The Bradley was a decade before sequestration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
There was a fucking Movie about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
Printable View
The Bradley was a decade before sequestration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
There was a fucking Movie about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
lolwut?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What crisis is happening right now due to man made global warming that the Pentagon is actively dealing with?
I think you were "in the woods" too long playing with yourself, that you lost all sense of reality.
Haha...I forgot about that movie. Great movie, good cast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
In the papers they talk about an increase in natural distasters and an increase in civil unrest due to climate changes in certain less developed countries. Destabilization of governments and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
They wrote it, not Cwolff. Call them out on it if you like.
The way Cwolff is saying it.. is that the Pentagon is agreeing with the theory of man-made global warming and that they are already being forced to deal with the ramifications of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Not exactly the same situation.
Chrono Trigger was one third of the ideal form of the RPG, along with FF6 and Secret of Mana. The only way to the World of the Forms is via the trinity, everyone knows that. Is there a Jesus 2.0? No. Therefore Chrono Cross is bs. QED.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
He's not familiar with recoil, I take it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20iio0wLpPAQuote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Chrono Cross isn't a bad game. You can be second, third, fourth, hell, you can even be fifth.
What does the design and building have to do with what I said? The Bradley is a damn good vehicle but due to IEDs they stopped using them in Iraq in 2007 and focused on the Stryker and MRAP which offered better under armour protection. In 2012 the Army announced they would be replacing the Bradley with the GCVIFV. However members of congress pushed back, saying they didn't want procurement of the Bradley stopped. Earlier this year the Army submitted their budget requirements but congress only approved a fraction of it so the Army was basically forced to cancel the GCV project.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
It means everything. You can try to dismiss it, continue to deny it, stomp your feet and cry everyone else is wrong and you are right because you "feel" you are right, but none of that is going to change the reality that we are impacting our environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Latrin I'm still not understanding. Are you saying CT was a bad RPG?
See? This guy knows what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You have sullied my reputation for the last time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
So CT was good and CC was bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Can you quote the person or persons that stated that man is not impacting their environment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
http://coffeetablecongress.com/Straw...0animation.gif
Christopher Tamburello will eat your face off. We both know that as a Bostonian you are fully aware of this. Just stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Yeah... I know you were gone for awhile.. but you would think you had at least had some reading comprehension during then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
It was a direct response to the fact that the Military does have a lot of say in what it designs and makes. They get "approval" to design something.. which always runs well over the estimates.. then when done they get approval to build it.
The Bradley is the perfect example of how fucked up the Pentagon is. Now.. how it performed in the field? Don't know about that, but I mean.. seriously.. it was a troop carrier that couldn't carry troops, a recon vehicle that was to easy to spot to do recon, a tank with less armor then my gram's 57 catty, a gun that likely couldn't do shit to a tank, and anti tank Missiles... and it is also supposed to be able to cross rivers on it's own.
Just like the Air force and the new plane... they want everything to be able to do everything, and you can't do that.
Huh? Plenty of people say this. Both here and out in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I think there is a huge difference between saying man is impacting their environment and man is causing global temperatures to rise so fast we are going to kill ourselves off in 100 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Just the act of driving a car is impacting the environment; air pollution, tearing down rubber trees to make tires.
Not positive, but I don't think most tires are made from trees anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Otherwise, I agree.
Glad to have you aboard. Go Green!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
I've always been on board the green train :OQuote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
I think the US (read: AMERICANS!) should be doing a lot more to help the environment. The problem is most Americans are too lazy, they expect someone else to save the environment.
I don't wanna drive less or change my driving habits to conserve fuel!
I don't wanna use cloth bags instead of throwing away a bajillion plastic bags a year!
I don't wanna use CFL or LED light bulbs!
I don't wanna turn the water off while I brush my teeth!
I don't wanna get more water efficient toilets!
I don't wanna turn my AC above 66 degrees in the summer!
I want the evil corporations to clean up their acts so I can feel good about myself!
Then you have the rednecks who purposefully do shit just to piss of the environmentalists.
I was just joking about tearing down trees to make tires but apparently tires are partly made from trees :OQuote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Nnnnoooooooooooooo!
You're right about a lot of that stuff. People do it and they feel good; like they did their part. The truth is that unless we have top down governmental pressure it doesn't matter if you turn off the water while you brush your teeth. When I say this I'm especially thinking of agriculture. We use about 90% of our water allotment in CO for irrigating monocultures fertilized with petroleum. I'm also thinking about the Oceans which we're quite literally depleting. I know that sounds crazy, but it's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
This is why the word "sustainable" is in every environmental conversation. Our current systems are not sustainable. Everyone can see that. The big question is if the "people" will develop the will to make changes before we have catastrophe.
"Plenty"? Then it should be relatively easy for you to post one.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
I'll await your stellar attempt to do so.
Hey, I'm excited we're all finally starting to agree. It's a good thing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It's pretty wild to see some of these guys change their minds about climate change. Reminds me of a story my 4th grade teacher told us about a mule and a 2x4.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
I don't think we are reading the same posts. Who exactly changed their mind here on the PC?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I don't think PB did, TG did, or I did.
Of course.. maybe in your twisted mind you think we did.
Yeah I'm sort of confused myself. I haven't changed at all. I'm incapable of change.
Aww, you guys are so coy. It's sweet. Don't worry though, the future is that much brighter!
You know, I am actually going to laugh when Cwolff starts bitching about paying 10x his normal energy bill because the rates have sky rocketed.
See, it's happening so slowly you don't even notice. That's how the PC Liberals gets you. They like the VC.
Changing is like the antithesis of being a Republican. What you got against the old ways?
Don't worry, there will always be a place for you next to the guy holding the sign saying...Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
"The End is Nigh!"
Is it just me or does this make no sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
I see this more as a beginning. But that's me, I'm an optimist. I'm just happy right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Well, I'd say my reading comprehension is just fine. And I also don't take things at face value alone. I do my own research. Yes, you are right, the initial procurement of the Bradley was a fucking disaster. There ARE officers in the military that are just looking for kickbacks and future higher paying jobs with defense contractors. Of course there is corruption in the military. I still think that overall they are a more trustworthy institution than the federal government. Now, back to the Bradley.. it does have a slight problem with its armor. That's why it was replaced in the field by the stryker and MRAP. It's still a great vehicle. Incredibly lethal, despite what you think. In the first Gulf war it had more tank kills than any other weapons platform, including the M1 Abraham main battle tank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
As far as the F-35 goes I don't really have a comment on that. It's costing a ridiculous amount of money so far and I have no clue if it will ever be worth it. Time will tell.
Back sometime in the mid-90's I met a dude in gemstone that claimed to be a member of SEAL team 6. He seemed quite knowledgeable so who knows. Anyways I mentioned to him how I'd love to join the army and be a driver for the Bradley. He then tells me he was involved in survivability testing at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. They put a live cow inside the Bradley, sealed it up, and then shot at it with a sabot round. The round penetrated through one side and exited the other. On the way through it liquidated the cow completely and its remains were sucked out of the exit way along with the sabot slug.
I've heard that story in different forms over the years. I think that what he's describing is the way the rounds supposed to work. Isn't that was depleted uranium was for? The projectile pierces the armor then the overpressure destroys the vehicle and all the occupants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
In any case they have rounds like that to destroy tanks so a bradley would be relatively easy to kill.
It's funny about SEAL Team 6. For such a small and relatively new unit they sure have a hell of a lot of veterans. LOL
They were first formed in 1980. Technically speaking they're DEVGRU now, not SEAL team 6.
And yes, is the overpressure. Depleted uranium is used for armor piercing, due to its extreme density. Same reason why they use tungsten.
Why did I always think DEVGRU was a Russian unit?
Maybe you're thinking of T.A.T.U.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8mGBaXPlri8#t=73
They have a military intelligence unit with the initials GRU. Maybe that's why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Did our deniers just admit that people have an effect on the environment? Holy shit fuck!
This is getting mind boggling. Has anyone in the entire world ever said man doesn't have an effect on the environment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I think you guys are conflating two arguments.
Man having an effect on the environment != man is causing the world to heat up so fast that the world is going to die off in 100 years.
http://www.dosomething.org/files/sty...ilspill982.jpg
Hurr! Penguins did this.
Japan's been killing us all. Star Trek IV may have been right.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/0...limate-change/
Maybe we should open those camps again if you know what I mean. I'M TALKING TO YOU TAKEI!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
http://media3.giphy.com/media/H7iEm8CKI9ZAs/200_s.gif
So, you couldn't find a single example out of "plenty"?Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
You are reaching Backwolff proportions of stupidity now. Maybe WayBackwolff?
There is plenty of history on this forum... feel free to post a before and after of someone first claiming that man has no impact on the environment. Just a single example is all that is needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Would you say that the current situation, as it relates to military procurement, and the relationship between congress, the Pentagon, and the White House, is optimal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Not to nitpick, but I'm quite certain you meant the M1 Abrams...though Father Abraham had many sons, a tank was not one of them.Quote:
In the first Gulf war it had more tank kills than any other weapons platform, including the M1 Abraham main battle tank.
Imo, air superiority is the one thing I'm willing to spend a lot of money on. Obscene amounts. I'm generally not of the school of thought that more money automatically means better results, but...when it comes to air superiority...I'm willing to take a gamble. Mechanized ground units...eh, not so much. Until the Army comes up with a viable Atlas or Templar, I'm going to stick with the navy/air force for securing our particular terrestrial position on this planet.Quote:
As far as the F-35 goes I don't really have a comment on that. It's costing a ridiculous amount of money so far and I have no clue if it will ever be worth it. Time will tell.
1. Definitely not optimal. As I've said before there is corruption on both sides and that basically stems from the amount of money and influence coming from the military industrial complex.
2. Abrams, you're right. There are a few words that for some reason don't click correctly in my head. This and Hunter Thompson for example.
3. I fully believe in air and naval superiority. That doesn't mean I don't have concerns for certain decisions, such as the decision to mothball the A-10 (a fucking terrible idea,) or the issues that arise from weapons systems design creep, such as with the F-35. I'm definitely concerned with the total cost, especially with problems its been having. You've probably heard but the entire existing fleet has been grounded due to one catching on fire. Not to mention the whole projects cost was supposed to have been split between the US and multiple other allied countries. Now some are scaling back on the amount they are buying or completely abandoning the jet in favor of the 4.5 gen Eurofighter Typhoon.
I do see potential in the F-35 despite all this. Not every system comes out of the gates an ass-kicking champion. It's why we have upgrade blocks, where they're continuously being improved upon.
On a side note I think it was a bad idea to stop production of the F-22, but that's just my uneducated opinion.
Pretty sooon it'll be waybackbanditwolf!Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Stop being a such a packer.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Should never have proposed getting rid of the A-10's we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
The F-35 will never compare to the A-10 in Close Fire Support.
Continue not to worry, conspiracy theory-loving conservatives! The hottest May in recorded human history was followed-up by the hottest June in recorded human history, but it's still just a vast liberal conspiracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/6Quote:
Originally Posted by NOAA
Japan's Meteorological Agency also lists April, May and June as the hottest globally recorded months, making the past quarter year the hottest on record.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/pro...p/jun_wld.html
But no, sir. John "I'm Not a Scientist" Boehner and his political backers want you to know you've got nothing to worry about.
They can just move underground with me to avoid the Skynet-style LATRINSWARM of universal surveillance drones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
http://cdn.meme.li/instances/500x/52820869.jpg
Chicago just had it's coldest winter in recorded history too, what can we draw from this?
Latrin?
Awesome!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Snow causes psychosis!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Snow causes ps-...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Damn you, sir!Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Everybody knows that to boil water you need to heat it to 212ºF or 100ºCommunist. Right? Of course right! But would it interest you to learn that if you have a glass of water, there are nonzero molecules in it that are transitioning to a gaseous phase? That is... boiling? In life all things are distributions. Like this:
http://noyesharrigan.cmswiki.wikispa...stribution.png
Not like this:
http://www.devonaquavitae.co.uk/site..._openphoto.png
Everything is in flux, and YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT.
.
If the world is a glass of water, we can reasonably say that the glass of water is getting colder even though an individual molecule becomes hotter. Much hotter! So hot that it breaks free from its liquid prison and roams free in the atmosphere! A rugged vapor! And vice versa for hotter and ice cube. The statement "the globe is getting hotter" is inconsistent with neither "Chicago is getting colder" nor "Leon is getting larger".
It is also worth pointing out that the larger model of ACC predicts isolated extremes such as these, so the larger question of whether you should believe the science is still answered "yes".
Key words there are recorded human history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
That's only a small fraction of the total history. Can you prove that global warming isn't saving us from the Ice Age that all climatologists agree we should be in (or at least very close to), right now? How devastating would it be if half of our currently inhabitable land was covered with ice? I'm guessing about the same as if half of it was covered with water.
Solid or a liquid, that damn water is gonna get us either way. I think we should start filling rocket ships with water and shooting it into space.
This would be a cool argument if all climatologists had actually agreed on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Uh, we are in an ice age. I'd really like to see these climatologists that are arguing we aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Whatever. You're just saying that because Chicago was chilly last winter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
:/Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Hottest month in human recorded history = "OMG!@ Hoomans are destroying the world! The polar ice caps are melting tooooooo fast!"
Coldest winter in human recorded history = "Meh, it was chilly this past winter."
And Rome burned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
So you're saying climate change killed off Rome too?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Man, humans have been fucking up the Earth for a long time now. How many factories did we have back then?
From a factual perspective, the coal burning could actually produce smog in Roman times. There were more people in the Empire than one would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
If you want to stuff your fingers in your ears about the idea that we could effect the climate, that's fine too. You're in the party with the evolution deniers and the people who believe the Earth is 4000 years old. You fit right in man. Play on Nero.
Yea, if you don't agree, you belong in the line of kids who didn't get picked. So there!
I just want people to be realistic about this shit. For fuck's sake, I was reading the other day about a giant sinkhole opening up in...I dunno, wasn't the US so who cares? And what was one of the theories people suggested? Global warming was to blame!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Global warming is to blame for everything! Global warming shot my father.
Hottest month in recorded history? Going back to when, exactly? 1880 something? Like we had good instruments back then and we had a reliable way to test ocean temperatures back then? Reminds me of the article I read once that said we are seeing a record number of hurricanes in the entire world and what was to blame? Global warming. Never mind the fact that we have much better technology now than we did 100 years ago and can see more hurricanes in the middle of the ocean, we can see them now therefore it's global warming!
John Christy, a "Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville" and "was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000", says "The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change" because he believes many of these stations have been compromised for various reasons.
Also for once I would love to read a report from a climatologist telling us exactly what we have to do in order to save the world. We're on page 128 of this thread now, has such a report ever been linked to? Instead it's always the same thing "Man bad. Man destroy planet. Man must be stopped." That's it. Where are the specifics? Do we have to reduce carbon emissions by one fourth? By one half? By three fourths? By when? Do we have until the year 2100? 2050? 2020?
You're beyond silly if you think there are no Democrats who believe in creationism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Dude I can't even get one of these climate change robots to give me the correct running climate. I mean if shit is broke, don't you have to know what it looks like when it's in proper working order?
So does this mean when we have the coldest January in human History you will shut your mouth? Nope.. cause that will be blamed on it to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
As an aside...
Just remember.... 40 years ago, scientists thought we were causing the Earth to get colder. Now these same scientists say no, it's warmer. What will be next? Them screaming that we are causing the planet to stay the same?
If the entire world suddenly stopped having seasons and had just ONE climate, say a nice 72 degrees with some but not to much rain... The nut jobs that worship "climate change" would suddenly call it climate stagnation, and say man caused that too.
Not to be...annoyingly critical of climate utopia....but if the entire world had a 72 degree temperature with some but not much rain we would all pretty much be screwed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Well, yes we would. Just saying it doesn't matter what happens to the Climate, the wackos would blame it on man, and push their agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dendum
Of course.. the funny thing about their agenda.. they only know what they don't want. They never have specifics on what they do want.
There's been a series of suggestions of what to do for quite a while. I like geoengineering but it is naturally complex. The risks also include threatening the Earth. The primary proposals are solar radiation management and the reduction of fossil fuels. Most conservatives and myself tend to favor the first, but not having to worry about our oil supply has a powerful lure too. We spend so many resources on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
There are certainly Democrats who believe in creationism. We know how the percentages swing though. A certain other party maybe kinda succeeded in making it state law in a series of places. You have something of a brain so I understand why you'd be touchy about it.
Actually, the report at the beginning of this thread, which everyone is using as the be-all, end-all, states very clearly that the damage is already done, and there's nothing we can do to reverse it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Myself and others disagree pretty strongly with the IPCC on that. That's hardly the scientific consensus that the idea that humans can have an effect on climate is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
What others? Can you link me to someone that has some ideas on how to reverse it? Also, I believe we're well past the "humans can have an affect on climate" part of the conversation, and now we're at the "what exactly is that affect and what exactly should be done about it, if anything" part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Just give the government all your money, they'll fix everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Two words:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
CARBON TAX
If we just institute this here, we can make everything better. It's been a tremendous success where it's been implemented because their climates were saved.
Here's an older example from a conservative:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/b...the_world.html
Somewhat newer:
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/20/238548...cooler-climate
There's a fair bit of stuff out there.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ogies/4041931/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
Here's another one: Combat climate change by pumping liquid sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere through nozzles in a hose lifted more than 15 miles into the atmosphere using helium-filled balloons. As described by Myhrvold in an interview this week, the idea behind this "Stratoshield" would be to dim the sun in critical areas of the world by just enough to reduce or reverse the effects of global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Didn't they do that on The Matrix in their war against the machines?
I'm sure THIS time it's going to turn out just right though..
Given that I already linked that (and pointed out who it came from) I suspect that maybe, just maybe, you didn't look at the links.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
You realize that I had to have looked at it.. if I quoted the link... right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Fair enough. Either way I prefer these folks to the WE ARE ALREADY DOOMED people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Of course. If we are already doomed, it is far more difficult to interweave that into a political agenda and have people literally buy into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
The only way this movement will work is that the crisis is underway and it's very, very dire.. but thankfully, all we have to do is {insert agenda here} immediately and then we can SLOWLY take back our planet.
Yes but what are the specifics? Do we just keep reducing fossil fuels and greenhouse emissions until the scientists say "Okay, that's enough"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I for once would like a citation from people of your ilk to back up any of your received wisdom. Take, for instance:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Would it interest you to learn that that isn't true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
It states very clearly that the current damage is irreversible on the scale of a human lifetime, then goes on to say "The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits."Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
The specifics depend on how much of our current environment you want to preserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Latrine, what is the correct climate we are aiming for ? To say things are broke, we must know what the correct climate looks like.
And bullshit, they did say it was going to cause global cooling.
1%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
DibsQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I was very disappointed by this global warming last week. I did not find 34 degrees as acceptable for the middle of July. Fuck you Fargo.
So I bought a new car, I really wanted the hybrid (not that a give a shit about being green, but saving green I'm down for) but 16k more for the hybrid. Now let me do the math here. I use roughly 5 gallons of gas a week, the standard combustion engine was rated at 35mpg and the hybrid was rated at 50 mpg. That's about 7 dollars savings per week, times 52 weeks = 43 years to make back that 16k. Back to the drawing board bitches.
The extra 16k in cost is to replant the five miles of forest that is killed during the making of those hybrid batteries. Shame on you for not buying one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
It's less about position and more about velocity. Think of it like a car: your distance from a cliff is absolutely relevant, but how fast you're moving towards it is even more so. Right now we're speeding towards the cliff, and all people are saying is we shouldn't do that. If you like, speeding towards a cliff is "incorrect".Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
If so, it should be easy for you to find citations in peer reviewed journals. :)Quote:
And bullshit, they did say it was going to cause global cooling.
Do whatever. We'll be dead before we cause a runaway greenhouse scenario, and way more than 1% of our environment will survive what we do do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Peer review or not, when the psycho left starts bombarding young minds with after school specials about the coming ice age, it's all a broken record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Your not using science, or logic. Any monkey that points at something and says it's broken, has to have knowledge of what that something looks like in correct working order. How do you know if it's fixed or even broken in the first place if you don't know what it looks like in the right working order?
This is why it's coming off as nonsense to a lot of us. Give us a model of the norm.
I thought we were talking about scientists. How did "the psycho left" and "after school specials" get into it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
...I just told you what it would look like in "correct working order".Quote:
Your not using science, or logic. Any monkey that points at something and says it's broken, has to have knowledge of what that something looks like in correct working order. How do you know if it's fixed or even broken in the first place if you don't know what it looks like in the right working order?
If you want the full mathematical model you should talk directly to the climatologists, as I believe I've suggested to you before. Contact information is available in the pdf from the first post. I am comfortable believing that their modeling has been reviewed by their peers, so I am comfortable looking only at the results.Quote:
This is why it's coming off as nonsense to a lot of us. Give us a model of the norm.
It's not the difference between "broken" and "normal." It's about what constitutes an environment suitable for human habitation and how much of that would be acceptable to lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
Besides, your whole concept is incorrect. There is nothing "broken" about how the environment is reacting to what we're doing to it- it's just a matter of chemistry and the laws of physics.
I linked some. Frankly, I think our reliance on fossil fuels makes us make geopolitically stupid choices. I agree with conservatives that many of the measures proposed are ridiculous however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The "doing better for the environment is only ever political" fallacy. About what I expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
BS Latrine, you compaired it to a speeding vehicle racing towards a cliff. Not once have you or anyone of these "climatologists" provided us with a model of the normal climate.
So you're saying they were lying to us about the coming ice age in the late 70's ? And why should we believe their bullshit now. I'm willing to take the risk of your trumpeting of doom and gloom over a carbon tax. Now if you believers want to take action go for it, but we know you won't because your full of shit.
"Hey, did you hear that astronomers found a new planet orbiting that star over there?"
"Oh, really? That's neat."
"Hey, did you hear climatologists have noticed that human activity is affecting the environment?"
"FUCK THOSE PSYCHO LEFT FAGGOT FUCKS! GET OFF MY FUCKING LAWN!"
I feel so convinced by your argument Laviticas. You seem rational and sane.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Without any proof that we can stop/slow whatever is happening (if something is indeed happening, and I think it is), dissenters are correct to balk at any proposed "solutions." Again, without knowing for certain the cause, we're just wasting money/time on trial and error green legislation that "might" help.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Hey SEE that new planet? Yup very cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Hey the climate is changing! From what? We don't know, just give us your money so we can tell you.
You first!
All that is being asked for is a model of the correct climate. That's it, that is all, no more, just the model of the correct climate.
You didn't personally look through the telescope did you? And yet you still believe the astronomer. But when a climatologist (or in this case, hundreds of them) tell you climate change is happening, you freak out. It's mystifying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
Lol, wayward thinks they are "looking" through a telescope at those distant planets that are light years away. It's no wonder folks like you fall for doom and gloom models of death.
Wayward there is a difference between discovering new planets and using computer models based on numbers that don't even calculate when your looking at billions of years of climate history. That shit isn't even science, it's guessing.
Reading about someone finding new planets 60000 light years away is far more interesting than listening to your nerds whine about climate change when it's clearly been happening over and over for millions of years. It's old news. Dinosaurs had climate change too, all them giant T-rex farts and bubbling tar pits. I'm sure Little Foot wouldn't mind living in our current level of global warming.
You can't put a price tag on saving the entire human race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
Oh yes I can. I would be dead broke paying that much for a car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Corrected for accuracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Flat earth, environment hater. You only think about yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
This is the stuff I'm afraid of. Perfect, shining examples of our hubris getting ahead of our common sense. How many times throughout history have humans thought they knew what was going on, only to find out later they really had no clue? We've yet to show that we can effectively handle unintended consequences in sociology and politics, but have no qualms about making decisions that affect the entire planet? The results can only be disastrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! IF NOT FOR US.. FOR THE CHILDREN!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I'm starting to believe a lot of your problems are rooted in poor reading comprehension skills. Let me link it for you again so you can read it slowly...I'll even bold the specifics for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by climate dudes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Sorry I should have specified...something currently realistic and not something you would find on the SyFy channel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Heck, is that all?!Quote:
What will it take to fix global warming? Scientists say the world, within a few decades, will need to switch to energy that doesn't emit greenhouse gases.
I just didn't want to spin your head with the concept of planets causing wobble in a star's orbit. You don't seem to understand this shit, why would I think you'd understand anything else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
It's shocking that a Republican is being anti science. We've never heard that before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Having our country not pathetically reliant on fossil fuels would benefit us in many ways. We could let the Middle East kill itself and not give a damn.
If the middle east killed itself I really wouldn't give a damn. When they were all dead then we could just go over and get the oil ourselves at a much cheaper rate. Good idea WB.
If only other people felt that way. But oh no, we must obsess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Maybe we should just glass the entire Middle East then we could not only get our oil but make wonderful works of art out of all the melted sand! You are on a roll!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
For some reason we sort of like Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Anti science or anti anti realist? Did Democrats openly embrace Reagan's SDI initiative or did they mock it by referring to it as Star Wars?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I'm actually in favor of more renewable energy sources and am ashamed we haven't developed more of it over the past few decades. Believe it or not I do care about the environment. At the same time I realize it's not as easy as flipping a light switch. Coal is cheap. Many Americans are poor. Many (most? all?) Americans don't give two shits about actually, y'know, reducing their energy consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It seems these goals can be tackled in several ways, or a combination of them all; building more renewable energy sources, encouraging Americans to actually use less and encouraging/forcing companies to build more energy efficient products.
The problem is Democrats just scream and point to number one; building more renewable energy sources. Why? It gives their voting base a distinct bad guy in this scenario (read EVERYONE BUT THEM) so they can sucker people into voting for them while making them feel as though they did the right thing.
It's just not realistic to expect Americans to not change their habits, switch everything over to an entirely new (and much more expensive) energy source and think there aren't going to be some serious consequences.
There's nothing pathetic about our reliance on fossil fuels...relatively cheap energy, not to mention plastics, insecticides, paint thinner, disinfectants, batteries, insulation, Toys, telephones, floor coverings, contact lenses, dyes, upholstery, dishes, diapers, analog recording tape, shower curtains, paints, varnishes, adhesives...I could go on and on. It's really quite an amazing discovery. I'd put it in the top 5 ever for mankind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
The problem is, we don't have anything that can replace it in a lot of these. Energy production is certainly one of the bigger fish we could fry...America uses about 4.2 trillion killowatt-hours a year...we could switch all of our electric power plants to nuclear, but then people whine about the occasional melt down. It's been proven that wind generators simply don't generate enough for the whole country, same with hydro. They could, hypothetically, if we had enough places to put them....but we don't, not to mention the incredible toll these sorts of power-generators take on the local environment where they're installed.
There are a lot of promising advances in bio-fuels...using bacteria and such to generate electricity...but anything commercially viable there is a LONG way off. We can't reduce emissions now without reducing our quality of life.
So...what's the answer?
Presented in the context of "Make the Soviet Union bankrupt" SDI sure seems awesome. I can't say elementary school me thought it wasn't cool. It's actually one of my favorite parts of teaching about Reagan's legacy even now. Stick that in your partisan pipe and smoke it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Without SDI the Israelis might not have their current shield now and would be feeling a lot worse about the Hamas attacks. So I think tacit dismissal of all of these is equally as silly as complaining about Star Wars (which still didn't win the Democrats an election.) Nowadays, I can see Obama proposing it and the Republicans railing about how wasteful it was. No Emperor has clothes.
Democrats are cowed from the second two goals on your list by what happened to Jimmy Carter thanks to your party. We all deserve the blame.
Going nuclear would be an excellent idea. Wind isn't bad either. Petroleum SHOULD be saved for plastics. We can't achieve it all now but we can certainly start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Reduce your quality of life, you fucking greedy bastard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I did exactly that. You refuse to see it for some reason, but that's on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
I'm saying the people who told you the scientists said that were mistaken.Quote:
So you're saying they were lying to us about the coming ice age in the late 70's ?
In general you shouldn't believe what someone tells you about what another person said, hence our legal system's taboo on hearsay. In the Internet age there's really no reason to, either.Quote:
And why should we believe their bullshit now.
My record withstands scrutiny.Quote:
I'm willing to take the risk of your trumpeting of doom and gloom over a carbon tax. Now if you believers want to take action go for it, but we know you won't because your full of shit.
Your misunderstanding lies in assuming that there are only two possible levels: current and pre-industrial. It is true that we can't get to pre-industrial by the time you die, but this does not guarantee that we remain at the current level, or put another way that "the damage is already done". Look at the graphs on the same page as your quotes to understand, or don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
What part of "Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years" and "The current C02-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales" Are you not getting? Why can't you just admit that you misquoted it on purpose when you typed the same sentence but ended it with "life-time" instead of "timescale"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Why are you incapable of admitting you're wrong about anything?
Sounds like most of us on the PC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I'm perfectly capable of admitting that the rest of you are wrong though. That count?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Something we can all agree on!Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
It went like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
1. Terrence asked what we have to do to save the world, and by when.
2. You said the damage was done.
3. I pointed out that this did not mean that further damage couldn't be done.
You paint the problem as a water balloon: once it's popped, good bye. The problem is more like a house fire: if one room burns it cannot be unburned, but the rest of the house can still be saved or lost.
.
I didn't "misquote" anything. What I said is correct, and what you said is correct, it was just unsuited as an answer to Terrence's question. The graphs are a better answer: if we cut emissions to zero in 50 years, we can expect temperatures to rising no more than a degree or so. If we cut emissions to zero in 300 years, we can expect temperatures to rise seven degrees. What we do in the present and future matters; we are not doomed by the past.
That would be neat if that's actually what happened. Here's what you pointed out:Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
The problem is, that's not what the report said at all. It said the current damage is irreversible on a human timescale, which is wholly different than a human lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
No, I'm talking about the room that's already burned. That's all I've been talking about. Your attempts at subtle shifts in the context of the discussion will not work on me, young Jedi.Quote:
You paint the problem as a water balloon: once it's popped, good bye. The problem is more like a house fire: if one room burns it cannot be unburned, but the rest of the house can still be saved or lost.
Just because you put it in italics instead of in quotes doesn't change the fact that you took a sentence out of their text and changed the key word to fit your own narrative.Quote:
I didn't "misquote" anything.
I don't deal in hypotheticals.Quote:
The graphs are a better answer: if we cut emissions to zero in 50 years, we can expect temperatures to rising no more than a degree or so. If we cut emissions to zero in 300 years, we can expect temperatures to rise seven degrees. What we do in the present and future matters; we are not doomed by the past.
No, not really. You've admitted when you've been wrong, as have I and most of us here. When Latrin is found wrong he finds ways to change the subject, or act like he was talking about something else and we're all just crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
To be fair to me, though, we were talking about something else and you are just crazy. If your answer to Terry means what you say it means, it has nothing to do with his question. Is that more likely than you simply misinterpreting the report to fit your bias? I leave that as an exercise to the reader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
They say the damage can't be reversed in 1000 years. I say it can't be reversed in 70 years. How am I wrong? What narrative am I advancing, basic arithmetic?Quote:
The problem is, that's not what the report said at all. It said the current damage is irreversible on a human timescale, which is wholly different than a human lifetime.
Here's the bottom line: "What we do in the present and future matters; we are not doomed by the past." That's the answer to what Terry was asking, as described in the report.
Notice the time that Latrin posted? Coincidence?
Did he visit California? HMMMM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
Environmentalists have declared that global warming can’t be stopped without ending the “hegemonic capitalist system,” saying that cap-and-trade systems and conservation efforts are “false solutions.”
“The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system,” reads the final draft of the Margarita Declaration, presented at a conference including about 130 environmental groups.
“To combat climate change it is necessary to change the system,” the declaration adds.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/23/13...to-capitalism/
And people still wonder why Conservatives don't take this effort seriously...
Like most environmentalist movements.. it has very little to do with the actual environment and much more to do with their own political agenda.
You take post Chavez Venezuela seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Earlier I poked fun at someone for listing Zimbabwe institute of whatever as a not to be taken seriously organization when it comes to climate change and I receive some flake for that, and here you are dismissing this entire news article because these groups MET in Venezuela?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I demand an apology from everyone who gave me grief earlier. EVERYONE!
Let's break this down. How many of these groups are from Venezuela?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
http://www.precopsocial.org/reunion-...-participantes
Like, half? Not sure what you were trying to prove with that, should have just stuck to the fact that they met in Venezuela therefore their opinions are already suspect :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I did notice one international group was "Women In Europe for a Common Future" so...I guess you just hate women :(
When people meet to put out some anti capitalism rhetoric in Venezuela one questions the legitimacy of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You are unfamiliar with the European woman's concept of personal grooming, I take it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
This is getting curious now. Certain groups say the world is going to end and we must invest in green energy to save it and those groups are to be taken seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Other groups say the world is going to end but going green isn't going to do shit and those groups should be mocked?
How is the common man supposed to know which groups to take seriously and which groups to mock?
Touche.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
The common people, Mr. Elitist, theoretically have some judgement. You don't on purpose. This is the rough equivalent of Republicans derping out over the "NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
http://media.tumblr.com/631635bc50e0...Hu61qz4rgp.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
HMMM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-ana...e-drug-smuggle
Is Tgo01 French? Sources don't say!
I was trying to think of the perfect word to use there and I thought "Ah ha! Flak!" and I was even careful to think "Remember, flak, not flake" but I still typed up flake :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I blame the weed.
If you don't think this anti-capitalism / anti-business / anti-bank isn't at the root of the Progressive party and the force behind most environmentalist groups in the world.. you simply aren't paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's easy to spot.. business is blamed for most problems.
And this is what gets to the core of it. It's not that conservatives are ignoring science...well, some of them are, but hell, people will be people...it's that they're fighting against blatantly harmful legislation. I like how it usually gets twisted to religious lines too, right...like the anti-science Christians hate the planet...Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...el-investments
Apparently an organization representing half a billion Christians just announced they're no longer going to invest their endowments in companies that produce fossil fuels.
Interesting.
It's funny. The Progressives (who were often Republicans) pretty much lost all power. Then we ended up with riotous deregulation in the 1920s and the ensuing Depression caused FDR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
You could say that Libertarians caused the greatest triumph of Progressive thought.
After that we had the greatest period of economic growth the country has ever known.
AWFUL.
Only because of the Republican controlled Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
...I'm being informed that the Democrats not only controlled Congress, but had a supermajority in the Senate. Typical reality with its liberal bias.
Sort of. First of all you have to consider the context...with the inherent resource wealth of the United States, and the general economic freedom compared to other government systems, a comeback was inevitable. "Greatest economic growth" is a bit misleading...of course it was eventually the greatest growth, because it came after the greatest collapse. I'm sure you'd like to give Democrat Andrew Johnson credit for the economic growth after the devastation of the Civil War, too. The normal talking point here would be it took WWII before the economy returned to pre-1930 levels...but I'm not going to fall in to that trap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I just found it funny how this entire thread we've heard "Oh you guys (Republicans) just don't want to listen to the experts! Man is dooming Earth!" then as soon as we start listing some quotes from experts and opinions of environmental groups that either say the world isn't doomed or the conventional solutions aren't going to work then the same people are saying "Well those guys are just stupid heads. The other other experts are the ones we should listen to. Why, just look where they meet for Goodness Sake!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Why would I want to give Andrew Johnson credit for anything? I understand you're a conservative and don't understand realignment elections though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
The period of economic growth I was referring to was after World War 2, not during.
I'm sure that you can understand that a collection of environmental groups from China and some extremists who want to go bow down to the Chinese and bash America might not be the folks we wanted to listen to. Just replace China with Venezuela. Then again, maybe you can't. Maybe I've overestimated you. Maybe you can't really see the difference between a bunch of people paid by Hugo Chavez's successors and most of the scientific world. That'd be pretty sad, but not so surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Please tell me American History isn't one of the courses you teach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Please.
And yet when I mocked Zimbabwe I was flaked. FLAKED!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Please tell me you don't talk in public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Please.
You clearly didn't learn any.
I'm pro-gay, anti-war, pro-legalization, anti-religion...yeah, I'm a huge conservative. Not sure what realignment elections has to do with it...unless you're talking about the shift in voting practices in the south from mostly democrat to mostly republican in the 70's...the 1970's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Ah, sorry, I was assuming you were talking about from the depression to WWII, since I was talking about the depression. Hence my confusion. Post-WWII we get into a mire that I don't think either of us is prepared to postulate on...I think you would at least be cognizant enough to recognize that international trade exploded after WWII, and this certainly played a role in our economic recovery despite who was in charge. Whether we like it or not, on the macro scale our economy is tied to the world...we see evidence of this in the patterns that developed after the growth of international travel capabilities in the late 1800's and early 1900's, through both world wars to the point where the global community is pretty much the same as it is now. While I can't really point out too much that Truman (D) or Eisenhower (R) did after WWII to directly relate to economic recovery, I think it's more a by-product of the world recovering from what was, at the time, global devastation on a level not previously seen.Quote:
The period of economic growth I was referring to was after World War 2, not during.
War is hell, but it makes a lot of money...before, during, and after.
The world wouldn't have gotten the chance to have that international trade without the 100% employment economic/supply powerhouse that was Roosevelt's achievement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
There've been a number of realignments. At that point in time we had a Democratic Party that was interested in a state rather than federal focus.
I think Zimbabwe is doing the best it can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'm mainly curious about your Venezuela to French Connection.
http://www.tagohio.com/images/Cocain5.jpg
It used to. Not anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
You're nuts. It makes more now than ever...at least as far as our GDP is concerned...besides, I was talking about then, and not now, in that particular segment.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
I disagree. Unfortunately, it's history...we can only look at what happened, and everything else is wondering what would(could) have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Roosevelt was elected in 1933...and died in office in 1945. Yet the economic recovery didn't happen until after the war. You tell me which was more responsible for that...the guy who was in office for 12 years while America barely crept along, or the war that changed the entire landscape of the global economic community (which we happened to win and place ourselves in a position to control that global economy, especially Japan and Germany).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_shipQuote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Why it is important is because it helps us make modern decisions. I see deregulation threatening us over and over again so I don't support it.
We also built more planes in 1944 alone than Japan did during the entire war. I've never said WWII didn't kick-start our manufacturing...that's actually exactly what I've said. FDR was a by-product of the situation, and he made the decisions that needed to be made. I don't give him credit for economic recovery after WWII because he did what he had to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I also see that, but only because a large segment of our population is apparently incapable of taking care of themselves. Instead of changing the government, let's change ourselves. Certainly the harder road, but the more fruitful in the long run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Once again you're very slow to give credit to anything that isn't your political philosophy. I bet if he were Calvin Coolidge you'd be shouting his name constantly in your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
This is how we make Hoovervilles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Not sure where you get this from, I can't recall ever shouting any President's name other than George Washington...though I probably would Ben Franklin if he was ever president. He's right up there with Anthony Hopkins in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Temporarily, sure. Let me ask you...if you were an educated man, and you knew that choice A would make you homeless, and choice B would make you stable but not living above your means...which would you take?Quote:
This is how we make Hoovervilles.
Personally, I would take B, and look for ways to make "my means" equal with "my desires".
Anything less is a placebo effect. History bears this out time and time again...how many were homeless after the French Revolution? After the Bolsheviks? Taking from the rich and giving to the poor, as a government model, never has and never will work. The only thing that will ever work is a free society where people are allowed to make their own decisions, but are also forced to deal with the results of those decisions. For the most part our nation has only had half of that, because after great domestic tragedies it gives excuses for stupid people to allow more government controls on their lives, instead of taking their lumps and figuring out something better next time. We allow these transgressions to "soften the blow" of downfalls that we ourselves have created.
It's like stepping into a punji pit and later getting your leg amputated from infection, and then running off traipsing through the woods again as if nothing happened, because the government has told you they're going to put pads inside the punji pits from now on.
The problem is deregulation and taking from the poor doesn't work either. We had more economic downturns before the advent of the mixed economy that you hate. Many more. We made less money too. Striking a midway point is the ideal. When I go to Denmark I see how much we aren't about "taking from the rich and giving to the poor" at all, comparatively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
We don't take from the poor, we give more to our poor than any other nation in the world. We're talking in circles here. I don't "hate" the "mixed economy" that we have, I think that with our current society it's the best scenario. My goal is to change our society to the point that we can have an unregulated economy and true economic growth and prosperity for all without anyone getting hurt by it. Right now it's a dream, because we've built our society on grey areas...nobody is ever truly right or wrong, nobody is responsible for their actions. This creates an environment where people are allowed to take advantage of others not because the government doesn't stop it, but because the people don't stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I really don't want to get into a Bretton Woods/Fiat currency debate right now, I'm getting a bit drunk. I will say that it is my firm belief that eventually, all credit crashes....history bears this out time and time again. Right now, our entire economy is based on credit...not just the economy of the people, but the economy of the government. You can look at regulation as stabilizing these highs and lows that are the natural progression of things...I look at them as delaying the inevitable. The only thing we're doing with regulations is insuring we continue to create a larger and larger bubble...it'll still burst eventually.
Ah, Denmark. Yes, they have a flat 8% tax, with an additional 3% tax on the "middle class" and 15% tax on the "highest income"...I would love that in the US.Quote:
When I go to Denmark I see how much we aren't about "taking from the rich and giving to the poor" at all, comparatively.
We most certainly don't give more to the the poor than any other nation in the world. Without credit we wouldn't have corporations and we'd only have Roman level corporations which were mostly just local and city level businesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
You might want to check your Denmark figures too. You might be missing more than one thing.
You're right though. I respectfully disagree with you.
Prove me wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Such as?Quote:
You might want to check your Denmark figures too. You might be missing more than one thing.
Respect is the key to a fruitful discourse.Quote:
You're right though. I respectfully disagree with you.
http://i.imgur.com/h8aLcmn.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
You can hit up to 60% of income in Denmark, tax wise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Denmark
Unless you're seeing something I'm not, it looks to me like there is an 8% tax on everyone, and an additional 3% tax up to 386k/year, and an additional 15% tax after that. Which is pretty much exactly what I said off the top of my head....though considering under 386k/year "middle class" is pretty generous. I didn't realize that "middle level" reached that high...go Denmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I can't honestly say I've delved TOO much into it, but I would assume, from those numbers, that there are very few government subsidies of any kind for agriculture or business, and even fewer tax shelters. In this I think we are allies...this is one occasion where your "government regulation" doesn't fit your beliefs.
Which is my entire point from the beginning...too much power vested in the federal government, with no oversight from the people, creates things like this. (this meaning our current tax situation in the US, which I don't think anyone will claim is optimal)
You've missed at least 3 tax components. State (which they have too), municipal, and social benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Let me repeat it again. The top rate is around 60% when you put it all together and the highest in the world. My girlfriend's Dad paid 57.5% when he passed. He would've paid more but he didn't go to church.
386k dkk is 70 grand usd.
There are agricultural subsidies and business subsidies. There are indeed few tax shelters though. In addition there's a 25% VAT. That ignores little incidentals like the 300% car tax.
I don't even think most Republicans argue that those are really high taxes.
The social benefit is the 8% I referenced. The State tax is the basic income tax, which is the 0%/3%/15% I mentioned. I did miss the municipal tax though, which is apparently 20-24% depending on where you live, and appears to be the single largest part of the income tax puzzle. I also missed the healthcare tax, which is apparently a flat 6% for everyone, and replaced the "county tax" that was abolished in 2007. Oh, I also missed the Church Tax which can be from .42%-1.48%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Yep, sounds about right. All the sources I've checked put the top for income at about 58%, though Wikipedia has the top listed at 61.03%, which isn't THAT far off of the US's 55.9% max, for those of us unfortunate enough to live in New Jersey. It's not the highest in the world, either...that honor goes to Belgium at 67%.Quote:
Let me repeat it again. The top rate is around 60% when you put it all together and the highest in the world. My girlfriend's Dad paid 57.5% when he passed. He would've paid more but he didn't go to church.
Not quite as devalued as I would have guessed, but still pretty low.Quote:
386k dkk is 70 grand usd.
Doing some digging into their subsidies structure brought up some interesting things. Prince Joakim received about $220,000 US in farm subsidies in a year, the Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Mariann Fischer Boel, received a total of US$ 480,000; Minister for Education, Ulla Tornes, got US$ 655,000, and the Minister for Finance, Thor Petersen, got US$ 175,000. Nothing funny going on there at all. The industry itself receives billions in production subsidies from the EU, but apparently they're struggling with the EU's "green" initiatives and are now asking for more money to be able to pay for the changes the EU requires in their farming techniques. Most of their agriculture production is for export, and they're struggling to compete with international prices.Quote:
There are agricultural subsidies and business subsidies. There are indeed few tax shelters though. In addition there's a 25% VAT. That ignores little incidentals like the 300% car tax.
Apparently almost 30% of their total workforce is employed by the State...the high taxes make sense now.
Notably, lots of people pay much less 55.9% who earn top level income in the US, even in New Jersey. They don't really have that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Their subsidies and ministries are notoriously corrupt (on both of their sides) though. It has made my girlfriend really bitter about politics.
Those examples only work if you think the economy has a linear response to socialism. That is to say: if more socialism is bad, then some socialism must be bad to some lesser degree. It turns out that the economy has a higher order response: none is bad, some is good, more is bad again. This makes sense if you think about it. A living being has almost no linear responses; the story of Goldilocks is not "this porridge is too cold, this porridge is somewhat warmer, this scalding porridge is just right! this bed is too small, this medium bed is better, the biggest bed is best of all!" One beer is good, but as our college students are happy to demonstrate ad nauseum this does not indicate that many beers is even better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
It is pretty easy to put a quantitative figure on how socialist any given era of United States history is: just look at the top income tax bracket. It turns out that a higher top income tax bracket is correlated with higher average increase in GDP and tax receipts, which makes sense if you believe in the Laffer curve.
Good demonstration of how bigger government is not necessarily better, Latrin.
Certainly! About as big as our volume is now is just right, although certain dimensions could stand to be trimmed or expanded.
We can all relax.. the ants have this under control.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/h...w/39547238.cms
Whew! Time to burn some tires in my backyard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Because you're ready to believe that ants can effect the climate, but humans? Nahh.
True. We have been hearing for a long time now that no animal on Earth affects their environment except humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Also it's a good thing we are warming up the planet because if we hadn't been then these ants would have put us in an ice age.
That's funny that we've heard that. It sounds an awful lot like somebody conveniently made it up because it's nonsense, much like most of your trolling in directions you don't actually agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I plugged in "do animals affect climate change" in Google and the first page of results are talking about how climate change are going to affect animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I plugged in "do humans affect climate change" and the first page results are all talking about how humans are causing the world to end.
I'm not sure if you thought I was serious or not.... but it's "scientific" and therefore above any type of review or debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It's over, the Ants won. 98% of scientists agree. If you disagree, you are a flat earther. Or a racist.
Personally, I'm glad it's being handled by the ants. Can you imagine the problems we would have if the fucking grasshoppers had to be the responsible insect?
We'd be fucked.
This is the post of the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
HELL YEA! I FUCKING WIN!Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
http://push.abs-cbn.com/features/201...theday_350.jpg
And apparently you won the thread as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://www.shawadmin.com/weekly/3-3-14/congrats2.gif
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...n-perspective/
So, there is a global warming pause?
THANK YOU ANTS!
Why can't I see the new posts in this thread?
ETA: There we go.
800,000 year record disproves ACC deniers: "record isn't long enough!"
30 year record proves ACC deniers: "see? we were right!"
Uh huh...
Stop defending your habit of burning alive with magnifying glasses! They are saving us all!Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
God had to go to the bathroom so he hit space bar on global warming. Bet it's raining in Seattle right now.