.

John D Rockefeller brought gasoline to millions of people because it was cheaper and more efficient. He didn't need to use the government to force them to use other alternative means for energy. The Government didn't need to start subsidizing wind or solar energy.

There is a reason why no one needs to subsidize the iPod. It was produced. People seem to like it. That's it.

Resources don't get scarce or scarce. This has never happened. Oil has been used long before the industrial revolution and gold has been use since the dawn of time. Neither resources have became any more scarce than it was 500 years ago.

20 Trillion Gallons.

Because water is not the problem. There is a reason why water doesn't have it's own commodity or etf index. There is a lot of it. And for free might I add.

It is true and it is relevant. Saying farm land has been depleted and will never be farmed on again is like saying those trees in the past the US have logged are gone forever and will never been grown ever again.

 

It is true that many private rail networks went bankrupt. This is why they were all nationalised in Britain. They faced a lot of competition from cars which governments promoted. I remember as a kid we would visit our granny by train but later we went by car. It was a long journey but the government built motorways to make it a lot quicker.

Anyway, rail should be subsidised if necessary. In fact after British rail was privatised it was getting more government subsidy that before!

Everywhere in cities needs trams and buses, as cars just clog up the roads. It is much quicker to get the tram. They do take you where you want to go if there are enough of them.


[/quote]
In places where there are no trains there isn't than much traffic.[/quote]

what?

CO2 is just as dangerous as any pollutant.

CO2 causes global warming

I want more industrial production, not less, and there is no reason every person shouldnt be fed. It is capitalism that stops all this. Production can increase if it is done in the right way, in a green way, not if it's just done for profit. Profit dictates that the environment in Nigeria is trashed, with the people there getting nothing in return. Profit means selling gas guzzlers without any regard to global warming. Profit means million starve because they cannot afford food.

Have they now?

Support this. They was an allegation of suppression of a report, and it is dealt with here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

This report is a joke. It is not written by climate scientists, it debunks nothing. Realclimate end with..

"Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.

So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that’s the best they can do, the EPA’s ruling is on pretty safe ground.

If I were the authors, I’d suppress this myself, and then go for a long hike on the Appalachian Trail….
"

Lets just concentrate on the main problems, eg global warming.

I dont really know what you are saying and I doubt you do either. Science is never consistent when you get down to the details. We know life evolved from a common ancestor. But scientists will spend forever arguing over the finer points. Einstein was a genius but he wasnt the final word in physics. We pretty much know for certain that man is causing global warming but there are plenty of details to be ironed out.

support

And what will power the electricity? Oil? Coal? Gas? Or green renewables like wind?

Where did you read this crap?

The PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) was a rapid heating of the planet at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. Global temperatures rose by 6°C over 20,000 years, 55 million years ago. Many animals became extinct. The causes are not completely understood and are probably multiple, but what we do know is a lot of carbon was released into the atmosphere. Dunno about ice ages, I dont think there were any in the Paleocene or Eocene. Anyway, nobody really know how much of the warming and CO2 were cause or effect. It is a complex relationship of factors not fully understood.

http://sites.google.com/site/thepaleoceneeocenethermalmaxim/3-an-abrupt-rise-in-co2-temperature

You better tell Mike Masters, fund manager at Masters Capital Management, who testified to the US Senate in 2008 that speculation was driving up global food prices and all the other people who say this.

Who builds the roads for all your cars?

Rubbish, we have used half the oils available and what's left will last 40 years unless we find more.

water is a big problem as I have already shown.

 

No it's not. And besides, the land with new trees on is not the same as the original forest. But we are talking about soil for farming, it takes thousands of years to form. It is not easy to replace.

Soil, water, oil, all running out. Global warming rising dangerously. Congestion clogging up the cities. Millions starving while there is plenty of food. This is the reality of our unsustainable capitalist world, and as billions of Indians and Chinese join it, things will get even more unsustainable.

You better get inventing a 'hoover car' quick. Tell you what, make it work on atmospheric CO2.

 

They certainly do like their Soviet style propaganda

There are plenty of people who actually think that North Korea is socialist.

I don't remember ever reading that the leader or the state in socialism had to be treated equal or the same as everyone else. As Socialism is defined as either state owned or commonly owned of the resources

I'm merely just paraphrasing from Thomas Sowell. Who seems to believe that the Soviet Union was socialist.

Wealth is not distributed. Wealth is earned. People are better off than they were during the 1970s but they're still not free to do what they wish with their earners or their wealth. All Chinese citizens are required to keep a portion of their savings in USD mandated by their Government.

Commonly owned ownership of the resources was the referred goal of Socialism. You can't make that transition without forcing people to do it. The problem with socialism is that they need you. They need your wealth and they need your prosperity.

People can become their own producers. If you produce a good people want you become the producer. You don't have to work for the company which created it just as long as you find a way to bring it to the people. When someone produces a good or service you want you become the consumer.

Individuals in the Free Market pursuing their own separate needs and wants is what provides us with their needs and wants. Your neighbor has a need a mooing his lawn, so you serve your fellow man but mooing his lawn. And for return of serving your fellow man you get a payment: $20 dollars. Then you go to the store and you want to purchase some goods. The person at the register ask you, "Did you serve your fellow man?" And you say, "Yes!" Then that person says, "Prove it." Then you show him your $20 dollars as prove that you have served your fellow man.

It is the truth that Communist Lie and hid things from their people and the outside world.

The Pravda for the longest time had to post publish lies and propaganda.

So what? People have been doing that for much longer than he has doing.

But things were still publicly owned, were they not?

 

Those same private railroads used Government subsidies for expansion and construction of their railways just like in America. The only railway which never went bankrupt in America was the Great Northern Railroad which took no government money or loans.

Because British railroads suck. They had to subsidies them.

That cost lots and lots of money. It's cheaper just to let everyone have a car.

In places where there are no trains there isn't that much traffic. They don't need Trains. If they did they would have installed trains a long time ago. Commonly there isn't much transportation.

Do you know how much pollution you are making just by being alive? I would feel guilty if I were you...You should kill yourself >_>

Poor people don't care about Global Warming. I think they would much rather have central heating in the winter and jobs where they get to work for money to feed their families.

No, it's Environmentalism which stops all of this. If you ever watch the documentary M.I.N.E Your Own Business it goes around the poorest places you can imagine. They ask the people what they think about Mining companies going into their area and employing them. Those people happen to love the mining companies because they are extremely poor and they want a better life for themselves and their children. The only people which are stopping them are the environmentalist largely from larger nations concerned that it's going to destroy their native culture.

If you ask the native people they believe that the mining companies are largely good and beneficial as well as the corporations which employ them and their children.

"We have wished, we eco-freaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!" - Stewart Brand Whole Earth Catalogue

Profits are the only thing which can increase productions through incentives. Profits are the only thing which incentivizes the creation for cheaper more efficient fuel. Profits are the only thing which inventivizes the creation for alternative fuels. Profits are the only thing which offsets demand for food.

Without any profits, you wouldn't have cheap affordable cars for the common man. You wouldn't have any innovation for any sources for new fuel resources. You would still have bread lines.

The Insiders which blew the whistle on it was not scientist. The actual report was made by actual scientist and the EPA chose to suppress it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHPA216hwOs"]EPA Suppressed Scientific Evidence Against CO2[/ame]

It's not the main problems. Global Warming isn't making the Chinese people sick.

I wouldn't care if the science was never consistent. If Science is never consistent then why are people insisting that they debate is over when it comes to Global Warming? There is plenty of evidence out there which refutes conventional wisdom but people choose to cling to whatever people feed them. It's not about saving the planet. It's not about helping the environment. It's about promoting an agenda.

The move to remove DDT from Africa. DDT is the cheapest and most effective form of killing mosquitoes. It largely eradicated malaria in North America and Europe but still there was a massive moment to remove DDT from the earth. Even though it never killed a single person. Many people don't want DDT being used in Africa to kill mosquitoes. Sometimes officials tell African countries which are poor that they won't be able to receive food unless they promise not to use DDT. The result is that millions and millions of children die each year because of Malaria.

"I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis Earth First! Journal

Who knows? Probably something stupid like Solar.

And yet you are so sure that CO2 cause Global Warming. The cause of the ice age were possible because the continents were clustered on the equator. The allowed CO2 to be removed even has the ice sheets expanded to the polar ice caps. Only when most of the land was covered would greenhouse gases have started to build up to levels high enough to overcome the cooling effects of the extensive ice cover.

They allow tons of idiots to testify on the behalf of congress. Majority of people who have no heads or tails about markets. They'll let people who got it totally wrong about the Housing Bubble but they won't allow anyone who predicted anything right.

Private contractors hired by state governments.

If we used half of the worlds proven reserve of oil, how is it even possible that we only have 40 years left? That just doesn't make any sense.

You've shown me something? I don't remember anything. Not anything influential anyway. Just some article written by some nut-burger who thinks that the US only has about 6 years of water left.

 

If this is true, then why would anyone propose to establish a socialist country?

Many different systems have been tried and ALL have proved to be unfair to some degree. Some to a great degree.

Our present modified Capitalist system combined with a Representative Democratic Republic has proven to be the most fair to the most people.

There is no possibility of ever achieving complete fairness. That cannot exist with humans. We are what we are.