Thread: ALERT: The Anonymous Group - Anarchist Criminals

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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?

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!

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

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?

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

CO2 is just as dangerous as any pollutant.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

And who cares? It's not a pollutant.

CO2 causes global warming

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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 environment.

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

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.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

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...009/06/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….
"

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

I never said that I haven't acknowledge that. 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.

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

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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

support

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

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

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

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/thepale...o2-temperature

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

Who builds the roads for all your cars?

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

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

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

water is a big problem as I have already shown.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

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.

Originally Posted by daft punk

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

They certainly do like their Soviet style 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.

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

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.

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

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

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

More unrest should give you a clue. The wealth is not being spread around. Many people are worse off.

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.

You cant have one without the other. A planned economy is not socialism without being controlled by the masses, largely because if it isnt, it will ultimately fail, as Trotsky predicted in 1936 regarding the future demise of the USSR. He said either they had a POLITICAL REVOLUTION to create workers democracy, or it would eventually collapse into capitalism. He was right.

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.

No, that is insane. When I worked for a company, I did not own it. I was an employee. The people who owned it were not employees, they were the owners/employers.

When I eat a bowl of cornflakes, I am a consumer. I do not grow the wheat or make the flakes. I do not own Kellogs. I do not work for Kellogs.

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.

wtf?

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.

in your dreams, within your delusional world.

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.

He is pointing out the problems they have, the crappy stuff a lot of people would rather not admit. Strong supporting evidence that Lenin, the leader, was very open and honest.

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

No, you are talking rubbish. Socialism is a publicly owned and publicly controlled economy, and that has never existed.

Stalin simply collectivised to save his sorry ass, and his regime could only develop Russia so far, ultimately it was doomed as democracy is to a planned economy what oil is to an engine.

But things were still publicly owned, were they not?

Originally Posted by daft punk

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.

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.

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

Because British railroads suck. They had to subsidies them.

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.

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

what?

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.

CO2 is just as dangerous as any pollutant.

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 >_>

CO2 causes global warming

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.

I want more industrial production, not less, and there is no reason every person shouldnt be fed. It is capitalism that stops all this.

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

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.

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.

Have they now?

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

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]

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

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

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.

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.

support

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

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

Who knows? Probably something stupid like Solar.

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/thepale...o2-temperature

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.

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.

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.

Who builds the roads for all your cars?

Private contractors hired by state governments.

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

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.

water is a big problem as I have already shown.

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.

Originally Posted by daft punk

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

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.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

They certainly do like their Soviet style propaganda

wtf are you on about? Have you lost the plot? We are talking about some of the most authoritative voices of capitalism. The main journals of the capitalist system.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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

only retards, seeing as NK bears little resemblance to what the main socialists defined socialism as, which is workers (ie public) ownership and control of industry.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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

It is a basic requirement for socialist leaders to take the average wage. Lenin and Trotsky did it. The famous children's author Arthur Ransome went to Russia while the Bolsheviks were in power and he along with many others testified that the Bolsheviks took no privileges. In fact when he visited a jail, the prisoners got better meal than the local Bolshevik leaders.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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

He is a clueless idiot.


[quote=MissJonelyn;4579320]

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. There is more to socialism than common ownership, it needs public control as well. You cant achieve socialism by force, people have to want it.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

Nobody else but you could so eloquently describe a man mooing his neighbours lawn. One man went to moo.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

But things were still publicly owned, were they not?

Sorta, but that doesnt make it socialism. In socialism there is no elite, everyone is involved in decision making, and the state withers away.

That did not happen in the USSR. In fact the opposite happened. Stalin killed all the socialists to make sure socialism never happened, and he did his best to make sure it never happened in any other country either.

Just ask yourself why he supported the capitalist KMT rather than the CCP in China.

"Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions. "

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1936/03/01.htm

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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

Probably not if you factor in costs like congestion and global warming.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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 >_>

Dont talk (*)(*)(*)(*)e or I will put you on ignore, suicide is not a joking matter.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Poor people are most affected by it.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

This is a fantasy. Most multinationals take the wealth and leave little for the country they are mining or drilling in. Yes they pay a bit more than local companies, to reduce staff turnover, they can afford to when they are extracting that country's resources so cheaply. As well as paying a bit more than the local average wage, they also resort to techniques such as genocide and war, pollute the local environment, prop up dictators and so on.

Lets take a typical example. RTZ in Panguna, Papua New Guinea. Dumped more than 1 billion tons of mine waste into the Pangana, Jaba and Kawerong rivers killing all aquatic life in 480 square kilometer river system. The waste formed a deposit approximately 20 kilometers long, upto a kilometer wide and several meters deep along the rivers with a copper contaminated outwash fan in Empress augusta Bay covering nine square kilometers.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

Wrong. Socialism would have no profit but would produce a lot more, and there would still be incentives. Profits on the other hand work against innovation and production in many ways. Too much to spell out in a short post, this needs a thread on its own.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

EPA Suppressed Scientific Evidence Against CO2

Name the scientist and his qualifications and expertise. Name the report you refer to. Did you read my link at realclimate? Did you? If not, you are a total waste of time.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

You are full of (*)(*)(*)(*) and you know nothing about the subject, all you do is read stupid rightwing blogs and fill the gap between your ears with garbage.

There is not plenty of evidence which refutes the consensus position.

"Oreskes, 2004

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[118] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...reskes.2C_2004

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

Yes, you can buy nets for them from Oxfam etc. There are various ways malaria can be combatted. The mossies have developed resistance to DDT so it's not so effective these days. DDT is pretty toxic to humans btw. DDT has been opposed by locals as well as environmentalists etc.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

Who knows? Probably something stupid like Solar.

Which is what we should be prioritising now, not waiting until catastrophe strikes.

I am scientist and you are a hysterical right winger, just a small step away from a real conspiracy theory nutter. Most if not all conspiracy theories come from the right. Anti AGW is one obviously. If you wanna discuss the environment and AGW, I need facts not waffle.

Did you read the link? My links are by actual climate scientists.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

1. Which ice age?

2. Explain how continents clustered on the warmest part of the planet causes an ice age.

3. "The allowed CO2 to be removed even has the ice sheets expanded to the polar ice caps."
wtf does this mean?

4. "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."
and this? Why would greenhouse gases build up when land is covered in ice?

I think this is an extremely confused half hearted attempt to paraphrase some (*)(*)(*)(*) you have read somewhere.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

why not?

It's fact, google it.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

UN warns of looming water crisis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1887451.stm

"More than 2.7 billion people will face severe water shortages by the year 2025 if the world continues consuming water at the same rate, the United Nations has warned. "

[quote=daft punk;4580335]wtf are you on about? Have you lost the plot? We are talking about some of the most authoritative voices of capitalism. The main journals of the capitalist system.





only retards, seeing as NK bears little resemblance to what the main socialists defined socialism as, which is workers (ie public) ownership and control of industry.



It is a basic requirement for socialist leaders to take the average wage. Lenin and Trotsky did it. The famous children's author Arthur Ransome went to Russia while the Bolsheviks were in power and he along with many others testified that the Bolsheviks took no privileges. In fact when he visited a jail, the prisoners got better meal than the local Bolshevik leaders.


He is a clueless idiot.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

There is more to socialism than common ownership, it needs public control as well. You cant achieve socialism by force, people have to want it.





Nobody else but you could so eloquently describe a man mooing his neighbours lawn. One man went to moo.




Sorta, but that doesnt make it socialism. In socialism there is no elite, everyone is involved in decision making, and the state withers away.

That did not happen in the USSR. In fact the opposite happened. Stalin killed all the socialists to make sure socialism never happened, and he did his best to make sure it never happened in any other country either.

Just ask yourself why he supported the capitalist KMT rather than the CCP in China.

"Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions. "

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1936/03/01.htm

[quote=daft punk;4580335]wtf are you on about? Have you lost the plot? We are talking about some of the most authoritative voices of capitalism. The main journals of the capitalist system.





only retards, seeing as NK bears little resemblance to what the main socialists defined socialism as, which is workers (ie public) ownership and control of industry.



It is a basic requirement for socialist leaders to take the average wage. Lenin and Trotsky did it. The famous children's author Arthur Ransome went to Russia while the Bolsheviks were in power and he along with many others testified that the Bolsheviks took no privileges. In fact when he visited a jail, the prisoners got better meal than the local Bolshevik leaders.


He is a clueless idiot.

Originally Posted by MissJonelyn

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.

There is more to socialism than common ownership, it needs public control as well. You cant achieve socialism by force, people have to want it.





Nobody else but you could so eloquently describe a man mooing his neighbours lawn. One man went to moo.




Sorta, but that doesnt make it socialism. In socialism there is no elite, everyone is involved in decision making, and the state withers away.

That did not happen in the USSR. In fact the opposite happened. Stalin killed all the socialists to make sure socialism never happened, and he did his best to make sure it never happened in any other country either.

Just ask yourself why he supported the capitalist KMT rather than the CCP in China.

"Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions. "

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1936/03/01.htm

Originally Posted by Dan40

Originally Posted by daft punk View Post

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

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

Too big a question to answer in one post. The 'if this is true' bit makes no sense anyway. The fact that there has never been socialism doesnt really affect the reasons for advocating socialism, if anything it strengthens them.

Originally Posted by Dan40

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

So?

Originally Posted by Dan40

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

Well, you just said all systems so far have been unfair. So it's not saying much.

Originally Posted by Dan40

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

You are just saying this. You have no evidence to support it. What about the fact that for most of our existence, life was mainly pretty much egalitarian? Do you know why we learned to talk?