I'm a little shocked that you could watch Rocky Horror. I've never seen more than 2 seconds.
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by V. Kemp
I'm a little shocked that you could watch Rocky Horror. I've never seen more than 2 seconds.
So when "the people" owned everything, how would they run everything? Obviously, millions of people can't personally have a say in the running of everything from factories to the chicken restaurant down the street.
Sounds a lot like they'd have to use government to run everything that "the people" took ownership of, running everything in the name of "the people."
Sounds a lot like fascism.
The only authoritarian part was the stripping of ownership from the bourgeois, but that isn't necessary for communism, just the revolution as required in 1848.
You say incoherent things like this, while accusing me of not understanding. Who would the ownership be given to? If your answer is the vague Marxist "the workers should own it," you need to define what that means. It's not self-explanatory, no matter how arrogant you are with your vague pronouncements.
Neither "the workers" nor "the people" are actual entities capable of ownership. These vague terms need to be defined to have meaning. How they could manage and run their property needs to be defined to have meaning.
My guess is your answer to the question of how these terms should be defined would end up looking a lot like government, and you're refusing to give substance to your vague statements because you know that giving government ownership of industry and services is, in fact, fascism.
These crops don't make toxins disappear. They just better tolerate them. The stuff ends up in the food.
It's only not an issue for China because they don't care about their people.
What your saying is,
"you're"*
that since we're outside global ecology, we can't observe what's happening inside earth's atmosphere, therefor global warming is not occuring?
What I clearly stated was that no legitimate scientific studies have shown any evidence that man is impacting the climate of the earth, let alone significantly. I'm certainly open to the possibility that man is, and of course that concerns me. But that's not an excuse to act like a frightened little child who doesn't understand science and lie about evidence.
Your trying to take out humanity as an equation to the problem of global warming....
You're* overlooking the fact that you have no evidence that man is causing "global warming," that the earth hasn't warmed in 17 years, that the earth warmed and cooled many times in its billions of years before man arrived, and that temperature usually causes changes in CO2 levels--not the other way around.
Since strip mining, deforestation for planting crops is a purely HUMAN event....
These things reduce the CO2 levels of the planet. So you're arguing that we're causing cooling and we need to give money to industries which produce CO2?
you can't say humans don't effect the environment.
Nobody has made this claim. But since you can't offer a shred of evidence that mankind is altering the climate, let lone significantly, you can't say that humans are altering the climate.
That heat related gasses casued by chemicals and business structures are also man made events, and not naturally occuring.
In essence, man and humanity does effect the natural order of the earth.
There are a TON of natural cycles which regulate the climate. Many of them immediately and naturally balance out minor changes. You're arguing that man exists and therefore the planet is not exactly the same as if he did not exist. Bravo, I concede that epic point.
But that's not evidence of man impacting the climate of the earth. And if your goal is to eradicate man having any impact on the earth at all short of climate change, you're advocating genocide and suicide and I'll follow your example! You first.
If you don't know communism that isn't my problem kemp. Forced state ownership is not communism by any measure according to Marx.
Oh? It wasn't? Because I clearly recall Marx calling for revolution in which the workers would take ownership of the means of production. He was very clear. I've read his naive and ignorant manifesto in addition to some other similarly childish works. I can't force you to learn what it is, so all I can do is continue to offer explanations for my statements while you do/can not.
Accusations are not evidence. I explained why your position is based on faith. You provided no evidence nor explanation to the contrary.
Feel free to continue venting anger at being exposed as holding a faith-based position. You should be angry. You've been duped and made a fool of yourself proclaiming yourself the holder of great wisdom, but when asked could neither produce nor even point to any.
Kemp: Communism is not fascist, it is the people helping each other, it is the spirit of community.
The notion that state ownership/control (the difference is a technicality) of everything isn't fascism is as ignorant as it is ridiculous. Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. State ownership of everything corporate is, by definition, fascism.
You don't know the difference between collectivism (forced action enforced by state violence) and collective action (voluntary action by community judging the action to be for their own good). Pretty big difference.
The idea is to treat everyone like children and shield them from the consequences of their actions.
Everyone we buy an abortion for, herpes cream, aids medications, and send to rehab is a supporter of the nanny state for life.
The best part for them is that they're buying votes with our money.
Nope. And you have to pay for substance abuse counseling and STD prescription medication coverage too. Because you should pay for the behavior of junkie whores, even if you aren't one. That's justice!
He's alleging that democratic governance itself inherently tolerates corruption?
I disagree. And the fact that I'm here is evidence of this. I'm calling out the politicians who engage in it. I'm calling out everyone who votes for those politicians (which is most of those in office today.)
If we can't wake up enough to care about our society and who runs it, there's no system better than democratic governance to save us from ourselves.
The notion that authoritarianism can save us from democratic governance is silly and ridiculous. Only a cultural war against idiocy and laziness can save democratic governance. Surrendering freedom to fascism is never an escape from corruption.
Kemp: You may not have noticed, but my solution is not to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, that is your solution/desire (i.e. libertarian)
As usual, a baseless talking point claim. First, you haven't examined the actual results of what you propose. Your talking point is that the stated goal is not to hurt the poor, nor make the rich richer or the poor poorer. But in reality, the only proposed action to combat "climate change" is carbon taxes, which will positively make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
The notion that freedom makes the rich richer and the poor poorer is plain ignorance. Freedom resulted in the biggest and richest middle class the world had ever seen with America's surge to wealth. (Well, that and the plague)
Freedom didn't give GE a 0% tax rate, corrupt fascists in power did.
Freedom didn't bail out failed banks, insurance companies, and auto makers (all owned by rich people making risky bets) with the money of the middle class/poor, corrupt fascists in power did.
Freedom didn't destroy the family with welfare payments increasing for single parents, raising illegitimacy (a prime driver of poverty and crime) rates in some subcommunities in America as much as from 16% to 80% illegitimacy. Corrupt fascists in power seeking permanent dependent voting block support did.
The notion that libertarian (I'm sticking with the small "l") policies make the rich richer and the poor poorer while authoritarian policies benefit the poor is so silly, ignorant, and idiotic that it's INSANE. Human history is filled with fascists seeking more power, and using that power to benefit themselves. To argue that authoritarianism won't hurt the poor is sadly ignorant.
My solution is for everyone to do more with less, and therefore reduce cost of living for everyone.
An admirable goal, and a noble cultural cause to champion. Personally I try to eat local and reduce my waste as much as I feasibly can. I speak out and vote against wasting billions of dollars of fuel sending fleets to bomb random nations to distract the American people from domestic corruption.
I.e. between picking between 2 cars that fulfill the same basic function, one is a gas guzzler which has horrible emissions and one that is not and does not, my solution is that everyone should pick the second car - either through forced choice or informed choice (preferred) - yes the forced choice bit makes me authoritarian, which is why i prefer the educated choice bit, but also I am ok with that if it means we get to live of the planet for longer.
Here we have two problems. First, who is going to decide what everyone "needs"? Presumably people with more children would get the go-ahead to get large enough vehicles to transport their own families around, right? I mean, that's just logical. You wouldn't propose authoritarian legislation to not let people own cars big enough to move their families! That'd be insane!
What about people who regularly drive their more extended families around? Or carpool? Or drive their kids and others' kids to play together and do stuff? Surely, they'd get exceptions too. I presume your proposed authoritarian policies won't prevent families from taking care of one another. Or prevent families from socializing their children and taking them to play paintball and take them to museums [etc etc etc etc] together.
What about people who enjoy offroading as a leisurely activity? Presumably this would be banned in trucks or anything larger than tiny vehicles. Nevermind that they're more dangerous. Nevermind that driving trucks offroad is life-saving practice for men driving vehicles at war, or rescue services all over the country (and much more for more remote places like Alaska with more extreme climate--though the continental US gets plenty of extreme weather as well).
So where would you strike the balance? Create a huge agency to police who actually needs a permit because they drive their elderly parents and disabled siblings upon request and who just wants the permit to own a bigger vehicle? You couldn't just give permits for larger vehicles to everyone who wanted one or you'd defeat the purpose of the law. So you'd have to have a rather large spy agency to investigate who was abusing the system. And presumably the lives lost due to lack of experience with the large vehicles used in war/rescue operations would just be necessary. For the planet.
Which brings up the second problem. You cite being able to live on the planet for longer. Based on what evidence? What reason do you have to believe that our breathing out is endangering the planet? Which brings us to our next quotation.
I know you like to close your eyes, but you do realise that a vast majority of scientists/anyone who has actually looked into it properly understand how climate change is happening and is a thing that is greatly influenced by humans to the detriment of human continuity on this planet. I know you like to think otherwise and will take any small isolated event that contradicts the greater trends and make the most out of it you can, but do not pretend that your viewpoint is in the majority or the right.
All I see is an appeal to a supposed majority of scientists, which is of course fallacious reasoning. And... nope, that's it. You have absolutely no basis for your position except faith in a fallacy, and faith in your would-be-authoritarian leaders.
You know nothing about the topic, or you would have engaged me over the science. I have already pointed out that there are no good, legitimate scientific studies showing evidence, let alone strong evidence, of human activity having an impact on the climate.
I notice you didn't link any actual studies you thought had worth. The only one ever linked on this forum was garbage, comparing ice cores from thousands of miles apart regarding periods of time tens of thousands of years apart, showing real evidence of nothing but claiming evidence for man-caused global warming.
It's a fact that no models showing man caused climate change have shown any validity whatsoever. Not a single one explains half the history of climate change (pre-man) on the earth, nor recent activity.
So what science, exactly, do you have faith in? You can't point to any studies. You have faith in... politicians who tell you you should be afraid? Or the "scientists" they fund to argue to give them more power over their citizens?
That's it? You're worried about an existential threat to the planet because politicians and a supposed "majority"--which isn't a majority--of scientists telling you to be afraid? With no knowledge of the actual science personally, maybe you should leave the arguing to them.
Because I'm guessing you don't know that the earth hasn't warmed in the past 17 years. And I'm guessing that you don't know that, historically, CO2 levels have always risen AFTER temperatures have risen, suggesting that CO2 levels are largely a result of, not a cause of, higher temperatures.
You're arguing that we should surrender freedom to fascists because, trust them, they need to save the planet. You need better evidence than "I've heard that a majority of scientists say it's true" to convince anyone that you're right.
Kemp: the exact same argument is made on why communism is not wrong and should be used, and why soviet Russia was not communist...
"The system" as defined as "dolts electing corrupt fascists," sure.
That's not "the system" I support. You're conflating democratic republican governance with "idiots electing fascists." This is not necessarily the case. American history is our example.
As for my argument that "we should fight corruption because fascism is horrible," how exactly is this an argument for communism, which is fascism, which I'm directly saying is terrible? How is this an argument for Russia not being communist/fascist, which it was/is? Your explanation for these bizarre and nonsensical statements is...?
They're indebted to corrupt international banksters because they elect bought and owned leaders. If everyone woke up and pulled an Iceland the earth would be better off.
It's short sighted to blame "the system" or "big companies" without acknowledging the corrupt government officials who empower them with legislation and law enforcement. There will always be people who seek to cheat any system. Pointing out they exist is not insightful nor helpful. Pointing out that international banksters are so wealthy they own our politicians and we're too ignorant/lazy to stop it suggests what we need to do to change the broken debt-slavery system: WAKE UP, vote for people other than Republicrat slave masters (in the USA), and DEMAND change.
I don't disagree with you. There are a tiny percent of the world who are mega rich and want us all in debt endlessly, allowing them to profit on interest eternally, using humanity for profit like livestock. But I think these mega rich international banksters and the government officials they own need to be addressed directly. I don't think just a vague "neo-liberal" "system" is the problem, but real people running real organizations and holding real elected office. We need to wake up, educate our children, and kick out these corrupt would-be slave-masters.
Capitalism is not the problem. Freedom is not the problem. (I'm not advocating anarchy, just limited government/corruption).
Free markets/capitalism don't allow GE to pay 0 taxes. Corrupt government bribed/owned/controlled by GE does.
Free markets don't cause huge bubbles and huge bursts, the Federal Reserve system makes natural economic cycles much worse. Case in point, their QE pumping up the stock market for the past few years. Wages are down. Employment is down. Yet the stock market is soaring. Why? Bubble. Why? Federal Reserve endless printing.
Free markets didn't cause the dollar to lose 98% of its value in the past 100 years, the Federal Reserve, again, gave us this great benefit!
Free markets didn't socialize the losses (ie make taxpayers pay for them) of failed insurance companies, auto makers, and banks who took risky bets and lost. And who were bad at producing products people wanted. Free markets didn't prevent these companies from failing and their competitors (who didn't fail at business) from getting their business. Corrupt government officials did.
China is an example of these people getting their way. Poverty abound, social engineering guaranteeing tens of millions of men will never have families, pollution ruining the land and people's lives. Whether its economy grows or sinks, its elite rulers won't feel the hit and will lock up or execute anyone who speaks up too loudly. Their fascist slave master status is protected by force of law and military. They will milk their livestock and enjoy the fruits of the livestock's labor. It's a bankster paradise. There are many in America and Europe who actively pursue such a system here. Incrementally, that's the direction we move.
Of course all this ignores the fact that the issue isn't really that everything gets warmer, but that the climate gets more extreme and severe
Thank you for chiming in with the completely factually worthless theory that we're changing climate no matter what.
The fact is that we might be impacting climate change. We live here. We do stuff. So it's certainly possible.
But another fact is that there's no evidence that we are. No models proposing that we are have ever shown an ounce of worth. There are a multitude of other factors influencing climate change (climate is always changing, without our impacting it), many of which balance out tiny impacts like that which we might be having.
Until you have any data or a single model that isn't complete garbage, you're just a fascist advocating that the common man live impoverished, and only the rich enjoy modern standards of living.
Michael Chrichton cites many dozens of sources in gathering info for his fiction State of Fear, and the confluence of his research showed that slight warming would result, globally, in LESS loss of life and LESS property damage resulting from the changed weather patterns.
The idea that we're magically making the earth more volatile (magical because there's no evidence that alleged human impact isn't making the earth more stable either) is just an idea.
They have investment in carbon trading companies. They were trying to make their investments more profitable.
That's a lot of text to bicker while the fact is that sea ice isn't going away, and the planet hasn't warmed in nearly 2 decades.
No "global warming" models have shown an ounce of worth. If you have faith in them, faith is still all you've got.
You read it right here ladies and genlemen.
First sign of confusion: You think you've found proof of evidence of something? I wonder what. Let's read on!
The denouncer of the health care exchange has told someone that they could and probably should enter the exchange to look for better health care.
Could you quote where he said they "probably should"? He simply asked people to check what their rates are/would be if they signed up under Obamacare. This information lets us see whether prices are going up or down. They're obviously going up. Einstein knows that most people's rates have gone up. Einstein knows that people providing this information is evidence that the ACA is hurting people.
Doesn't state he should get better, just look for better.
More evidence that you missed the purpose of this thread in its entirety.
Damn, I guess the exchange is doing what it's supposed to be doing, by helping show ALTERNATIVES!
That's what the bill is supposed to do? The bill's purpose is to show alternatives? Because people didn't know there is more than one health insurance company in the USA? The government has to run a huge portion of our economy so that people know they can shop around?
Like I said, the notion that this bill was necessary for people to shop around, which is what you're arguing here, is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You're obviously very confused.
He said that Arby could look at what's available without signing up. He did not state that Arby "could and probably should enter the exchange to look for better health care." If he did, why didn't you quote that?
You can't shop around for alternatives without government running and ruining (even more) a huge portion of the economy? I don't think we should give away huge portions of our economy to fascist control because a small minority of citizens are too stupid and inept to shop around and buy good value in free markets.
The notion that the ACA was necessary for people to shop around is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Just did some more reading about their balance sheets. 70% rise in local debts over the past 3 years: Their debt to GDP ratio is near 200%.
And as our economy (USA) falters, so do their exports to us so they take a hit too. It's not looking good for anyone globally because 9/10 countries are led by corrupt psychopaths/sociopaths.
Which only makes it worse, because I don't see any Chinese people either!
Thank you for taking the time to correct me. Thank you for taking the time to notice the shadow on the one Caucasian man's face.
Of course, it's completely irrelevant, and the point stands. The statistical chances of such a distribution in this country (considering its racial distribution) without racism playing a role are not particularly high.
It is also irrelevant because that was a joke. It's a fact that a higher percentage of black Americans are fascists than white Americans, which does skew the data more in favor of higher black representation in photos with fascists than the national distribution. Though black Americans are not disproportionately fascists by a very large margin... Yup. Still racist.
It's "you're."
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. "If..." "You could..."
You've completely disregarded everything I've said because it's obviously over your head and continued to embarrass yourself with more random conjecture and hypotheticals which have absolutely no connection to real people in the real world and real markets--which there are huge problems with, compliments of the Federal Reserve and the US government.
But you have no idea what I'm talking about, or what you're talking about for that matter, so why bother correcting you.
Their profits are not capped. They are required to spend X% (80% in 2014 for individuals/small groups, 85% for large groups? the specific figure does not matter) of their collected premiums on medical services. It's a 15-20% cap on overhead costs. Which, of course, wouldn't be an issue if our government already didn't support monopolies and allowed for free market competition keeping costs (and overhead) down.
Insurers are already coming up with all kinds of administrative costs that they can legally claim are patient care and count toward this percentage.
Waivers for this requirement have already been granted for some states, denied for others, and are undecided on for others. Hurray for more executive power.
The constitution does not give the federal government the power to limit the amount of a profit a private corporation can make.
What this does is reduces profit margins (Premiums collected over the amount allowed must be rebated to customers) and endangers more private companies in insurance markets (already limited in number by a high cost of entry) of going bankrupt, even if they provide lower-priced plans than their competitors and their customers are happy.
Insurance companies already have much lower profit margins than many dozens of other types of businesses.
What you call a cap on profits is not a cap on profits but a way for government to stiffle the market even more; until it's completely broken, and the endless-money-printing US government can take over the whole thing.
Key's post on stock markets makes me cringe.
First, that's not what "short selling" is.
http://www.investopedia.com/university/ … lling1.asp
Second, re-buying what one just sold at a lower price is GIVING AWAY money, not a strategy to make money.
And third, any individual investor trying to ride markets on a daily basis is knowingly throwing money away. No responsible investor loses money to such computerized schemes, only other idiotic, corrupt mega-bankers do. And they don't harm the free people of America unless... those people are dumb enough to elect corrupt politicians who bail out the idiot bankers. That's the fault of idiot voters who don't hold their elected leaders accountable, not [relatively] free markets. Without idiot voters, the people engaging in idiotic trading get fired, and the idiotic banks who employ them go bankrupt, giving more customers to responsible banks who actually produce profits. (Yay interest for all! Remember what interest on savings was?!)
The cost of ensuring deposits in banks run into the ground by idiots/corrupt banksters is much less than the endless trillions America is giving away to banksters now, destroying competition and free markets along the way.
I'm not saying that the stock market isn't legalized crime and it's not a big inflation-riding, money-printing bubble just waiting to explode. It's just... entirely different from what Key thinks it is.
The man is even more of a monster than I knew!
You can easily pull the wool over some people's eyes.
Imperial Forum → Posts by V. Kemp
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.