How would adding a tax reduce prices at the pump? How would adding a tax reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil?

You do realize that the United States Geological Service didn't survey the entire globe, right? I'm pretty sure Iran and China laughed at them when they showed up with their equipment. That is to ask, you do realize it's obvious to everyone that you're lying when you claim that the USA has 66% of the world's oil? Thanks for the laugh.

You're just embarrassing yourself.

You're no worse than them, but you're being just as bad.

"of course my low is littered with too much intelligence to be more than a sarcastic mirroring of your own incompetence.." BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH what a mouthful of retarded nonsense.

You're suggesting we can predict a ongoing holocene down to a century or two. That's just laughable.

"if there is and we do something then we save all of our world and eco-systems."

Doing "something" is insufficient to accomplish anything.

"but the science seems to point to man-made climate change as being the better possibility"

I'd love to see which studies you stand behind and can stand up to scrutiny and actually show anything. Massively incomplete and inaccurate numbers do not hold statistical significance. Every study I've seen works with very limited data and extrapolates on it a billion times over--not remotely compelling or conclusive.

I've seen a study that claims a few-degree-warmer climate (and subsequent weather pattern changes) would result in lower deaths/monetary costs.

If you want to talk about statistics, consider the extremely limited time man has been recording temperatures. It's statistically probable we'll experience new highs and lows over the next century: We just haven't been recording that long, let alone all over the globe. It's almost guaranteed that we haven't seen the highs and lows we will. A hundred years or two is a blink of the eye in geological time.

I'm all for looking at what data we can find, but I'm extremely skeptical of claims that we can extrapolate on such limited data. Climate changes result in different patterns all over the place. Continents move. While some places get hotter, some get colder.

I asked him legitimate questions about the content of his posts. I genuinely wanted to know his answers. I asked him to clear up anything I got wrong.

He answered no questions. He corrected nothing. He just cried.

If you think I'm the troll, you're a big baby. Intellectual limitations implied.

"Except of course we have temperatures going back millions of years; it is how we know there have been ice ages, glacial and inter-glacial epochs. As well as Helocene periods hotter than the current one."

We don't have precise temperatures for the vast majority of the globe. Pretending we have comprehensive measures of the entire globe from what evidence we have is a lie.

I'm open to the possibility, but lying about the evidence isn't going to convince anybody with a brain.

"As well as Helocene periods hotter than the current one."

Current one? You said it was over. I'm so confused.

...Are you all on crack? The M1 is a WWII rifle. You can get one on the open market for around $600.

Mr. Yell is right about the M14... but I'm not sure why we're talking about this?

xeno syndicated,

"Well, I believe I could sue Kemp and Einstein if I wanted to.  They've called me a communist,"

First, you couldn't sue me if I held the opinion that you're a communist, even if you weren't. Second, in this very thread you state the fact that you're a communist; so, even if you could prove malicious intent (and figure out that it's not slander lol), it's not a lie. You can't sue for someone telling the truth just because the truth is that you're a liar.

You're not even responding to 90% of what I've said. Much of it has been legitimate questions I'd love to hear your answers to. They'd clarify your positions and what you advocate. I would be eager to clear up any confusion anybody had as to what I believe and what position I am making here. Given repeated choices, you just ignore legitimate questions and refuse to clarify your position. If that's not the behavior of a troll, it's the behavior of a moron suffering from serious psychological disorders.

"They should not be able to distort, mis-represent the points of views of other posters, and certainly should be held accountable for slander / libel."

Do I need to explain the difference again?

How can I distort or misrepresent your views? I ask you legitimate questions based very directly on what you post and you refuse to reply. You've been relatively clear in what you have posted, which is 100% communist ideology. I've explained exactly what you've posted is communist, how, and why. I've asked you repeatedly to correct me if I'm wrong. You never have.

Stop being a baby. This crying is stupid. If you disagree with what someone's said, say so. If someone "misrepresents" your views, say so immediately. Reply to their earnest questions. Correct them. Clear things up. Stupid shit like this is just trolling.

Nobody has lied about your views. I've asked repeatedly for clarification in places where you seemed to be advocating communist views. I didn't "call" you a communist, I said hey, this idea sounds communist for X Y Z reasons with A B C results, did I get something wrong? And, as it turns out, I got nothing wrong. You never corrected me.

QQ

You're trolling.

Grow up.

Iran and China have no crime.

Thanks for reminding us of the typical party-line bullshit, You_Fool.

Studies show that, as soon as unemployment is about to run out, people suddenly become many times more able to find work within a few weeks!

Numbers like that don't lie. And I'm beyond explanations and citations for willfully ignorant people who will believe _ literally_ anything that their communist political overlords tell them to. HALF of the citizens of the USA receive welfare ("welfare" in general terms; government supplements their income). Do I need to explain how [clucking] ridiculous that is? Numbers like this don't lie.

I made no claim as to the actual % of lazy people with absolutely no desire to work. I simply pointed out that they exist. I've met some. I've seen countless videos of them showing up for "OBAMA MONEY." They have their hands out for literally anything they can get. And their standard of living is barely below what it would be if they worked. Most have apartments, air conditioning, cable tv, and cell phones. They have no motivation to work.

Your implication that NOBODY is lazy and NOBODY has 0 work ethic is just stupid. Any one of us who's been out of our homes has witnessed them. Any one of us with friends who work with inner city children have heard of the common cultural understanding of government as breadwinner. Anyone with a TV or the internet has the opportunity to witness these morons incriminate themselves.

The illegitimacy rate among blacks in America has SKYROCKETED from below 20% to 70% since the implementation of our welfare system, which rewards illegitimacy with more handouts. You would argue this is coincidence? Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt (dickhead) said:

"The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is a violation of the traditions of America."

I was born in a lower-middle-class family. You sound like an arrogant, ignorant prick who's afraid to use his brain. I was privileged to be born and raised in this country. I was privileged to have the opportunities it afforded me to raise myself up. I'm defending the right of Americans to that privilege. You're pretending that many facts are the result of magic, not culture. You're pretending we should ignore destructive forces which destroy the privileges America used to afford its citizens.

"What democratic ally? Western Europe was occupied by the Nazis=not democratic. So it was an invasion to overthrow a gov and occupy temporarily till a democratic gov was installed."

Are you just trolling? Because this is getting really, really stupid. Yeah, the Nazis legitimately gained control of everyone they invaded. Liberating nations from Nazis who invaded them is clearly a perfect parallel to invading Syria.... lulz. That's ridiculous.

"You don't seriously think they will shoot our rockets out of the sky? Western military leaders are aware of the bad publicity of casualties. It will be a little more costly thats all."

You can't occupy a nation with rockets. What happened to your claims of ensuring they move toward democratic government? You're just switching ideas as it suits you, rather than actually making a case for either.

"This is a good point.  You are suggesting that 1% of total world's wealth may be enough to sustain humanity's basic needs.   An ethical, sustainable, equitable civilization with a benevolent dictator owning 99% and the rest of humanity the remaining 1% might, then be possible.  But would it be plausible? "

What isn't plausible is your incoherent examples using completely non-representative numbers. If you don't know you're wrong--if you aren't trolling--why use such nonsense numbers?

"As it is, perhaps 35% of the world's wealth is held by the poor and middle class, and their endeavor to fulfill basic human needs is highly frustrated."

It's not that frustrated in America today. And how frustrated it is is a result of government overspending and ballooned cost-of-living. Your communist wealth-redistribution argument has been ripped apart ad-nauseum.

"If we are talking, then, about redistributed wealth, wealth which is redistributed from future generations to ours, wealth which is redistributed to ours without the consent of those future generations, is it really relevant who gets it?  That anyone does is unethical, and do so without regard for those future generations is a crime; worse yet is how our system distributes this wealth to those in our time who need it the LEAST, when we should be redistributing this wealth to those who need it the most: to those who are frustrated in fulfilling their basic human needs."

Good job completely missing his point that wealth creation benefits everyone in society, especially the poor. The most basic facts about free markets are over your head. It's adorable.

"Capitalism is simply a means of distributing wealth.  Wealth is not created by it."

Hahahhahha troll. Basic economic facts escape you.