Keepin' 'Em Stupid, In Texas!!

@bisurge,

bisurge;69979 wrote:

I too took the test and got (though not as extreme) left-wing libertarian.
However, one thing I do not like about this test is that it mostly lists controversial topics and not fundamental topics. Things that would separate us from Democrats and Hitlerites.
In American politics however I believe this is quite close to what I believe (even though Democrats are also full of crap).

Your fundamental beliefs are reflected in your answers to these controversial topics. The problem lies in the translation from beliefs to reality. For example, I think individual rights are paramount, yet life and education have taught me that in order to maintain individual rights, the social structure must remain strong. Therefore, I must give up a certain amount of freedom to protect freedom; thus, the military draft, laws protecting the weak, young and elderly, and even modest decency laws (this one sticks in my throat because fundamentally, I disagree).

Utopia is a wonderful idea that I love, but it is just that, an idea. Utopia presupposes that everyone is fair and will cooperate. This is not what reality tells me. So, I have to compromise my fundamental beliefs in order to get most of what I want. But, isn't this what life is all about, compromise?

1 Reply

@JackFlash,

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=1.25&soc=-4.77

0 Replies

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;69885 wrote:

The ONLY recognized economist supporting what you say is Keynes. Pretty much all the other economists - Friedman, Hayek, Mises etc. all consider Keynes to be wrong.

You sound as though there are five or six "recognized economists" and Keynes is outvoted a little more than 3 to 1. Talk about a simplistic viewpoint...

There are problems with Keynesian economics, but there are problems with all the other schools too. You Austrain School of economics is a small wing-nut sideshow that has little or no influence on modern economic theory. The broad mainstream of modern economic thought is carved out largely in Keynesian terms.

The Austrian School is about as desperate and shrill (and ignored by the experts) as are global warming deniers.

1 Reply

@jpn of Seattle,

jpn of Seattle;69999 wrote:

You sound as though there are five or six "recognized economists" and Keynes is outvoted a little more than 3 to 1. Talk about a simplistic viewpoint...

then name any other credible independent economists ( Fed Chairmen and other Government Officials don't count ) which share Keynes' view ?

jpn of Seattle;69999 wrote:

You Austrain School ... has little or no influence on modern economic theory. The broad mainstream of modern economic thought is carved out largely in Keynesian terms.

Thank you for repeating exactly what i have already stated in this very thread. I see you haven't learned to read yet, but at least you know how to close your mind and worship Authority.

jpn of Seattle;69999 wrote:

The Austrian School is about as desperate and shrill (and ignored by the experts) as are global warming deniers.

is that a Joke ? have you been living under a rock ? Nobody believes in global warming any more. it has been completely discredited.

1 Reply

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;70002 wrote:

Nobody believes in global warming any more. it has been completely discredited.

That's a crock of S**t. You must be a Sarah Palin fan.

It sounds to me as though you are so angry at authority that you will believe any nut that comes along with a song and dance.

1 Reply

@JackFlash,

JackFlash;70005 wrote:

That's a crock of S**t. You must be a Sarah Palin fan.

It sounds to me as though you are so angry at authority that you will believe any nut that comes along with a song and dance.

i already told you. if you want to know the truth about global warming - ask me. i will dig up some information for you.

2 Replies

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;70006 wrote:

i already told you. if you want to know the truth about global warming - ask me. i will dig up some information for you.

I've already done my own research, part of which has been to have lived for the past 62 years. I have a pretty good memory going back to the 50s, I've been involved in some scientific research (not on climate change) and have a good idea on how to discern between good information and bad information.

I know there are some people who reject the idea of climate change, but to say that it has been discredited , just is not so. From what I've seen, the conservatives in the U.S. are the only group of people who completely reject the overwhelming evidence for climate change.

During the time it took me to type this reply, we lost several feet of glaciers at the poles. Try learning about weather patterns and how one degree can mean the difference between an annoying wind and a hurricane. Or how the salinity of the oceans will be affected by the melting poles. You might also want to find out just how important the O Zone is.

Unless you have an impressive degree in a related field, I will continue to rely on the climatologists who have spent their lives studying weather patterns.

And....At 62, it's not a real personal concern of mine as I am likely to be dead before the worst of it develops. It's you younger people who should be concerned.

1 Reply

@JackFlash,

Ok you guys have to now disclose your ages.

I am only interested in educating those under the age of 30 or so.

I have to make sure i am investing my energy in the future.

0 Replies

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;70006 wrote:

i already told you. if you want to know the truth about global warming - ask me. i will dig up some information for you.

Did you ever watch "An Inconvenient Truth"?
I'm not interested in the stuff Al Gore has to say - I'm interested in the graphs that he presented. CO2 emissions and global temperature have an obvious correlation. The temperature may have gone up "only" 0.6 degrees, but it's still going up nonetheless. It's been proven that Hurricane Katrina only became so large because of the warmer waters of the ocean (which would create a stronger hurricane). Also, explain the breakup of ice in both poles if it wasn't global warming.

1 Reply

@bisurge,

bisurge;70065 wrote:

Did you ever watch "An Inconvenient Truth"?
I'm not interested in the stuff Al Gore has to say - I'm interested in the graphs that he presented. CO2 emissions and global temperature have an obvious correlation. The temperature may have gone up "only" 0.6 degrees, but it's still going up nonetheless. It's been proven that Hurricane Katrina only became so large because of the warmer waters of the ocean (which would create a stronger hurricane). Also, explain the breakup of ice in both poles if it wasn't global warming.

i always thought global warming was real UNTIL i saw inconvenient truth. when Al Gore said that there is not a single scientist who disagrees ( and i knew that there are many, in fact thousands who do ) i knew that he was lying.

for your information CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION - that's a logical fallacy. for example the rustling of the leaves does not produce wind even though there is a correlation between wind and rustling of the leaves.

there is CO2 stored in permafrost which gets released when weather heats up. this is according to your own Al Gore. therefore whenever the temperature goes up so does CO2. however temperature rise itself is caused by the SUN which goes through cyclical periods of high and low activity, all of which is well documented.

and as far as the graphs Al Gore showed nobody destroyed the better than Monckton

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in his presentation:

YouTube - Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul

so Monckton covers the science angle of Global Warming.

Alex Jones cover the political / economic angle:

YouTube - Fall of the Republic HQ full length version

1 Reply

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;70068 wrote:

i always thought global warming was real UNTIL i saw inconvenient truth. when Al Gore said that there is not a single scientist who disagrees ( and i knew that there are many, in fact thousands who do ) i knew that he was lying.

so Monckton covers the science angle of Global Warming.

There are not even hundreds of "real scientists" who deny global warming, let alone thousands. There are, in reality, only a handful.

from Wikipedia on Monckton: Occupation - Business consultant, inventor, journalist

Getting scientific information from a businessman is like having a computer geek operate on your heart.

According to your own theory on information flow, you can't believe anyone but yourself. Why do you believe a businessman on scientific knowledge?

1 Reply

@JackFlash,

JackFlash;70070 wrote:

According to your own theory on information flow, you can't believe anyone but yourself. Why do you believe a businessman on scientific knowledge?

I don't believe anybody, even myself, as i have also sometimes been wrong in the past.

I believe in logic and the scientific method.

Logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on that i can't make any conclusions about Monckton as i don't know anything about him.

But i can conclude with 100% certainty that Al Gore is a crook and AGW is a lie.

1 Reply

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;70084 wrote:

I don't believe anybody, even myself, as i have also sometimes been wrong in the past.

If you don't believe yourself, why should I?

NEUROSPORT;70084 wrote:

I believe in logic and the scientific method.

The scientific method does not support logical conclusions.

NEUROSPORT;70084 wrote:

But i can conclude with 100% certainty that Al Gore is a crook and AGW is a lie.

I would like to hear the logic and/or scientific method that you used to determine that "Al Gore is a crook and AGW is a lie." That would have to be 2 sets of conclusions since neither presupposes the other.

1 Reply

@JackFlash,

JackFlash;70085 wrote:

I would like to hear the logic and/or scientific method that you used to determine that Al Gore is a crook and AGW is a lie

the evidence is presented in the two videos i posted.

once you see it you will not need to ask questions like this.

1 Reply

@NEUROSPORT,

NEUROSPORT;70087 wrote:

the evidence is presented in the two videos i posted.

once you see it you will not need to ask questions like this.

Those videos aren't yours. Are you absorbing some of that vertical information flow? After all, these are the ideologies of the Fundamentalist Neo Cons that flow downward from the Republican party.

You say you take pride in having original ideas, yet, your ideas are identical to the Neo Cons.

1 Reply

@JackFlash,

JackFlash;70091 wrote:

Those videos aren't yours. Are you absorbing some of that vertical information flow?

it's not vertical. those aren't mainstream ideas. why don't you watch the videos before commenting on them ?

JackFlash;70088 wrote:

After all, these are the ideologies of the Fundamentalist Neo Cons that flow downward from the Republican party.

You say you take pride in having original ideas, yet, your ideas are identical to the Neo Cons.

so when i say that Neo Cons planted thermite into WTC, took it down and blamed it on Bin Laden - i am actually speaking for Neo Cons ?

why don't you slow down and think for a second Wink

guys on conservative forums think i am a lunatic when i post there - don't you worry about it :headbang:

0 Replies

Keepin' 'Em Stupid, In Texas!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know