The Political Discussion Thread

[Coco Pops]

On unemployment, it's supposed to be used as an indicator or an index, not an accurate account of how many people are without jobs. Otherwise percentages really would be meaningless. It's supposed to help measure the ability of finding a job when one looks for it. Which is why those who don't look for jobs aren't counted. But this is why we shouldn't simply rely on government numbers and why there should be access to that data by 3rd parties.

As for climate change, If I cut down all the trees it takes an idiot to think it won't impact the entire biosphere. I'm sorry, there is more than just nuking the world that can effect it. The Earth doesn't operate on infinities. There is only so much an ecosystem can take before it breaks down. And ecosystems are interconnected and impact each other. It's not that hard to cause a chain reaction, a domino affect.

The question is are we witnessing that on a global scale after two hundred years of dumping waste into multiple ecosystems at a rate faster than they can clean it up? Where's the science that says no? I'd find it easier to agree with "climate change deniers" if they actually had science instead of "It's communists!!!" as an argument.

Because you won't find any evidence, especially if you base your facts on what the deniers call science.

If every single tree in the Amazon for example were cut down where do you think Earth's supply of Oxygen would come from? That rainforest is one of the biggest producers of oxygen, you know the stuff we humans need to breathe. I'd love to see their solution to fix such a problem.

[SoulReaver]

But, short of all out thermonuclear warfare between all or most of the the nuclear powers, I don't believe that mankind even has the ability to cause change of this nature/magnitude, let alone is actually doing so.

Yes, for example, a disaster such as Exxon Valdez can have extremely negative local effects, but as far a global climate change overall? I ain't buyin'.

cept that's not how it works

[Annoyed]

Because you won't find any evidence, especially if you base your facts on what the deniers call science.

If every single tree in the Amazon for example were cut down where do you think Earth's supply of Oxygen would come from? That rainforest is one of the biggest producers of oxygen, you know the stuff we humans need to breathe. I'd love to see their solution to fix such a problem.

Do you think that's likely to happen? Or that the human race even could cut down every tree on the face of the earth?

[SGalisa]

Does that mean you believe there's no effect whatsoever we can have on the environment and should pollute like china does?

China's pollution problems are severe. Worse than the skylines of NYC, NY when I was growing up as a child in the 1960's. I lived in a rural area -- farmlands of food crops, cows, and horse pastures. My parents went into NY metro area several times every month of the year, while I was growing up. Couldn't wait to get back to NJ and smell the fresh, rural air... Plus, swim in a lake that had controlled algae killer in it--made the water green! I preferred a pool, but seemed most of my NY relatives never had any swimming pools, so I had to sit thru those sticky HHH (hazy, HOT, HUMID) days, sweltering in houses without air-conditioning, too.

Does that mean you believe there's no effect whatsoever we can have on the environment and should pollute like china does?

Just curious how far this goes or whether it's just climate change.

According to past news reports and other *noise* / rumors heard around the earth, Al Gore would *LOVE* to enforce global warming -- Climate Change TAX/exchanges upon the *entire* earth. ALL humans will pay, one way or another.

If every single tree in the Amazon for example were cut down where do you think Earth's supply of Oxygen would come from? That rainforest is one of the biggest producers of oxygen, you know the stuff we humans need to breathe. I'd love to see their solution to fix such a problem.

So would I. Seems the solutions being provided don't make much sense, when too many people studying this stuff keep giving out conflicting information. First it was human industry. Then, it was humans in general. Then, attention turned to the lack of trees and living plants (desert regions, anyone?). Then the living Amazon trees were giving off too much Carbon (CO2) gases. Now, it's the Cows as the worst offenders. It's almost hilarious reading the "climate change" topics elsewhere on the internet, but actually, it's sad. It's sad, because NO one seems to give a reasonable nor rational solution to the issues.

That's all part of Al Gore's *pet project* covered under what is now termed as
"Climate Change".. and potentially charging future CARBON FOOTPRINT tax on people AND animals (eventually limiting how many farm critters a person should be allowed to have??!).

It's also being snuck into the regulations at Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 98.
I've mentioned about this before. . . .

So, I take it you're a firm occupant of the deny-camp then?

Perhaps this might show you some scientific evidence of cows pushing methane into the air, cause they do, you know.

FH, you had to ask ---- so here goes a lengthy explanation. AND I'm not writing it just for you, but for everyone else reading into and about this particular "air pollution" issue. At least, you're not breathing any of my HOT air in reading the words..
Also, I could have gone with a much shorter explanation, but then I'd still probably be labeled as *ignorant* to the cow AND people fart situation. BTW, seems people who eat lots of broccoli or cauliflower and salads, or even maybe a certain brand of potato chips, have lots of gas noises that escape into the public airstream -- and that is when MEAT and dairy products haven't even been eaten.
I think .. Belching air gases from consuming soda/carbonated water does that too..
Veggie products release gases from the manure fertilizers they absorb? I don't know why it happens. I just know it happens.. as having experienced it (or heard it from other living entities) during the worst sort of public, people encounter moments. *wink, wink!*

Anyway, to repeat the inquiry, here goes again..

So, I take it you're a firm occupant of the deny-camp then?

No. I've said before that the Bible even supports the *reality* that the earth will warm up in the last "age" before "Messiah" appears to save the day. It's all written in the book of Revelation, chapters 6-16, and the book of Joel (both books subject to individual interpretation on where they sync up with each other).

And I shouldn't have to say that I have to work directly with these regulations almost every day for compliance work -- have been for over a decade now. I can understand the logic behind such thinking, but seriously, even the most zealous democrats I know who worship at the altars of President Obama and Al Gore, roll their eyes in sheer, snorting laughter over "what next will these people think of to slap onto those regs...?" I'm not exaggerating either.
Boils down to "Is it just a (political--pull the proverbial or literal wool over one's eyes) financial scam issue, or does our (earth) world really have a serious problem occurring, AND what are *we* as the people on this planet going to do to resolve it..?"

"What happens in California, so goes the rest of the nation" -- and as that mantra keeps popping up, the rest of the USA nation braces for its worst impact from potential enforcement of the regs, which some or most are still in their voluntary compliance stage.


The people who *fawn* all over these regs are the ones being manipulated into fear mongering tactics or paying the penalty fines. That means YOU.. Generic YOU or YOU-YOU reading this and hanging on to every cow fart that is released into the air. BOTTOM line boils down to this--
"STOP EATING and STOP BREATHING. Then the earth will be saved. Problem solved." Really??

I've heard those sayings spoken over and over again, even by the people who process the enforcement of these regulations. Sorry, but the initial SHOCK stage for those who see and work with these regulations has transformed into the *numb* stage. Not immune to the end results, just NUMB from what's been thrown at us -- from everyone who writes the regs to those who enforce it. Next emotional stage will probably be indifference -- life no longer matters, "so pay up, put up, or shut up".

As for the science / agricultural aspects -- Even farm crop plants give off methane gases. We can see it in the morning fog mists rising up from the crops -- which really makes awesome photos, btw. It's probably more due to the manure fertilizing the crops than the actual greenery of the plants growing, but they might be contributing to that as well. I grew up in rural farmland areas. Was and still am allergic to hay, certain grasses, and wild field weeds. My sinuses suffer more than the earth does in those areas.

So, what's the solution? Stop growing crops so the cattle die off, as well as the people? I've heard various people in high positions of entertainment fields and even from the royal family of England claim that if a good portion of the earth up to 80% of the earth's population gets killed off, that would help save our earth.

How insane is that thinking? Very. Because it implies killing off people is a good thing, regardless of how it would be done. (Generic) YOU are signing your own death warrants by agreeing to this sort of thinking. Genocide is already being done. Euthanasia, etc. also. Yet, many of the young and restless males don't carry the same stigma emotionally that females carry when becoming pregnant and dealing with all of those issues that come with finances and keeping the earth's "AIR" pollution down, from people farts adding to the cow farts. Now, does it make sense to think of this as absurd?

People (often) don't know how to respond, because many of the average folks can't afford the CLIMATE CHANGE TAX or exchange values that will be imposed upon them. Some people live in apartments or small houses without big yards. If a tree (or a bunch of trees) planted offsets the Climate TAX, and Tree roots rip up the sidewalks -- how is that helping an urbanite family living on a small income?

Fill your work offices and homes up with plants to OFFSET the climate TAX penalties about to be enforced.. That only works if you have horticulturalists who know how to keep the pesky gnats and mites and other bugs away. Got better solutions that will work within reason for the average person without dishing out more money. Ohhh, and how are all of those unemployed refugees going to pay for the climate tax OFFSET..? Has anyone considered factoring them into resolving this equation, as well?

BTW, trees and living plants give us our oxygen. We give them the CO2 they need to breathe and grow. That includes the ocean and fresh waters, too. Don't forget the plants and marine life need each other to survive and flourish. Our seas, lakes and rivers are dying. So, are the creatures also dying that breathe back whatever it is that the plant life needs. We've dealt with the subject of litter in our oceans and lands before. The decomposing garbage dumps on land also contribute to various gases (and poisons) being released into the air and ground. Just open a closed garbage container on a mildly warm day.. whatever is rotting in the insides of those containers is releasing warmer air and gases, as well. Solutions?? There is only so much insanity of enforcement that people can tolerate, before they stop caring, too----*That* is reality.

[Womble]

Do you think that's likely to happen? Or that the human race even could cut down every tree on the face of the earth?

That's not even a challenge. Humans have managed to deforest the hell out of Europe with slash-and-burn agriculture already in the Iron Age.

Those rolling hills and endless grassland of southern Europe by the Mediterranian? Used to be dense forests. Read ancient Greek historians. New Zealand retains less than 25% of its original forest areas today. If deforestation in Brazil continues at its current rate, 60% of their forests will be gone by 2030.

So yes, the human race is well capable of cutting down every last tree if we're not careful.

[aretood2]

That's not even a challenge. Humans have managed to deforest the hell out of Europe with slash-and-burn agriculture already in the Iron Age.

Those rolling hills and endless grassland of southern Europe by the Mediterranian? Used to be dense forests. Read ancient Greek historians. New Zealand retains less than 25% of its original forest areas today. If deforestation in Brazil continues at its current rate, 60% of their forests will be gone by 2030.

So yes, the human race is well capable of cutting down every last tree if we're not careful.

You said that twice before, and he goes on as if you never made post. Which brings forth my point of stubborn defiance of the facts.

[Falcon Horus]

What I meant was that in some countries like mine for example sometimes a high unemployment rate is fodder for the right wingers to label the unemployed as bludgers and cut their dole payments to be even smaller, and smaller. They expect every single person to find work, never mind the fact that there are and never have been enough jobs that you would eliminate unemployment.........

Ah, I see.

Well, In Belgium the moment you graduate or quit school you are considered unemployed. However, this means that for a certain period -- I believe 6 months -- you will not receive any money, no unemployment benefits whatsoever and you need to be able to proof that you are looking for work (CV's, list of companies contacted, list of subscriptions with unemployment offices and the like). If after this period you are still without a job, unemployment benefits (I think about 900€ a month) will be yours if you can proof you're actively searching for work. Usually that is the case...

When you loose your job, you need to register as unemployed within a certain period of time, after which unemployment benefits are handed to you. However, the longer you go without a job, the less you get.

I started at 1200€ in my first 12 months, then dropped to 1000€ and would have dropped to about 900€ if I hadn't found a job in the meantime, which took me a total of 2 years. Now, those 2 years I mentioned have meaning cause after 2 years one is considered long-term employed and they come down on you hard after that. Controlling whether you are actively searching which can result in the loss of your benefits.

If you don't comply with the rules and actively search for a job when you're able to, benefits drop or are taken away entirely. Not being able to could mean longterm illness (although our minister of health has been planning to get the longterm ill back to work, meaning people with back problems, burn-outs, cancer-patients, Parkinson's patients, ... and the likes -- hasn't been received very well), disabled, ... in jail perhaps.

Does that mean you believe there's no effect whatsoever we can have on the environment and should pollute like china does?

China just accepted the Paris Climate Agreement.

So, what's the solution?

You didn't bother with my links, did you?
Okay, they deal with the methane gas issues which arise from farming, and don't explain or offer solutions for every climate problem in existence but it's a start.

Do you think that's likely to happen? Or that the human race even could cut down every tree on the face of the earth?

The Romans did it in Britain. Actually they did it everywhere they went.
The British Isles were once covered in lush forests -- a looooooooong time ago anyway.

Or you know, what Womble posted before me.

That's not even a challenge. Humans have managed to deforest the hell out of Europe with slash-and-burn agriculture already in the Iron Age.

Those rolling hills and endless grassland of southern Europe by the Mediterranian? Used to be dense forests. Read ancient Greek historians. New Zealand retains less than 25% of its original forest areas today. If deforestation in Brazil continues at its current rate, 60% of their forests will be gone by 2030.

So yes, the human race is well capable of cutting down every last tree if we're not careful.

[garhkal]

She claims that she didn't know how to identify classified information AND that she took all classified information seriously regardless of classification level. In the same breath.

I call Bull on that. For someone working around classified data all the time, whether as sec of state or even just a congresswoman, she bloody well should know what they are..

[Annoyed]

According to past news reports and other *noise* / rumors heard around the earth, Al Gore would *LOVE* to enforce global warming -- Climate Change TAX/exchanges upon the *entire* earth. ALL humans will pay, one way or another.

Except for Al Gore and the rest of the elites, of course. It was widely reported a while back that his mansion in Tenn. uses more energy in the space of a month than most US homes do in a year.
Anybody remember the news clips of Mr. Environment arriving at political events in a very large SUV. What's wrong with the little tin econobox he wants everyone else to drive, if they're even allowed a car at all?
And at one point, he wasted a million gallons of water to stage a photo opportunity for a campaign ad.

Anybody care to hazard a guess as to how high I rate Gore's credibility?

I've heard various people in high positions of entertainment fields and even from the royal family of England claim that if a good portion of the earth up to 80% of the earth's population gets killed off, that would help save our earth.

And which of these hypocrites have volunteered to bump themselves off for the good of the Earth?

[SoulReaver]

I've heard various people in high positions of entertainment fields and even from the royal family of England claim that if a good portion of the earth up to 80% of the earth's population gets killed off, that would help save our earth.

Sartre ftw
I don't mind as long as I'm among the 20% :|

anyway
ever heard of this experiment where they observe behaviour of rats in a cage?
the cage remains the same - fixed size - with the only variable being the # of rats
for simplicity they only use male rats (thus taking reproductive behaviour out of the equation)

initially nothing special happens
but as the experiment progresses they keep adding more rats into the cage

can you guess what happens when the # of rats reaches a certain threshold?

[Annoyed]

can you guess what happens when the # of rats reaches a certain threshold?

They kill themselves off.

[Coco Pops]

If you don't comply with the rules and actively search for a job when you're able to, benefits drop or are taken away entirely. Not being able to could mean longterm illness (although our minister of health has been planning to get the longterm ill back to work, meaning people with back problems, burn-outs, cancer-patients, Parkinson's patients, ... and the likes -- hasn't been received very well), disabled, ... in jail perhaps.

That last part sounds almost exactly like the conservative governments that we have had here in Australia. If it were not for a strong opposition party and public outcry stuff like that would be happening here. The public did not like it and spoke up..

Maybe your public should voice their displeasure...

[garhkal]

Or they start eating others till the # goes down.

[Gatefan1976]

You are quite correct, there are topics I've already made my mind up about, having looked at them long ago and did my best to figure out what the real situation is. Unless I see some compelling reason to re-examine the situation, I'm not about to waste time thinking about something that is already settled in my mind.

Life itself is a compelling reason to re-examine your beliefs. Take in some healthy skepicism on each subject, that is a wise position but to shut it all down because "you don't like it" is -foolish-. What you need to realise is that you can maintain your moral base, your core substance and NOT become inflexible. All you are arguing for is "I don't like it, so I will argue against it".

Global cooling/warming/whatever they're claiming this week is a good example of this. Long ago, it became clear to me that the real agenda of the enviros has nothing to do with concern for the environment and everything to do with wealth redistribution and damaging the U.S. economy. This conclusion was based upon the actions and behavior of those folks, not what they say.

Then you are not looking at the issue, but the messengers. "climate change does not happen because of man, but because the messengers had ulterior motives"
You have denied reality on the simple basis of you don't like who is saying it, not because what they are saying has any merit.
Smart, huh?

There are approximately as many liars on earth as there are people. So whatever is claimed can't be taken at face value. I must look at the behavior and actions of whoever it is and make my judgement based upon that, not their claims. More than 25 years ago, it was very clear to me, by the behavior and actions of the enviros what their true goals were. And sure enough, in 2010?, this stance was validated by one of their own, a member of the UN committee on this stuff publicly stated that that true goal was in fact wealth redistribution.

See above.

So, yes, if it's a matter I've already made my mind up about, in the absence of new behavior that says the situation might have changed, you have less chance of changing my mind than an ice cube has of keeping my whiskey cold in hell.

I cannot change your mind, I can change no ones mind.
If you want to argue the person, rather than the issue, then you will never be wrong, But if you seriously think that climate change does not exist because people have misused it to advance a different agenda, you are missing the point.

[Annoyed]

Life itself is a compelling reason to re-examine your beliefs. Take in some healthy skepicism on each subject, that is a wise position but to shut it all down because "you don't like it" is -foolish-. What you need to realise is that you can maintain your moral base, your core substance and NOT become inflexible. All you are arguing for is "I don't like it, so I will argue against it"

Then you are not looking at the issue, but the messengers. "climate change does not happen because of man, but because the messengers had ulterior motives"
You have denied reality on the simple basis of you don't like who is saying it, not because what they are saying has any merit.
Smart, huh?

It's not a matter of "not looking at the issue, but the messengers". It's that I don't blindly take anything anyone tells me as gospel. Whoever it is may be lying. As I've said, there are an awful lot of liars in the world. I look at everything available to me on the matter, including the behavior of the messengers.

Take the enviros for example.

I looked at the issue and made my judgement of what's going based upon all of the information available to me, not just what the messengers say.

What exactly is the problem? They don't know, they keep changing their minds. Is there universal agreement in the scientific community? No, there isn't. There are more than a few scientists that don't buy into the theory. It's NOT settled science. Do their proposed solutions make sense? No, they do not. For example, they advocate a plan where western nations would have to pay a carbon tax for energy use, but other less developed nations would not. Huh? How's that work? Does it really matter if the carbon is emitted in the US or some other country? No. It's in the Earth's atmosphere regardless of where it is emitted. A really good question is how do they know for a fact what is going on? Where is their full scale laboratory where they've proved this with experiments repeatable by anybody? Computer models are fine for theorizing, but their theoretical results don't always play out in the real world. Does the behavior of the messengers make sense, if they really believe what they're selling? No it does not, or they themselves wouldn't be flying around in chartered jets and going around in luxury SUV's. They would be flying commercial, and driving the econoboxes they want us to drive.

That alone is more than enough to convince me that the "messenger" is full of something that belongs out on the back 40 as fertilizer. But as of late, they're working even harder to convince me that they are full of it. 2010?, one of the members of the UN committee on the matter publicly states that it's a scam, the real goal is wealth transfer. And most recently, there is talk of attempting to use criminal prosecution to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Is that the behavior of someone who believes their scientific conclusions are really provable fact?