Printable View
I don't care what OTHER COUNTRY'S TAXPAYERS pay for your degree as long as it is not ours, Cuba was just an example. You could go to anyplace you want. You are griping about this country, but you do not want to leave until after we pay for your degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemis516
As for what Mars has to do with so called global warming, you stated as fact that it is human caused. There is no human activity on Mars, yet it is warming also. That is what makes it relevant.
you are correct. help for the poor, sick, elderly and the like should come from willing, charitable people. help for these people should not come from stealing people's money at gun point. a homeless person stealing a dollar from a millionaire is still robbery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemis516
This is the underlying argument and it makes perfect sense to me. I don't understand why people can't see the difference between entitlement programs and charity. I don't know why it isn't up to the individual how he/she chooses to donate their money. NOBODY is entitled to someone else's money!Quote:
Originally Posted by jonquest
I imagine the people who support these programs would be royally pissed if their employer came to them one day and said, "Sir, I understand you work hard for your money, but 25% of your paycheck will be going to James from now on. He is having a hard time right now and seeing as how you and he work for the same company, he is entitled to that portion of your paycheck."
hahaha. you're example is perfect and gave me a good chuckle. it's almost like the broken window fallacy when you think about it. everyone says "of course we should give everyone healthcare." they don't realize that money has to come from someone else. i was talking to this guy about universal healthcare and he couldn't understand why it still wouldn't be free. he must have thought the money would just come from the sky from God himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
Brain drain prevention does not allow for professionals to "move" outside the country and begin practicing their new skill without obtaining a degree or certification (not medical either) within the system they desire.Quote:
Originally Posted by McDanger
Strictly speaking, a person cannot obtain an AMA license, a degree from Harvard, and begin practicing in France. While nobody can take your degree from you, French hospitals do not recognize foreign certification, and neither do any industrialized countries. Otherwise, a ton of countries would be pissed that they pay (especially Western Europe) for people to obtain a degree, and then they high tail to any free market segment that pays better.
no taxpayers are paying for my education, i am paying for my education and no one else
frankly, i can take my degree wherever the hell i want thank you very much
But you will not be able to become certified in that country unless you work for a US subsidiary or some other means of employment that does not require a degree or certification.
In regards to the European community; they regulate against that type of transfer because they fear it for themselves (mostly in the health fields). Similarly, i cannot go to China and apply for a job at a Chinese owned company without a slew of legal obstacles. Instead, i would have to apply for a job at a US company with a Chinese operation.
Our quality of life is a little too high at the moment, materially. I really can't give any amount of a shit whether or not new environmental measures will result in your average person not being able to afford an HD TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
You are right...stupid and ignorant people vote their own kind into office. In theory, then, nobody is qualified to make any decision, but decisions have to be made. If a river was being rapidly drained of all its fish, the people need to be banned from fishing there, however much some may moan about how their rights are being stepped on. I can't think of anything more dire than the future of the planet, but apparently our consumerist "quality" of life takes precedence. I used the birds as one example...the birds aren't the only victims of human "progress." I'd rather see a green world where we live more simply, than a world of wheels and gears in which everybody can consume to their heart's content.
I'm not a liberal, just a guy who tries to look at everything on its own terms. I'm typically pretty anarchistic, but I'm all for keeping people from doing irrevocable harm to the beautiful world. One day humans will be extinct and the earth will get a reprieve.
I think it isnt even a matter of personal liking... a world with the level of consumerism there is today simply cant last long. Many natural resources (from where everything that is consumed ultimately comes) are finite, and are ending, some of them fast. Sooner or later the society will reach an unsustainable point (if it didnt already) and it wont be able to keep existing as it is today.Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
So, this consumerist way of life is doomed to end, and surely its end will bring a lot of suffering, which could have been avoided if society hadnt indulged so much in unwise behaviors concerning its relationship with the rest of the world (that is FAR greater than the mere society).
Unless you are going to a private college, with no grants, somebody is paying for at least half of your education since ALL public colleges are subsidized at least 50% by the state, plus any endowment or donations from alumni.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemis516
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDanger
its funny because i went to a private college with no grants and i am currently at a private graduate school...also with no grants
granted, i dont know how any of this you bring up is relevant to the thread but it wouldnt let me give you anymore rep to defend myself
good day sir
The government is needed for alternative energy. We can have 120 different companies reinventing the lightbulb, or we can put 120 companies together and get somewhere. The government must organize it.. Oil companies aren't going to put themselves out of buisness before they have to, and when they do it will take us down with them.
Think of it as the railway vs the freeway system.
Railway was very inefficient, government putting a company in charge and dumping cash into them... Money got absorbed by greedy people in the company and it turned out to be a big waste of cash, with the corporations in charge.
The freeway, the government hired out companies and organized it and it got done. The reason this worked out was because the government was invovled making sure tax dollars aren't getting pissed away. Some things are too big for private sectors to take care of themselves.. This is one of them.
It's amazing on D-day how we all got together.. The billions of dollars involved and all the different countries are kind of like 'private corporations of america'
We need the government to be the Eisenhower of alternative energy...
:stoned:
Your example is simply unrealistic. If these people, whom you believe are the "best" at organizing, are government bureaucrats, why are they working for 1000x's less, in a highly uncompetitive job market?Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlesmoke247
Quality managers exist in higher proportion, within the private sector. So much so that these "private managers" of industry hire "diplomats" on their behalf, to infiltrate Washington DC, on behalf of expanding consumption.
Technological difference renders the comparison off base. Mass waves of immigrants are not needed to dig the trenches. Caterpillar is less of a long term costs, while providing greater production for both functions of time and money (which can be considered one in the same).Quote:
Think of it as the railway vs the freeway system.
Steam engines vs fuel cell/heavy diesel combustion:stoned: I could be wrong though....Quote:
Railway was very inefficient, government putting a company in charge and dumping cash into them... Money got absorbed by greedy people in the company and it turned out to be a big waste of cash, with the corporations in charge.
Do tell; were these people digging by hand? How about cranes? Where things lifted by a series of pulleys?Quote:
The freeway, the government hired out companies and organized it and it got done. The reason this worked out was because the government was invovled making sure tax dollars aren't getting pissed away. Some things are too big for private sectors to take care of themselves.. This is one of them.
That's a reach.Quote:
It's amazing on D-day how we all got together.. The billions of dollars involved and all the different countries are kind of like 'private corporations of America'
The same government you cannot trust to do what is just, selective drug criminalization, should be the decider of everything?:wtf: If i am to agree, i would also have to agree that they keep drugs illegal because it if beneficial to me and my fellow country men/women.Quote:
We need the government to be the Eisenhower of alternative energy...
:stoned:
Your example is the exact reason why we don't need the government. If there are 120 companies working on something, than there will be an abundance of different choices. Some will be terrible technologies and will be forgotten, others on the other hand will be superior and mass produced. If the government creates the light bulb, it may have a life of 3 hours as opposed to one that can last 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlesmoke247
If you have one group working on a problem, you get one solution. If you have multiple groups working independently on the same problem, you get many different solutions. I don't see how this is complicated to understand. The one solution may not even work, however, it is far more likely one of many solutions discovered will be beneficial.
What you are talking about is taking your entire life savings to the casino and placing an all or nothing bet on red-25.
Yes they will risk their businesses because it means going out of business if they don't. Typically business owners are risk takers, some more than others. That is how the free market works. You take big calculated risks in order to get BIG rewards.
If we keep handing out money to them they won't risk their own because they don't have to.
Exactly!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
This is commonly referred to as moral hazard. Who cares if my business fails, the government will just bail me out. Who cares if i can't make my mortgage payments, the government will just bail me out. Who cares if my skills are two generations old, the government will just bail me out.
Does anyone here believe businesses would behave in the manor they do (large scale corporate interests) if they "knew" the federal government was not in the business of alleviating failure?
You would have both less risk dependent reward (similar to black market operations), and much much much more innovative reward (creating something new that changes the way people think i.e. facebook/youtube/gps etc...).
Unproductive speculation can be reduced by simply refraining from intervening on behalf of failure.
Really, our quality of life is to high? I also thought we wanted to continue to improve the quality of life. If you want to live in a cave, go right ahead. America, has one of the highest quality's of life, if not the highest in the world. That's why our poor live in shitty apartments, public housing, trailers; yet still have running water, electricity, many can afford some form of transportation, and have t.v's.Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
Do you even know the implications that will likely result due to what environmentalists and liberal politicians want to do in the name of our environment?
That is the problem, you assume our planet is in dire need of saving, it isn't.Quote:
I can't think of anything more dire than the future of the planet, but apparently our consumerist "quality" of life takes precedence.
I was talking about DDT specifically and you come back with some tree hugging crap about saving birds. So back to DDT, do you have sources that have not been debunked which claim DDT kills birds?Quote:
I used the birds as one example...the birds aren't the only victims of human "progress."
What exactly is green? I hate that fucking term. Could you be anymore abstract? Is green anything that has absolutely no adverse effects on the environment or the smallest atom within? Those are strict standards.Quote:
I'd rather see a green world where we live more simply, than a world of wheels and gears in which everybody can consume to their heart's content.
You can't throw around a term like green, that encompasses nearly everything you ideologues want to accomplish, regardless of it's actual influence on the environment.
Simply because you claim you aren't a liberal doesn't make it so. Your views suggest you are a liberal. You can claim you look at things openly, however, if you had, you would see the outright lies told to you about global warming.Quote:
I'm not a liberal, just a guy who tries to look at everything on its own terms. I'm typically pretty anarchistic, but I'm all for keeping people from doing irrevocable harm to the beautiful world. One day humans will be extinct and the earth will get a reprieve.
You also aren't an anarchist, if you were, you would believe people should do what ever the hell they want to their environment. Everything you have said is authoritarian in nature, which is in direct contrast to the philosophy of anarchism.
Their environment? Who the hell said that the environment is a human property, like their cars, houses and etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
This kind of thought only made sense when men were "Gods image" and thus entitled to do whatever it wished with the earth, that was, after all, just a playground made for its own use and benefit... but nowadays evolution states that humans are just one more species on the earth, and this species hasnt anything "special" that justify that it use the entire earth for its own benefit...
Yup, our environment. Simply because I say it is ours doesn't mean I believe we are the sole possessors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coelho
If I share a house with someone, does that mean it isn't my house anymore? Nice try though...
Well... remember that humans were one of the last species to evolve until its atual stage... the plants and animals were already here WAY before us... so i think we humans are the guests here, and not the owners...Quote:
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
We are creatures, same as all the others. Beavers alter their enviornment... (sorry, it isn't theirs, they weren't first...) yet we should not be allowed to alter it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coelho
So by your logic, the last born child should not be able to alter anything in their household? When the parents die, the first born shall inherit the entire estate?
Your logic is so ridiculous it is laughable.
Now that you mention it, we should surgically alter our brains. Our mere ability to build homes and clear forests is a travesty. It can't be tolerated. It simply isn't fair that we are superior to our animal kin!
You hippies need to make up your mind. Are we a part of the natural world or are we not. If we evolved from monkey's than we are. Does the natural world and the rest of it's inhabitants care if they effect our species negatively? I'm not saying we shouldn't protect some aspects of our environment and the lesser species, but you loose all credibility with these extremist environmental views.
By the way, as a new found liberal, I propose the eradication of all beavers. Their diverting rivers is horrible and most be prevented at all costs!
the essence of the matter is that humans are just another part of the natural order. we are not guests, we are not steward or wardens and we are not a plague. we merely seem to be the only creature here that feels guilty about placing our mark on the earth, something that every other species tries to do as best it can. we have the ability to see what damage we can do, but we do not always have the ability to stop or reverse the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coelho
What you are saying is a travesty. Other animals are simply doing what is natural to them, we on the other hand are a race of vile, evil, disgusting daemons who are hell bent on destroying everything beautiful and right in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
Did public school teach you nothing... ;)
i must a got stoned that day.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
laughable logic? i consider it laughable to compare a beaver dam to humans spewing manmade greenhouse gases into the environment at a pace never seen before
the majority of your posts in this thread are laughable...you can chalk to it to me believing the media or in lies made up by whomever but i have looked at the facts and you cant deny the effect were having on the environment is on a scale that this planet has never seen b4 in its history and you have posted nothing to convince me otherwise
you seem to think that politics and policy making or anything really is just one big philosophical argument that can be won simply by manipulating rhetoric and using your apparently elite lawyer skills to win on paper...there are empirical facts you cant just ignore because you want to
First of all, the most abundant green house gas is water vapor, the media, nor the politicians ever mention that however considering it would be difficult to reduce it. However, regardless of that fact, they still promoted cars which released water vapor as opposed to CO2. How exactly does that benefit the environment when water vapor is far worse according to nearly all sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemis516
The question is if any of these gases cause long term effects on our environment? As of yet they haven't, not in the form of planetary warming anyway.
The fact is, global warming is not being exacerbated by man, if it is occurring at all.
This is a chart from a top meteorologist.
Here is one chart of global temperatures.
Here is one regarding the ice caps getting thinker.
Here is one regarding what I was saying about DDT.
(This site matches mimics the information found in Michael Crichton's State of Fear. If you would like his bibliography to double check the sources, you can buy or borrow his book from someone.)
I can tell your mind won't change easily, so why should I do a lot of work?
For good measure, here is one regarding DDT found in a medical journal.
Another
Here is the EPA press release announcing the ban. (Assuming you automatically believe the government, you will accept this a proof they were right without doing further research.)
Here is one final link where children debunk global warming.(Scroll down to the first video.)
The fact is. They take a few anomalies and try and make a case for global warming despite opposite effects in other parts of the world. They claim the increase in natural disasters is proof when there isn't actually an increase. The number of hurricanes for instance has not risen at all.
One more. Here is a link from the National Hurricane Center.(For the U.S.)
(Do you notice more in recent years? I don't.)
I am trying to include a picture, I'm not sure if it will work though. If not here is the link.
You can see that yes, the number of hurricanes have increased, however they have spiked several times since we first started recording them. Can you honestly this this proves global warming? A lot of articles I come across believe it does.
Is that better, I will try and refrain from "lawyer talk."
By the way, I don't see how a beaver dam is much different. Beavers divert entire rivers. I don't think the comparison is off base.
you gotta be kidding me right?
you should do a bit more research on cliff harris and randy mann before trying to post one of their graphs....turns out they arent who they say they are and they are more motivated by the bible than anything else
lol and that hurricane graph you posted if you were to take the average trend of that line it pretty clearly to me looks upward sloping
and i dont really care what you have to say about ddt...i asked for links concerning your position on global warming and you have yet to provide an adequate one....posting all those erroneous links about ddt to just try and take the argument by sheer force wont work here
this will be my last post here as i can no longer take anything you say seriously because apparently its YOU who will just search the internet and believe anything you read or any graph you see
Actually, I know what I know from far more reliable sources. The problem is finding them is more difficult than typing a few words in google. Seeing as you are set in your ways, there was no point in wasting a lot of my time searching for actual sources, but than again, yours aren't reliable either. So no, I did not get my initial info in that way, however, you are not worth a great deal of time in look for the sources or photocopying the graphs I have in books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemis516
You go off what Al Gore and Michael Moore say.
Do you have actual proof that particular graph is incorrect? More or less it correlates with actual facts.
As I said before, if you want a reliable source, go to a bookstore and pick up "State of Fear." I'm not going to do all the ground work for you. He has many graph in his book as well as a detailed bibliography. Although it is a work of fiction, the science behind it is based on fact and he documents it in his bibliography.
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
That is the site he got his info from, although in the bibliography he stats they changed the length in which they show data shortly after the hard cover publication. Meaning, they show a shorter time span in their graphs.
You wonder why it is hard to find accurate information, it's because nearly all sites you would consider reliable are extremely biased and misrepresent information.
If you want another book, read, The Chilling Stars.
I got my info from books, I suggest you read them sometimes. But be warned, not all information is accurate. Siletn Spring is a perfect example of that, yet the liberals still support the ban of DDT.
You still have yet to touch on that subject. (DDT)
Or is that to difficult for you to argue against?
Oh wait, you did touch on it simply by saying it is irrelevant. You are an idiot my friend. The ban on DDT has resulted in oodles of death's and that is unimportant to you.
Again if you would like the orginal books in which I got that information you can read: Hoodwinked and What's the matter with California.
Those links however represents the facts. Ignore them if you like, you are simply proving my point that finding actual sources is pointless when dealing with your kind.
The problem is the last born child, that now is a 5 years old children, somehow got a gun and now is bullying and forcing everyone else in the house to do whatever it wants... a home controled by an armed 5-years-old isnt very right, is?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
Yes, i agree, humans are another part of the natural order. The human industrial society isnt. The progress and industrialization gave humans power over the nature, which is what i meant with the gun at the paragraph above.Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
And having or not the ability to stop the damage is one thing, but closing the eyes for dont see the damage is another one...
Well... in this case, the media and the politicians actually has a good reason for dont talk about the water vapor causing global warming... the amount of water vapor in the air is self-regulating, if there is too much of it the air becames more wet and rains, sending the excess of water vapor to the surface of earth condensed as water... yet the same doesnt happen with CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for very long amounts of time and hardly can be "condensed" into a harmless form.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
BTW, anything can be proven or disproven with internet informations... but i do have facts. In the southern region of my country, there wasnt never ever any registered hurricane... but, since 2004 there were two of them, what never had happened before... and hurricanes need warm oceans to be created, so the only possible explanation is that somehow the ocean got hotter than it was before... why its so, we dont know for sure, but surely the global warming is the best candidate.
And hunting is like the murdering of a 5 year old...Quote:
Originally Posted by Coelho
See here:Quote:
Well... in this case, the media and the politicians actually has a good reason for dont talk about the water vapor causing global warming... the amount of water vapor in the air is self-regulating, if there is too much of it the air becames more wet and rains, sending the excess of water vapor to the surface of earth condensed as water... yet the same doesnt happen with CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for very long amounts of time and hardly can be "condensed" into a harmless form.
BTW, anything can be proven or disproven with internet informations... but i do have facts. In the southern region of my country, there wasnt never ever any registered hurricane... but, since 2004 there were two of them, what never had happened before... and hurricanes need warm oceans to be created, so the only possible explanation is that somehow the ocean got hotter than it was before... why its so, we dont know for sure, but surely the global warming is the best candidate.
By that same logic, it never snows in Louisiana yet it took 3 days to melt this past winter. That supports global cooling right?
Also, the warmer temps are accounted for in the other post. Don't think the opposition doesn't have facts.
http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/...tical-lie.html