Re: Joy Behar Coming Unhinged

by BubbleBliss Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:19 am

dblboggie wrote:

No, not really. A social liberal says only where a person stands on social issues.

Not necessarily. A Social Democrat/Liberal doesn't only stand on the liberal side on social issues. Social Democracy refers to the mix of social programs while ensuring democratic freedoms for everybody. It also supports competition and all the key issues of capitalism, while making sure that the 'social' aspect doesn't get lost in it and that nobody is treated unfairly and that everybody is taken care of to a certain degree.

by The_Amber_Spyglass Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:58 am

dblboggie wrote:
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:And you listen to Rush Limbaugh so you are the expert on how he defines a socialist? You listen so much to the man that you can identify the similarities between my rhetoric and his?
I have heard enough from the guy to see that he is a small minded bigot. I have heard enough to know he is not a climate scientist yet the subject is his favourite rant.

He is neither small-minded, nor a bigot.

Of course not.

It's beyond me how anybody can look at these protestors and call them anything other than what they are: anti-American, anticapitalist, pro-Marxist communists.

Take that bone out of your nose and call me back. (to a black radio caller)

Plenty more like that on tinterweb.

dblboggie wrote: But you are right about one thing, he is certainly not a climate (or any other kind of) scientist.

That much is obvious. Does he still deny that CFCs damaged the ozone layer? lol!

dblboggie wrote:I would like to see one occasion where I have said “all” liberals are socialists and hate America. There is no question that I have said that Obama is a socialist and hates America – and I stand by those words. I could probably elucidate on the “hates America” bit, but it is accurate nonetheless.

When SP is back up and running again, I will find examples.

dblboggie wrote:Now, I will admit that I have used the term “liberal” and “socialist” interchangeably.

Thank you.

dblboggie wrote:Actually, I am saying neither. I AM saying that in schools, universities, newspapers, news broadcasts, cable news, entertainment television shows and movies, conservatives are routinely lied about, slandered, parodied and portrayed in ways that are complete fiction. There is a literal tsunami of this propaganda that washes over the body politic every day in this nation, one scarcely escape it. Then one turns to something like the Wiki to get an honest definition, but lo-and-behold! There is the very same propaganda dressed up as “objective” truth.

Ah so its "they do it to us so we do it to them." that isn't very constructive or mature.

dblboggie wrote:Like it or not, liberals in America have a very definite agenda.

You see, you are doing it again. Have you ever asked a true liberal whether any of these things are true or do you just let blind prejudice guide you? In one breath you decry that you are derided as a money obsessed theocrat then in the next you are making the same sweeping judgements about them!

dblboggie wrote:No, not really. A social liberal says only where a person stands on social issues.

No it doesn't. I am all in favour of capitalism, it is indeed the most effective system we have but what I want is accountability and responsibility to go hand in hand. Rights come with responsibilities. Perhaps you find that too "Socialist" but it is something we have had ingrained in our psyches since way before we knew your continent of birth existed and social responsibility predates socialism.

dblboggie wrote:Speaking of parody... the mischaracterization of my feelings about the UN and AGW (or ACC or whatever is the flavor of the day) as related above pretty much fill that bill. It can hardly be called a secret that the UN is not a fan of America, or capitalism.

Parody? You have said all of those things before that climate change (a term used by scientists) is a myth and a scam designed specifically to destroy your economy and your constitution.

dblboggie wrote:And I do not treat you as an idiot, that I have been characterized as such (and much worse) by you and others because, like many other people, even climate scientists,

3%. And let us not forget that you openly admitted to not understanding the science anyway. So you make your choice as a matter of political convenience.

dblboggie wrote:The human suffering that such measures would create is every bit as real and every bit as tragic and deadly as the perceived suffering we are told is coming at some undetermined time down the road; but this suffering will be immediate and worldwide.

That damage is already being done so it is not "at some undetermined time in the future".

dblboggie wrote:I know it must seem coarse and unenlightened to speak of businesses, the private sector, world economies, making money and such, when speaking of something like AGW, but ignoring the very serious damage that AGW fixes would entail does not make them go away. People are starving and dying because of the lack of stable and productive economies all over the world.

People will starve to death if the global temperature rises by an average of 2 degrees Celsius. The worst affected are those who already live in marginal landscapes: marshes and deserts and those who rely on monsoons that have become too erratic, too unpredictable.

dblboggie wrote: These are tragic, unnecessary deaths.

As is the damage we are doing NOW.

dblboggie wrote:If, and it is a very big if on my part, what AGW proponents say is true, how do they propose to deal with the very real damage and death that would result by a dramatic reduction in anthropogenic CO2 production?

That is for the world's governments to decide TOGETHER. But lets not get away from ourselves, you are still ignoring the science here.

dblboggie wrote:We have yet to see how long term it will be.

Your point is moot. It is not socialism unless it was always the intention to systematically nationalise these industries for the specific intention of keeping them managed by the government.

dblboggie wrote:It doesn’t, but it does expose Obama’s socialist agenda for our health care system.

You have yet to convince anybody else - aside from yourself and Tex - that this is socialist. There are Europeans here who have forms of socialised healthcare and we understand that Obamacare still does not come anywhere near the systems that we have.

dblboggie wrote:As I said above, the world runs on money. Whether we like it or not, money, trade, industry, all these make it possible for us to live indoors and eat. Of what good is it to say, we will save countless lives in the future by addressing AGW now, when the means of addressing it would kill countless lives through the destruction of world economies (or at least those world economies that get on board).

Uh-huh, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968

So the Dollar dropping against the Euro is going to kill people? Droughts kill people. Floods kill people. Hurricanes kill people. Monsoons kill people. Malaria kills people. Cholera kills people. Call me a doom monger if you like but we have seen these events happening as a result of climate change.

by dblboggie Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:01 pm

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:And you listen to Rush Limbaugh so you are the expert on how he defines a socialist? You listen so much to the man that you can identify the similarities between my rhetoric and his?
I have heard enough from the guy to see that he is a small minded bigot. I have heard enough to know he is not a climate scientist yet the subject is his favourite rant.

He is neither small-minded, nor a bigot.
Of course not.

It's beyond me how anybody can look at these protestors and call them anything other than what they are: anti-American, anticapitalist, pro-Marxist communists.

Take that bone out of your nose and call me back. (to a black radio caller)

Plenty more like that on tinterweb.

And you believe everything you read on the interweb?

Here is what Snopes had to say on the “bone out of your nose” comment:

Rush Limbaugh acknowledged making these statements in a 1990 Newsday article (although the latter, at least, occurred not on Limbaugh’s now-familiar talk and political commentary radio program, but at the beginning of his broadcast career back in the early 1970’s when he was hosting a Top 40 music show under the name “Jeff Christie” on either WIXZ or KQV in Pittsburgh):

For all his bravado, however, Limbaugh is immensely sensitive to charges of insensitivity. When asked about the racist they-all-look-alike connotation of a statement like “Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?” this professional talker from a family of lawyers pleads total innocence.

“You may interpret it as that, but I, no, honest-to-God, that’s now how I intended it at all. Gee, don’t get me in this one. I am the least racist host you will ever find.” Recalling a stint as an “insult-radio” DJ in Pittsburgh, he admits feeling guilty about, for example, telling a black listener he could not understand to “take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

So yeah, he said that as part of "insult-radio" gig some 30 years ago, but as you can see, it is not something he is proud of. I wonder if you might dig up something a little more current?

As for the protesters, which protesters was he talking about? Could it possibly be one of those riotous mobs that seems to appear at any gathering of the G-20, or the WTO and so on? You know, the ones carrying signs that blatantly state that they are the very things he stated? You know, the crowds bused in by groups like the American Communist Party, the Workers World Party and other socialist/communist organizations?

What is small-minded or bigoted about calling a spade a spade?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote: But you are right about one thing, he is certainly not a climate (or any other kind of) scientist.
That much is obvious. Does he still deny that CFCs damaged the ozone layer?

Joy Behar Coming Unhinged - Page 4 2m3ny29

Beats me... I work for a living, and when I’m not working I’m in school. No time for things like his show, which airs while I’m at work or school.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:I would like to see one occasion where I have said “all” liberals are socialists and hate America. There is no question that I have said that Obama is a socialist and hates America – and I stand by those words. I could probably elucidate on the “hates America” bit, but it is accurate nonetheless.
When SP is back up and running again, I will find examples.

It is up and running now.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:Now, I will admit that I have used the term “liberal” and “socialist” interchangeably.
Thank you.

You are quite welcome.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:Actually, I am saying neither. I AM saying that in schools, universities, newspapers, news broadcasts, cable news, entertainment television shows and movies, conservatives are routinely lied about, slandered, parodied and portrayed in ways that are complete fiction. There is a literal tsunami of this propaganda that washes over the body politic every day in this nation, one scarcely escape it. Then one turns to something like the Wiki to get an honest definition, but lo-and-behold! There is the very same propaganda dressed up as “objective” truth.
Ah so its "they do it to us so we do it to them." that isn't very constructive or mature.

Actually, I stand by my characterization of Obama, and say it is right on the mark.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:Like it or not, liberals in America have a very definite agenda.
You see, you are doing it again. Have you ever asked a true liberal whether any of these things are true or do you just let blind prejudice guide you? In one breath you decry that you are derided as a money obsessed theocrat then in the next you are making the same sweeping judgements about them!

Let me clarify, liberal politicians have a very definite agenda. American’s at large, who self identify as “liberal” could not be said to fall in the same category as liberal politicians. I have liberal friends in fact. None that I have spoken to have an “agenda” per se.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:No, not really. A social liberal says only where a person stands on social issues.
No it doesn't. I am all in favour of capitalism, it is indeed the most effective system we have but what I want is accountability and responsibility to go hand in hand. Rights come with responsibilities. Perhaps you find that too "Socialist" but it is something we have had ingrained in our psyches since way before we knew your continent of birth existed and social responsibility predates socialism.

This concept of rights coming with responsibilities is being used a justification for forced charity – which is neither charitable nor responsible when overseen by less than scrupulous politicians as it is here in America.

There is a huge body of private charitable organizations in America in every state of the union. There are entire hospitals, large and very reputable ones that charge no fees to those who cannot afford to pay. There are local charities in nearly every city, and in every city, there are churches which offer charitable services of all kinds. And ALL of these are voluntarily supported the citizens of the United States with donations of money, labor and capital. We do not need to be lectured on what responsibilities come with what rights. American’s are some of the most charitable people on earth in terms of their time and money.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:Speaking of parody... the mischaracterization of my feelings about the UN and AGW (or ACC or whatever is the flavor of the day) as related above pretty much fill that bill. It can hardly be called a secret that the UN is not a fan of America, or capitalism.
Parody? You have said all of those things before that climate change (a term used by scientists) is a myth and a scam designed specifically to destroy your economy and your constitution.

You mischaracterize my actual argument on that by leaving out great swathes of my position on this and the characters and forces involved. You reduce it to a cartoonish version of my actual argument by gutting that argument as above.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:And I do not treat you as an idiot, that I have been characterized as such (and much worse) by you and others because, like many other people, even climate scientists,
3%. And let us not forget that you openly admitted to not understanding the science anyway. So you make your choice as a matter of political convenience.

3% is 3%. When did science become “consensus” oriented? And yes, I know your argument on this as well. But for me, 3% is still 3%, and you cannot say that they “do not understand the science.”

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:The human suffering that such measures would create is every bit as real and every bit as tragic and deadly as the perceived suffering we are told is coming at some undetermined time down the road; but this suffering will be immediate and worldwide.
That damage is already being done so it is not "at some undetermined time in the future".

And who is dying because of this alleged damage?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:I know it must seem coarse and unenlightened to speak of businesses, the private sector, world economies, making money and such, when speaking of something like AGW, but ignoring the very serious damage that AGW fixes would entail does not make them go away. People are starving and dying because of the lack of stable and productive economies all over the world.
People will starve to death if the global temperature rises by an average of 2 degrees Celsius. The worst affected are those who already live in marginal landscapes: marshes and deserts and those who rely on monsoons that have become too erratic, too unpredictable.

The operative word there is “if.” Whereas the damage and deaths that the purely political “fixes” for AGW will result in is not a matter of “if.”

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote: These are tragic, unnecessary deaths.
As is the damage we are doing NOW.

But who is dying because of that alleged damage?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:If, and it is a very big if on my part, what AGW proponents say is true, how do they propose to deal with the very real damage and death that would result by a dramatic reduction in anthropogenic CO2 production?
That is for the world's governments to decide TOGETHER. But lets not get away from ourselves, you are still ignoring the science here.

And you are still ignoring the political and economic ramifications of AGW. It is one thing to say the sky is falling and we are doing it. It is quite another to address solutions to the problem that do not result in a world-wide economic calamity.

You say, we must do something, but how does one even begin to approach a 98% or 99% reduction in anthropogenic CO2? You say that is for politicians to decide, really? You trust politicians that much do you? Cap-and-trade in the US is just a scam designed to allow those with the money to defeat CO2 limitations while giving politicians massive new powers to control ALL industries in the country. Why nationalize industries when you can pretty much control everything they do in the name of AGW?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:We have yet to see how long term it will be.
Your point is moot. It is not socialism unless it was always the intention to systematically nationalise these industries for the specific intention of keeping them managed by the government.

Again, in this country, liberal politicians like Obama and his ilk cannot realize their ultimate ambitions in one fell swoop. Hell, they can’t even TALK about their ultimate ambitions before the American people. But that video I posted of Obama before a sympathetic union audience saying he wanted to nationalize health insurance proves that his intentions are clearly socialist, at least with respect to health insurance. And if his written and spoken record is actually examined, one would know that Obama would like nothing more than to remake America more in the socialist mold.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:It doesn’t, but it does expose Obama’s socialist agenda for our health care system.
You have yet to convince anybody else - aside from yourself and Tex - that this is socialist. There are Europeans here who have forms of socialised healthcare and we understand that Obamacare still does not come anywhere near the systems that we have.

As I’ve said, of course it doesn’t, there is no way on earth he could get something like that passed in America. Obamacare is a gradient step in the direction of socialized healthcare. He said so himself for crying out loud!

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:
dblboggie wrote:As I said above, the world runs on money. Whether we like it or not, money, trade, industry, all these make it possible for us to live indoors and eat. Of what good is it to say, we will save countless lives in the future by addressing AGW now, when the means of addressing it would kill countless lives through the destruction of world economies (or at least those world economies that get on board).
Uh-huh, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968

So the Dollar dropping against the Euro is going to kill people? Droughts kill people. Floods kill people. Hurricanes kill people. Monsoons kill people. Malaria kills people. Cholera kills people. Call me a doom monger if you like but we have seen these events happening as a result of climate change.

Who said anything about the dollar’s value??? Certainly not I.

Starvation because one does not have the wherewithal to buy food kills people. The inability of a society to afford the means to treat the very diseases you mention kills people. Hell, a society in economic shambles is far more susceptible to the spread of those very diseases. Where do you see this diseases the most? In countries with economies that are in a shambles, whose political structures and broken or so corrupted that law and order breaks down and economic activity is stunted or nearly non-existent – and THAT kills people. Having an economy that is so poor that people can’t afford living conditions not susceptible to destruction in monsoons kills people.

Destroy the worlds economies by forcing a drastic reduction in CO2 production, and if you thought that AGW was causing deaths now, the resultant world see a far, far more tragic escalation and increase in deaths.

This has nothing to do with the dollars value against anything. Your statement tries to paint this some kind of callous concern about money over lives. But you can’t have one without the other, unless you suggest we chuck civilization out the window completely and go back to being hunter/gatherers.

by **TexasBlue** Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:20 pm

I want to add something here just is just a point to be corrected.

Limbaugh is no racist nor is he a bigot. It' hard to be a bigot when he has a black man ( a well-known college professor no less) that hosts his show when he's on vacation.

Dumb comments? Sure. Certainly no bigot.

by dblboggie Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:16 pm

TexasBlue wrote:I want to add something here just is just a point to be corrected.

Limbaugh is no racist nor is he a bigot. It' hard to be a bigot when he has a black man ( a well-known college professor no less) that hosts his show when he's on vacation.

Dumb comments? Sure. Certainly no bigot.

Exactly... and don't forget Bo Snerdly... (aka: James Golden)... his call screener, producer, and engineer for the show, and the show's Official Criticizer of Barack Obama ("certified black enough to criticize")... Snicker

Snerdly/Golden is black... for those not in the know.

by **TexasBlue** Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:25 pm

See? I didn't even know that. Kinda blows the bigot label out of the water right there.

by **TexasBlue** Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:27 pm

Joy Behar Coming Unhinged - Page 4 T4BJuVox9fMs

The official "program observer" and call screener. His real name is James Golden, and he is an African-American. From comments Limbaugh has made on the air, it would seem he assists with research as part of preparation for the show and is in the control booth as the show is being broadcast. He co-hosted a Sunday night talk show, James and Joel, on WABC with Joel Santisteban from 1992 to 1998. Snerdley is a pseudonym Limbaugh invented for his call screeners in general, and several have been called so over the years, both male and female. During a show in 2004, Limbaugh was not at the microphone for the last segment of the second hour (it was only about ten seconds), and Snerdly came on instead: "This is Bo Snerdly, Rush will be right back on the EIB Network." It was one of the very rare times his voice has been heard on the program before 2008. "Bo" Snerdly screens callers at the Palm Beach Florida broadcasting location and in New York City. In February 2008, Snerdly was appointed by Limbaugh as the show's Official Criticizer of Barack Obama: "certified black enough to criticize" On the July 24th show, "Bo" was put on the air as the "Official Obama Criticizer", and spoke for roughly 5 minutes with Rush about the incident with Cambridge police.

by **TexasBlue** Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:28 pm

"certified black enough to criticize"

Can't call Golden a racist then can they?

by dblboggie Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:35 pm

TexasBlue wrote:
"certified black enough to criticize"

Can't call Golden a racist then can they?

nope... not a chance...

by The_Amber_Spyglass Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:49 pm

dblboggie wrote:And you believe everything you read on the interweb?

Not at all. I cross referenced both of those to make sure that the references stacked up.

dblboggie wrote:So yeah, he said that as part of "insult-radio" gig some 30 years ago, but as you can see, it is not something he is proud of. I wonder if you might dig up something a little more current?

I never accused him of being a racist, I accused him of being a bigot. Whereas a racist is a bigot, a bigot is not always a racist. A Shia Muslim who calls a Sufi a heretic is a bigot, but not a racist. That "bone in your nose" comment could have many meanings, including the idea that she was from a country less "civilised" than the US. His sweeping generalisations about all leftists makes him a bigot.

dblboggie wrote:As for the protesters, which protesters was he talking about? Could it possibly be one of those riotous mobs that seems to appear at any gathering of the G-20, or the WTO and so on? You know, the ones carrying signs that blatantly state that they are the very things he stated? You know, the crowds bused in by groups like the American Communist Party, the Workers World Party and other socialist/communist organizations?

To make a sweeping generalisation about a certain group being "commies" and deliberately using "communists", "socialists" and "liberals" interchangeably because you fundamentally disagree with them is bigoted. And when that is designed to get a negative emotive response from your listeners, then you are playing a very dangerous game indeed. His insistence that there is some great liberal conspiracy being climate change that has been invented by the international academic community (and calling them environmental wackos) specifically to destroy your country is incredibly small minded. And yes, he still does insist that CFCs are harmless. Hey Rush, turns out there is some crackpot in Italy claiming that the sun is the centre of the solar system.

dblboggie wrote:It is up and running now.

You got to give me time. I have 45,000 of your posts to trawl through. Snicker

dblboggie wrote:Actually, I stand by my characterization of Obama, and say it is right on the mark.

Not really my point. Seeing as conservatives like to claim the moral high ground, why can't you be more adult about it?

dblboggie wrote:Let me clarify, liberal politicians have a very definite agenda. American’s at large, who self identify as “liberal” could not be said to fall in the same category as liberal politicians. I have liberal friends in fact. None that I have spoken to have an “agenda” per se.

And conservative politicians don't have an agenda? Seriously, are you really so naive that you think that the Democrats only motivation is to destroy your country?!

dblboggie wrote:This concept of rights coming with responsibilities is being used a justification for forced charity – which is neither charitable nor responsible when overseen by less than scrupulous politicians as it is here in America.

Not really my point either.

dblboggie wrote:There is a huge body of private charitable organizations in America in every state of the union. There are entire hospitals, large and very reputable ones that charge no fees to those who cannot afford to pay. There are local charities in nearly every city, and in every city, there are churches which offer charitable services of all kinds. And ALL of these are voluntarily supported the citizens of the United States with donations of money, labor and capital. We do not need to be lectured on what responsibilities come with what rights. American’s are some of the most charitable people on earth in terms of their time and money.

And there are problems with the blind giving of charity, but that will have to be saved for another thread.

dblboggie wrote:You mischaracterize my actual argument on that by leaving out great swathes of my position on this and the characters and forces involved. You reduce it to a cartoonish version of my actual argument by gutting that argument as above.

But you have said just that! You use "MYTH" and "SCAM" in the same sentence (including all caps) to excuse and the next sentence usually contains the terms "unconstitutional" and "DESTROY FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

dblboggie wrote:3% is 3%. When did science become “consensus” oriented?

Erm... since that consensus is based on understanding of the problem and reading the data, the papers and the methodology and the fact that the evidence is overwhelming, consensus counts for everything. Amongst the public it counts for nothing but in the academic community, it means everything until somebody can blow it all open again.

dblboggie wrote:And yes, I know your argument on this as well. But for me, 3% is still 3%, and you cannot say that they “do not understand the science.”

Of course they do but you do not (by your own admission). And the fact that you ignore what the 97% are saying and champion the 3% shows you up for the cherrypicker. Basically you are accepting a premise you do not understand that is argued by 3% of active climate researchers only because it is convenient to your political ideology.

dblboggie wrote:And who is dying because of this alleged damage?

Do you have such little regard for human life that you want people to start dying until you will see it as a problem?

But seeing as this summer there were wildfires in Russia, at the same time floods in Pakistan and mudslides in China and these disasters are becoming more erratic, more severe and the fact that climate scientists predicted this as early as the 1970s, you already have your deaths. Ongoing problems include the acidification of the oceans killing species (food source), the dramatic year on year loss of honeybee populations (whom we rely on for 40% of our food supply), droughts and flooding are become more severe, are as monsoons.

dblboggie wrote:The operative word there is “if.” Whereas the damage and deaths that the purely political “fixes” for AGW will result in is not a matter of “if.”

Deaths over the last few years caused by increasingly erratic seasonal weather has already killed people. Damaging our food supply is killing people and more people are going to die. dblboggie... WE CAN'T EAT MONEY.

dblboggie wrote:And you are still ignoring the political and economic ramifications of AGW. It is one thing to say the sky is falling and we are doing it. It is quite another to address solutions to the problem that do not result in a world-wide economic calamity.

Until you address the science there is no point tackling the politics of solving the problem.

dblboggie wrote:Again, in this country, liberal politicians like Obama and his ilk cannot realize their ultimate ambitions in one fell swoop. Hell, they can’t even TALK about their ultimate ambitions before the American people. But that video I posted of Obama before a sympathetic union audience saying he wanted to nationalize health insurance proves that his intentions are clearly socialist, at least with respect to health insurance. And if his written and spoken record is actually examined, one would know that Obama would like nothing more than to remake America more in the socialist mold.

And still you wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent socialism :fdh:

dblboggie wrote:Starvation because one does not have the wherewithal to buy food kills people. The inability of a society to afford the means to treat the very diseases you mention kills people. Hell, a society in economic shambles is far more susceptible to the spread of those very diseases. Where do you see this diseases the most? In countries with economies that are in a shambles, whose political structures and broken or so corrupted that law and order breaks down and economic activity is stunted or nearly non-existent – and THAT kills people. Having an economy that is so poor that people can’t afford living conditions not susceptible to destruction in monsoons kills people.

So you just want to patch up the cracks as they appear? Those cracks are going to get bigger and eventually, the gaffer-tape approach you are suggesting will no longer be held together and it all comes tumbling down.

You need to read this: https://superiorpolitics.forumotion.com/science-f4/the-major-stumbling-block-to-educating-the-public-about-climate-change-t931.htm

And this: https://superiorpolitics.forumotion.com/science-f4/climate-change-are-you-willing-to-take-the-risk-t978.htm#7117

dblboggie wrote:This has nothing to do with the dollars value against anything. Your statement tries to paint this some kind of callous concern about money over lives. But you can’t have one without the other, unless you suggest we chuck civilization out the window completely and go back to being hunter/gatherers.

Straw man.

by Sponsored content