Based on the things people are saying, I’m pretty sure most of you don’t even know what socialism is.
It always amazes me how many uneducated people think their opinions matter over things that they don’t understand.
Go read some Marx, and take some history classes; then come back and we’ll have a better conversation about this.
Your argument for those facts are that you think my sources aren't credible? People like you make me laugh.
Just out of curiosity, what is your education level? Newsmax is not an unbiased scholarly scientific source. Newsmax is a very politically biased "conservative" propaganda source. I know. I used to be a "conservative" when I was young and uneducated, and I trusted Newsmax. Now I know that the words of scientists are more credible than the words of propagandists and spinmasters who have no education in science.
-Go ahead and look up ClimateGate. There will be multiple sources so you can go ahead and pick the most credible, in your opinion. My source for that is The Wall Street Journal.
There are plenty of places on the internet that say the Holocaust didn't happen too, but that doesn't mean they are credible and written by historians.
Climategate. Okay, so we're back to you claiming that science is a global conspiracy. I am well-versed in this nonsense. The Wallstreet Journal is not a scientific source. It is a great place to go for information on stocks, and capitalistic activities, but not science.
-There are plenty of credible people who know that global warming is not caused my human actions. The definition of global warming is the increase in the earth's temperature that, according to most scientists, is occurring as a result of the carbon dioxide that is produced when fossil fuels are burned collecting in the atmosphere and trapping energy from the sun. That's a definition straight from a textbook. Notice how is says MOST SCIENTISTS, not all. Not all scientists agree with you and to say that all scientists think that we cause global warming is ignorant. There are plenty of scientists who say that we ARE NOT the cause.
You're right. There are people, like YOU (people without an education, who don't understand science) that deny science, but actual scientists (98% and growing) don't deny science. You would have to deny fundamental basics of science to deny that global warming is caused by people, which you are doing. This is not a debate to people who understand how science works. It's only a debate for people like you.
There are hardly any recently written peer-reveiwed journals that deny science. Sure, you can find Newsmax, Wallstreet Journal, and Fox News Entertainment, but NASA, NOAA, IPCC, ANY .edu, ANY research University around the world, supports that science is real.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about: between November 2012, and December 2013, there were 2259 peer-reviewed articles written by 9136 scientists (people who understand science), and only 1 denied science. This isn't a 50/50 debate that could go either way. It's actually 99.0009/0.0001. So, by "plenty of scientists," you mean 1 in 9136.
Only people who don't understand science or people who want to fool you into denying science to give more liberty to oil companies that are causing this, want you to think this is even debatable.
-The fact that over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that humans are not the cause of global warming can't be denied. Go ahead and google it for yourself if you still don't believe me.
Do you know how many scientists exist in the world? That's nothing. According to CIA Factbook and AAAS, there are 5.8 MILLION scientists in the world. I'm going to assume you're telling me the truth (even though not everything on the internet is true, as I've shown), so let's get the percentage of "scientists" that deny science (being paid by big oil), versus the scientist who understand science let's see: 31,000/5,800,000=.00534483 OR .5%
So, good for you! You have .5% of the world's scientists on your side, and I have everyone else.
-You're telling me that I don't understand the basic fundamentals of science, but you're ignoring the facts that I'm stating about specific heat.
That's because you don't understand basic fundamentals about science. You said that the only way our atmosphere can trap heat, is if we had a glass bubble around it, and, since I've taken science classes and astronomy classes at the University Level, I can tell you how it actually works, and you're wrong on a very fundamental level. If the greenhouse effect didn't exist, our planet wouldn't be habitable because of the natural amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by our active geology!
-I never even mentioned anything about gravity because that's not the main focus here.
Gravity is important to understanding why we have an atmosphere.
All you're doing is taking what I said, twisting it, and then saying something irrelevant.
No. I'm bringing up very relevant scientific facts that are necessary to explaining how this all works. You're just ignoring it because it's more important to you that you believe what the "conservative" party line is, than the truth.
While doing all of this, you fail to actually prove me wrong of anything.
I've proven your wrong repeatedly using scientific facts. You've used politically biased websites, and non-scientific sources to refute me.
Back to what I was saying, the little amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere cannot do a thing.
You say this as if it were a fact, but you do not have a PhD in science, and don't even understand how the atmosphere works! What you should have said is, "I don't think the little amount of CO2 in our atmosphere can do a thing, but I'm not a scientist, and I'm still learning basics about science."
-If you're going to say that carbon dioxide is harmful, then explain to me how water vapor hasn't killed us by now.
Well, for one, they are chemically different. One is CO2, and the other is H2O. Go have a gander at a periodic table.
WATER VAPOR is the thing to worry about, NOT carbon dioxide.
This makes no sense, scientifically.
-I have not mentioned anything even remotely relevant to politics. All I'm doing is simply giving you the scientific facts, which you can't seem to comprehend.
I find it strange that you say that, and use sources like NEWSMAX, ClimateGate, a tiny amount of scientists who were paid by big oil, and other non-scientific sources to refute scientific facts. For someone who hasn't brought up politics, you're keeping awfully close to the GOP's party line.
-The fact that you're denying me on how the temperature of earth has not changed and the polar ice caps are increasing just means that you are living proof of someone who fell into the propaganda.
The Average Global Temperature of the earth HAS changed (increased) since the 1890s. Any credible scientific source will show you this. I WILL NOT deny facts. You can, if you want. If by "propaganda" you mean, "educated to facts and science," then you're right.
Do. The. Research.
You mean like, hang out with people with PhDs in Science and take lots of University Level classes in science, and read peer-reviewed articles written by scientific experts? Yeah. I already do that.
-You're treating scientists like they are gods. Whatever they have to say, you aimlessly follow them and what they say.
No, not really. I just know that they have more education about science and more expertise in science because that's what they do for a living. I am not arrogant enough to think that I know more about science than someone who has a PhD, and decades of research under their belts.
It's not that scientists are gods, they just know more about science than I do, and I know more about science than most uneducated people do. The logic, evidence, and facts behind anthropogenic global warming is really solid, and if you bothered learning about it, you'd see what I'm talking about. You aren't more open-minded than me, you are just denying facts. If you want to talk about who's more open-minded, I used to deny science too, but now that I've seen the evidence, and truth behind the scientific explanation, I've changed my mind because I realized it would be stupid not to.
It's like this: if you took your car to a shop, and every single mechanic in the shop said that your wheel bearings are going bad, and you have no understanding of how cars work, would you defer to the trained car mechanics who have decades of experience? Or would you, someone who doesn't know how cars work at all, and have never gotten under one, going to argue and tell them that they don't know what they're talking about?
-Call me a conservative, call me a liberal, call me a republican, call me a democrat, call me whatever you want. I don't believe something just because the politicians said it was true.
Good, then we're on the same page: trust scientists about science over politicians and political spin-doctors.
I'm not like you. I'm an individual who did the research myself. You should try it sometime.
I not only did the research (which is why I changed my mind), I also have the education to be able to evaluate sources; you should try it sometime.
Now that you've gotten into ad hominem attacks, can you get back to trying to make claims about science, so we can stick to facts?
Just because there's a website on the internet that tells you something doesn't mean it's true. There are websites devoted to the Holocaust being a global Jewish Conspiracy, but any reputable historian would tell you the Holocaust actually happened. Likewise, as there are a few websites and .5% of "scientists (on the payroll of big oil)" in the world that deny global warming, doesn't mean it's the truth. Science is not a "liberal" conspiracy.
Science, as a discipline, is actually open to being proven wrong, but so far, the attempts at proving science wrong have been refuted. Scientists need evidence for a theory to be scrapped, and so far, nothing any of these "scientists" have brought to the table, has disproven anything, and if you think you, someone who just has google, knows as much about science as an actual scientists with a PhD and decades of research, you're wrong. Truth is not subjective, especially in science.
If you can not see the facts of how the Media is liberal biased, then you must live in a hole.
SOME media, like MSNBC has a "liberal" bias. Not all media does; some has a "conservative" bias. That is just the facts. I do not live in a hole, I just have an education, and can think critically, and see things in light of objectivity.
I thought you were smart enough not to have to have me give you example after example of how the Liberal media buries stories that hurt the Democrat agenda.
I am sure that a MSNBC has done things in the past that hurt the Democrat agenda. I don't know. I don't watch 24 hour news cycles from political propaganda channels. I can tell you that not all mediums are politically polarized one way or the other.
Are you aware that there are information sources out there that are not garbage, actually report news, and don't put overt spin on the stories? They exist. Not all media is left/right biased. You can also do what I do, and go look things up for yourself.
If you truly are that ignorant then here is an obvious one ok?
I have a much higher level of education than you have, so if I am ignorant, then what does that make you?
Jonathan Gruber! You've heard of him right? Maybe not because other than Fox news the Liberal media refuses to play up that huge story of how the Democrats lied to the American people to get Obamacare passed.
Well, here's something from ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/
Is ABC a "liberal" media outlet to you? LOL
Do you remember when those Black men made racists comments & killed that Australian Basketball player? The media buried that story also.
Well, not really. That story was on my local news, which is owned by Fox.
First of all, black men cannot be racist, as I'm sure you've read in my comments when I explained what racism is. They can be racially prejudiced, but not racist because racism is a system that awards advantage and disadvantage.
Secondly, why do you like talking about how "dangerous" black men are? Remember when you told me that I had to be afraid of black people with hammers?
The media choose to hardly mention a story that hurts Democrats are they sensationalize it every day for weeks if it hurts Republicans.
There are an awful lot of stories on the news that criticize the Obama Administration. I get them on NPR all the time. Is NPR a right wing medium?
Have you noticed how the Liberal media keep the boring old news story of Bill Cosby's rape allegations going non stop day after day?
The corporate for-profit media corporations sell the story that gets ratings. Americans love their celebrities, and they love when they fall from grace. That's actually really capitalist to do that.
When was the last time you heard the Liberal media bring up Bill Clinton's rape allegations when he was Governor?
A lot when it was actually relevant. Why would they keep talking about something that is no longer relevant anymore? That would belong on the history channel, at this point. Bill Clinton's sexual escapades were almost constantly talked about when he was President; you should know that.
I could go on forever but why waste my time.
You're not wasting your time.
Facts mean nothing to you because you will just excuse them away.
Facts are actually what drives me in forming my opinion, not values. So, that's false. If you notice, I am the one presenting you with facts, which you don't even deny, you just avoid and call me names.
I don't "excuse" anything. If you notice, I showed you a link to a "liberal media" website that reported a story you denied it reported. So...that means you're wrong on that point. The rest of those, I used fact and/or logic.
Why I've wasted this much time makes me the fool.
That's not what makes you the fool. Denying facts and insulting people does that.
For every bad story put out by Fox, I could find you 20 stories put out on all the Liberal biased news network.
Fox News Entertainment does not report stories. They have pundit commentary shows that present a right wing argument in light of what happened in the story.
So, let's take Ferguson for example. Fox News Entertainment did not solely tell the who, what, when, why, where, and how. Rather, they spun the story to create a right/left false dichotomy. It goes back to, why wasn't Fox News Entertainment concerned about the suppression of the 1st Amendment?
That is exactly why I don't watch corporate 24 media cycles. They are bullshit, and politically-charged nonsense. For every accusation you levy on the so-called "liberal media," you can say the EXACT same thing about Fox News Entertainment. The thing is, FW, there is only ONE TRUTH. If you think Fox News Entertainment is the only channel in which professional political pundits tell the truth (that would be the first time for that in the history of the world), you are doing exactly what your corporate masters want you to do. Good boy!
The Liberal media controls the people's minds by only reporting on stories that hurt the GOP or help the Democrats.
That's what the "conservative" media does. If you deny that, you're out of touch with the nature of reality in a polarized political culture where for-profit companies compete for ratings.
CBS was censoring journalist Cheryl Atkinson's news when it hurt Obama and the Benghazi lies, etc.
Censorship comes from the government. Corporations are not the government. CBS decides what CBS airs. If they think brining up right wing propaganda and lies is bad for ratings, they won't let him on their station. For better or for worse, that's the nature of for-profit media. I can't say I agree with it, but that's how it is.
FW, please just stop talking to Elvira. You are perpetuating the negative stereotype that people have for Americans: we are stupid, we are barbaric, we are uneducated, we are superstitious, we are racist, and we are backwards. That stereotype exists for a reason, please do not make it worse.
We have MEDICAID for those who can not afford going to doctor or hospital.
That's only because of the ACA. My wife, who is low income could never have access to healthcare before the ACA. If she could begin to afford it, she would be charged a higher price for being a woman--another thing the ACA fixed about out "healthcare system."
We realize that Government screws up and bankrupts everything it touches.
LOL, like the military? Like the roads? Like the fire departments? Like the libraries? "We" don't realize your claim. We realize that if the USA wants to do something, and we fund it properly, it will be the best in the world. Remember when we used to value education? We had the best education system in the world, and it was publicly funded.
We are 18 trillion in debt and those who want the low income vote pander to them with tax payer dollars while our nation is going bankrupt.
If the corporate community actually performed a function in society, there wouldn't be as many people in need of government assistance.
Keep your socialism over in your nation please.
You don't know what socialism means. The military, the road, the library, the FAA, the FDA, Social Security, MEDICAID, public education, the fire department, and the justice system are all socialism. All of those things were privatized at one point, and they were horrible when done for profit.
Please learn what socialism is before you go railing against it. You would not benefit from less socialism. In fact, healthcare would be cheaper FOR YOU if we had a universal healthcare system like EVERY DEVELOPED COUNTRY HAS. We are ranked 37th in the world in terms of healthcare by the World Health Organization.
We don't want it.
We don't? I would love for every American to have access to free healthcare. The developed world has that, and they have a much better quality healthcare system than we have.
The people are what made America great, not big Government.
That's funny. Our middle class grew out of the New Deal and WW2, both of which were a period of "big government." If you had an education, you'd know that.
FW, calling someone a liar does nothing to prove them wrong or convince them that you are right. You need to used facts. I don't think you can find many facts to prove your argument though, because your argument is based on falsehoods and partisan rhetoric; it is not based on facts. I have no reason to think it is based on facts because you never use them. Moreover, I am more educated and well-read than you, and thus more privy to the nature of reality, and I know that you're wrong beyond that.
Well gee, what a shock.... another blatant anti Fox attack without one example to prove your point.
You are my example to prove my point. I actually used you as my example. I also used their programming as an example. Did you read what I wrote?
I always give many examples explaining my stance.
You never use any facts. You use claims. You use opinions. You use slogans. Claims, opinions, and slogans are not facts. A "stance" has nothing to do with the truth of reality, especially your "stance."
Tell me where Fox has lied about some issue.
Well, for one the full blind support of the two phony wars Bush and Cheney started (that I fought in). For another, the pundits on Fox News Entertainment deny scientific facts. Mostly, though, what Fox News Entertainment does though, is distort and obfuscate. Fox News Entertainment does the EXACT things that you accuse MSNBC of doing (and they DO do it, so you're right on that): present facts in a biased, politically-charged manner so to mislead the viewer. Pundits do not exist to inform. They exist to mislead and convince. THAT is my problem with Fox News Entertainment and MSNBC: they aren't news. They are political pundit shows meant to mislead the viewer into blindly accepting a party line, like you. The "conservative" line, is to support the present power structure and status quo; thus, my claim that FNE is just another chapter of aristocrats selling a false consciousness to the peasants is EXACTLY right.
All I have seen is Fox proving the lies of Obama's Obamacare & the lies from his administration scandal after scandal.
Many of those "scandals" were created by Fox News Entertainment to fool people like you, or they were portrayed falsely to fool people like you, and it worked. I can give you examples of this, if you'd like.
Please use facts. That is all I ask. That's what debating is. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it is true. In fact, as I've shown you, it isn't true most of the time. Unfortunately, your education level does not allow you to think critically, I conjecture.
Here's the thing FW, just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true objectively. That's where using facts come in. You can't change my mind using pundit talking points that you were spoon-fed. I need facts to change my mind. Abstract claims and opinions are not facts. Facts are facts. If you can present me with facts from a credible unbiased source, we'd have a discussion. Can you please stop being such a chickenshit and debate with me? It looks like I've got you cornered almost every time we debate because I used facts, and you ignore them, and retaliate by calling me names, like a five year old on a playground.
There is no debating indoctrinated fools!
Tell me about it.
No matter what I say you will deny it.
I won't deny something that is true and fact-based. We haven't even gotten to the part where you try to use facts to dispute the facts or points I raise (which is how debating works).
For example: in your attempt to deny that Separation of Church and State is real (which it is), I presented you with two historical facts that are supported by primary historical sources from two founders of this country. Instead of disputing those facts, you just called me names--that is not debating. If you'd used logic or facts to attempt to dispute me, we'd be debating. Name-calling is not debating. Why do you not understand that?
I've presented you with tons of facts, and you've just avoided them, and called me names. How "Christian" of you.
What person with an IQ more than ten does not know that Democrats play the race game PURELY for the Black vote.
Do you have any evidence to support this? Probably not. This would be a good time to have some facts from a credible unbiased source to support your argument. Anyone with an IQ higher than 10 knows that.
What person does not know the media is mostly Liberally biased other than Fox news who uses the blatant Left bias to their advantage by speaking on behalf of the vast majority of Conservative and moderate thinking people in this nation.
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT MEDIA BIAS, IT'S ABOUT FERGUSON.
Fox News Entertainment isn't news; it's extreme right wing police pundit shows. Most of our media is run by for-profit corporations who are out to make money. The only truly "liberal" media outlet is MSNBC, who nakedly do the same thing Fox News Entertainment does. The rest are just selling stories, and don't have a bias except for that which sells, and that leads to sensationalism.
If you had an intelligence worth debating you would say things like..... yes I agree the media is mostly Liberal leaning & I agree Democrats use race as an election strategy (regardless the harm it does to this nation's race relations).
So wait, you think that your opinions are the 100% truth, and anyone who disagrees with you (especially ones with much higher levels of education than you), are less intelligent? That's argumentum ad hominem. Can you please provide evidence?
And then you would explain why you ignore those facts and still vote for these corrupt liars.
I don't ignore any facts. YOU are the one ignoring facts on this debate website. I promise you that if you presented me with facts, I would address them. I address all your partisan rhetoric with facts, essentially taking the high road and not getting into the dirt with you.
But no, you sit there and deny the obvious and try to explain how it is the GOP's fault for all these issues.
I'm not the one denying the obvious. As with my example of your denial of the Separation of Church and State, I've presented you with obvious facts that can be looked up (I'd be glad to give you links, if you ever asked for them), and you just "denied the obvious" and called me names or changed the subject. Are you that afraid of the objective truth?
I refuse to debate that ideological irrational denial.
I am not the one with irrational ideological denial, you are. You aren't even using facts to support your argument, and I think it's because facts do not support your argument. You believe in falsehoods, actually, and cling to them as if they are your life raft in a sea of facts.
Not so much lie, but obfuscate, divert, give the party line, and offer political entertainment to "conservatives." It isn't news. It's entertainment. There are no news segments. It's all pundit shows.
Sadly, calling what they do "news" makes people like FromWithin, think it's journalism and information. It's really just "conservative" propaganda in an attempt to fool working class, uneducated people, like FromWithin, into thinking the interests of the aristocracy are also his interests.
Institutions like Fox News Entertainment have been around for millennia. Their job is to keep the peasants believing the power structure is good for them, when they do not benefit from the power structure. In the Middle Ages, it was the clergy, for example, that told the peasants that God put the King on the throne, and that peasants were further down the chain of being by divine mandate, and people, like FromWithin believed it, and if you questioned it, like Gallileo, you would be turned over to the authorities by the peasants that bought what the clergy said.
Please try using facts and addressing my claims. You seem to really suck at that; it makes your cause look uneducated (something you've actually taken pride in) and stupid.
Don't bother responding to me because there is nothing you could ever say that would change the truth of what's going on in this nation.
If you notice, I am using FACTS in my arguments; I am not using partisan rhetoric and treating it as though it were facts, which is what you are doing.
As long as there are people like you spreading the message of fascism and racism, I will ALWAYS stand against you, and resist in by any means necessary.
Facts are what reality is made of. So, my argument is actually based on the reality of what's going on in the nation; your argument is just parroting what pundits (pundits that support the power structure) spoon feed you.
I have lived life & have seen the results to every fear I've had for decades
I have probably done more in my life than you have, and I am 32 years old. Having been alive does not mean you have an education or can think critically. Is this an attempt to appeal to authority?
I see the big picture and you talk about irrelevant isolated examples of racism, the Rich and the poor, etc. etc.
On the contrary, I am talking about the big picture, and your argument boils down to small isolated incidences. I am talking about big picture systemic problems like racism; you're talking about personal responsibility. Did you bother reading what i wrote?
he lie of Separation of Church and state has been a horrendous cause of the broken families & swollen welfare roles. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!
First of all, this is totally irrelevant, but...
Are you aware that when you call Separation of Church and State a "lie," you are effectively calling the founders of this nation liars too? They are the ones that coined it, not your contemporaries. It was first mentioned by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. You would also be calling John Adams a liar when he said, "the United States is in no way a Christian Nation."
Separation of Church and State is not a lie, it's an Enlightenment principle, and that is a historical fact. You can call it a lie, but truth is universal; you are on the wrong side of the truth.
Since Separation of Church and State has been part of our national identity since the 18th century, I don't know how you can say it had anything to do with welfare lines.
SHOW ME PROOF THAT I AM LYING FROM A CREDIBLE UNBIASED SOURCE.
The Democratic Party has moved to a closet Socialist Party and has done everything in it's power to create a welfare culture in this nation.
This is totally irrelevant, but...
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Do you know what Socialism is?
They punish the tax payer & reward the non tax payer all for sake of getting their vote. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!
This is irrelevant, but...
I doubt it. Provide me with evidence.
Taxation is the dues citizens pay for civilization, and they've existed since the dawn of civilization. You get more in return for your tax dollars than you pay in; that is an actual fact. Progressive taxation is something the Ancient Athenians invented.
Funny how you say your not a Democrat but CONSTANTLY rant against the so called extreme right while never saying anything against these extreme Left politicians I speak of.
The extreme right is more of a threat to my interests, my liberty, and my nation at-large, than the left is. So, until the left starts talking about cutting my VA benefits, starting pointless wars for profit, denying science, denying that racism exists, and denying historical facts (like you do almost constantly), I will always stand against fascism. Right wing politics do not represent my interests or the interests of the working class who create the wealth of this nation.
Just because I am not a Democrat, doesn't mean I don't support many of the same things the Democrats do. It's just that I realize that partisan thinking stifles critical thinking, and I don't want to have any part of it. If the Republicans can come up with an idea that actually works for working class people, I might actually support them, but they are so irrelevant to reality, that I just can't support it.
You are part of the problem in this nation never taking a stand against the Liberal media or Liberal Democrats who constantly play the Race game to get votes.
Argumentum ad poplam, please provide evidence. I support the first amendment right to a free press, so I will not take a stand against ANY media. I might call some things stupid, like Fox News Entertainment, and MSNBC for being more interested in partisan thinking than reporting facts, but I always support the First Amendment. If you're against the First Amendment, you should go some place where they have no Bill of Rights.
Don't waste my time, there is nothing I could ever say that you would not refute with the same old tired Democrat rhetoric.
I am not a Democrat you fucking idiot. You are the one using partisan rhetoric. I am using facts against you. Why can't you see that?
Why is it so hard for you to understand that there are more ways of looking at things than Republican or Democrat? You can be a free thinker and base your opinions on objective facts, like I do.
Could you please address any of the points I raised? Avoiding addressing my points makes it appear to other people that I am running circles around you and you cannot keep up, or that I am making you so angry that you are irrational and are reduced to reciting bumpersticker slogans. Stop that. Read what I write, and take your time and formulate a response that uses evidence to address the points I raise using credible unbiased sources. I know you can understand this concept. Try actually debating; this is not an insult (personal insults are more your style). I believe you can do it.
You FOOL
Argumentum ad hominem. Please provide evidence.
yes you did bring up assault rifles & the Right fighting to keep our gun rights.
Okay. Did you read what I wrote? Or did you just see that I mentioned AR-15, and assume I said anything about taking your "gun rights?"
FW, please take the time to read what I write, and address the points I make using actual fact-based evidence, and/or logic. You are on a debate website; you are doing it wrong.
Any idiot can do what you are doing; I already know the extreme right wing party line. So, please use facts and evidence (not just partisan rhetoric, or ad hominem fallacies) to address the points I raise.
YOU HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO DISPROVE ANY OF THE POINTS I'VE RASIED!
(did you read that, now that I typed it in all caps?)
FromWithin, did you even bother reading anything I wrote? In this..fascinating diatribe, you never once addressed a SINGLE point I raised. Not once. Debating is not ranting. You are supposed to address your opponent's points using evidence, which, you did not use at all in any measure. Please, when I am responding to your...interesting rants, you at least address my points. That is, after all, how debating works. Otherwise, I am giving you well thought-out responses that are fact-based, and you just rant about something that probably isn't true.
You just spewed complete garbage as does every good little Democrat.
For the hundredth time, I am NOT a Democrat. I've told you that numerous times. However, your racist right wing ranting is making me want to go join the Democratic Party, because you are not a commercial for a Republican Party that I would want to give a second thought to.
We've already had black on white murders like with OJ Simpson where OJ was found innocent.
What does that have to do with anything in this conversation?
Hmmm, I forget... when did White people riot in the streets?
You just said EXACTLY what I identified as overtly racist sentiment from the right wing. You are racist.
There are many examples of Black on White murders and it is funny how Fox news does not incite riots spewing complete lies of how all Black people are racists.
Fox News Entertainment doesn't need to. White people have a voice in our society.
Fools like you condone that kind of sick irresponsible journalism.
I do not condone ANY kind of biased journalism. I like the truth. You just put words in my mouth that I would have never put there myself.
Only fools keep talking bout Assault rifles when in fact more people are killed by hammers than by assault rifles every year.
This is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I am well aware of the statistics. Thank you for...bringing up an irrelevant partisan talking point though!
But don't let that stop your mindless rants against Gun rights.
Are you out of your mind? I've NEVER ranted about "gun rights," particularly in a "mindless" manner. Especially on this thread, and if you bothered reading anything I wrote, you'd know that.
In NY state, Democrats passed the so called safe act (safe for criminals) where any hunting rifle that holds 10 or more rounds is illegal
This thread is about Ferguson, not NY State's gun laws you fucking idiot!
Fools actually swallow the lies from Democrats about so called assault rifles.
This thread is about Ferguson, not NY State's gun laws you fucking idiot!
Did you hear about those Black men who killed a white man with hammers? Gee, why is that not all over the news? Can you even grasp your clinical hypocrisy?
What in the hell are you talking about? Give me the race-bating right wing source that tells this narrative about black men going around randomly attacking innocent white people with hammers.
The responses to this argument are so typical of Democrats brainwashed by a Liberal media.
By "Democrats" brainwashed by the so liberal media," you mean educated people who actually read the court documents which are public record that were given to the grand jury. I am pretty sure you did not read the actual public documents, so, in a sense, you're acting more like a "Republican brainwashed by the 'conservative' media."
It truly is sad listening to the new age lynch mob.
What is this in reference to? What is a "new age lynch mob?"
Remember when we truly had rampant racism in this nation, when an angry mob would want to lynch a Black man for something before any evidence was even put forth.
We still have rampant racism, it just exists in a different form. Now it exists in a covert, systemic form; if you weren't white and middle class, if wouldn't take a college degree to see that because you'd see it every day.
So, let's talk about this for a moment:
If you look at our society at-large for a moment, consider the demographic make-up of our society. Our top 1% aristocrats are almost entirely white anglo-saxon protestants. That's just a fact. Likewise, if you look at our poorest people, they are overwhelmingly NOT white.
Why is that? Well, if you insinuate that "it's because they're lazy and stupid," you just tacitly implied that non-whites are racially pre-disposed to being lazy and stupid, and you're part of the problem. The truth is, people of color do not have the same opportunities in our society. There are systemic issues in place that perpetuate this system of racial hierarchy; many of them are things you might even participate in, but you don't even know they are racist systems because you are white and you benefit from them. Some of these systems are as simple as hiring managers promoting from within and systems of nepotism where people hire people they know (and most of the time, white people hang out with other white people; it can be as simple as that).
Class, as I mentioned, is another important component to this. Since the vast majority of our society's underclass are non-whites, we have ghettoization of non-white neighborhoods. In those neighborhoods, particularly when the neighborhood is being gentrified by typically white real estate investors, there are laws that target poor ethnic minorities and the police harass those people. It is a known fact of sociology (ANY sociologist will tell you this) that ethnic minorities and poor people (who are more-often-than-not non-whites) are harassed by the police far more than middle class white people are.
So, for example, I am from Sacramento. In West Sacramento, there are stop-and-frisk laws. So, the police, in west Sac can stop you and frisk you. Most of the people who do not own cars in West Sac, are poor people. Okay. We know that most poor people aren't white. Okay. So more-than-likely-than-not, the people who are walking around in West Sac are not white, and those are the people that get stopped-and-frisked (a violation of the 4th Amendment, but they're black, and you're a Republican, so you don't care). When stopped and frisked, since poor people are more likely to be harassed by the police, there's a good chance that the citizen may be on probation, or (since poor people have less access to the the same things middle class whites do) drugs or weapons (since they live in a dangerous neighborhood). So, while these laws are not overtly racist like the Chinese Exclusion act, they still target ethnic minorities in practice.
So, racism is still very much alive in our society. It is especially obvious when middle class white Republicans like you post things on Facebook about how during the looting "no work boots were stolen (implying non-whites are lazy), or "when OJ was acquitted, white people didn't riot (implying white people are more 'civilized)." I've seen lots of both of those, and both suggest racism--the overt kind.
It is scary what you are doing.
It's scary what YOU'RE doing. You're denying that racism exists, when it does. While people like you, the ones that benefit from the oppression, deny that there is oppression, it will continue.
Before you say, "there is no oppression," there is. Sociologists call the system of racism we have in this country, "white privilege." It is very real. I even benefit from it even though I hate it.
You are bringing back an America of division & racial tension.
Well, America has never not been an America of division and racial tension.
You are truly ignorant racists who judge any white man who kills a Black man in self defense.
You misused the word "racism." Racism is a system of advantage or disadvantage based on real or perceived ethnic or biological differences. Racism doesn't go back up agains the direction of oppression. It only goes down the ladder of oppression.
That's not to say black people cannot be racially prejudiced or hate people based on their skin color, but those are called prejudice, or discrimination. Racism is a system that you benefit from as a middle class white person. Black people don't use their skin color to hold you down; racism doesn't work that way.
Moreover, I suggest you consider how many options police have to their gun. They have tazers, mace, batons, pepper spray, and skills in unarmed combat. That cop had options, but he killed that unarmed citizen by shooting him seven times.
Don't you think it's just a little bit weird that you claim to hate the government until a militarized police force denies first amendment rights and kills unarmed citizens? The cop is white and middle class. He is your people. All that "uphold the constitution" shit you say on here just went out the window.
It also happens against unarmed white men, but you could care less when it happens against Whites.
No, I care a lot. However, that is simply an issue of police brutality, and it happens less than it happens to ethnic minorities. When unarmed white people are shot by the police, it's an issue of class. As I said, a disproportionally high amount of poor people aren't white, but there ARE white people that live in crappy neighborhoods who also get targeted by the police.
The significance of what happened to Mr. Brown is that it's a flashpoint for a larger issue. If you weren't a middle class white guy, you'd see what I'm talking about. I don't blame you for seeing the world from where you are, because as someone once said, "men make their own histories, but not under the circumstances of their choosing." However, you COULD get an education and think critically and see other people's point of view. African Americans have a different experience in America than you do, and they have a different history than you have; that's just a fact. Consider how it looks to them, and then consider what justice is.
Where is your outrage when the VAST VAST amount of Black murders are at the hands of other Black men?
I do not pay taxes to pay the payroll of gang bangers in poor neighborhoods. Furthermore, gang-bangers are not sworn to "protect and serve." The police are NOT supposed to shoot unarmed citizens. You're right, it's sad that black-on-black violence happens, but poor neighborhoods are dangerous, and you're bringing up something totally unrelated to police brutality. So, let's get back on topic.
It is only the very few cases of a white man killing a Black man that makes you outraged.
That's because of the history of this country in light of the African American experience.
Their lives are worthless to you.
You're the one attempting to make a case for police using deadly force on unarmed citizens.
It proves my entire premise that this is pure politics & Democrats truly could care less about the lives of Black people.
No, it proves that uneducated people like you who don't even know that we have a racist society are why we continue to see black people get harassed, beaten, targeted, and killed by the police. I am the one talking about the African American experience and systemic racism. You're the one trying to justify a government agent killing an unarmed citizen in a neighborhood where most people are black, and they are harassed by the police.
Do you ever see Democrats speaking out over the broken families in the Black communities, causing the gangs and violence & children with no parents at home.
All the time, actually.
Do Democrats ever say word one about the core reasons for the problems in the Black community?
Yes. While I'm not a Democrat, I just explained all of that to you.
It''s not the white man hurting the Black families, but live in your world of racism & politics.
Again, we have a very racist society, but you benefit from the systemic racism, so it is harder for you to see; that's why you think it's insane that African American citizens take to the streets against it. Go tack a survey course in Sociology at your local community college. Go to office hours, and talk to the professor. It will make more sense when you see how society works from an objective point of view.
Let's look at the situation in Fergusson another way:
Let's pretend Brown was not African American. Let's say he was a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, middle class male, who was open carrying his AR-15 based on a false interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Let's say he got into an argument with a shop owner, then left, was stopped by a cop, who shot him SEVEN TIMES.
I would be willing to bet that you, and every other uneducated "conservative" would be talking about "constitutional rights," and "big government," and blaming "Obama" for it. You can bet the Fox News Entertainment would be showing pictures of Brown singing in the church choir and graduating high school. They would be talking about the dangers of a militarized police force, and how it's wrong for the police to shoot civilians when they haven't showed any hostile intent to a hostile act.
The NRA, various "Tea Party" soviets, and different "militias" would be involved (just look at what happened with Cliven Bundy, who wasn't even shot, and just wanted to use government land on the taxpayer's dime for free). The Africa American community in Fergusson doesn't have white billionaire donors who want to use them for political gain. The African American Community only has themselves. Not even the media is on their side.
-Bear in mind that in this scenario, the protagonist is actually CARRYING A WEAPON.-
Now, let's pretend Brown wasn't African American. Let's say someone told you an unarmed citizen was shot SEVEN TIMES by a militarized police officer, and the citizen never was charged with a crime. Let's say that after that unarmed citizen was shot, the police in the city denied the press their first Amendment right to free press. Let's say that same police department arrested people for peacefully demonstrating....
Do you see? Where are the "conservatives" that are so worried about the Constitution that they never read? This is real police-state fascism, and you "conservatives" are silent on it BECAUSE THE CITIZEN WAS BLACK. Be honest about it at least! The right wing is racist.
Where to begin with this....
Racism has been part of our history and woven into the fabric of our society since the 17th century. In the 1600s, the upper class aristocratic land owners created a racial hierarchy to justify slavery and maltreatment of certain ethnic groups for the sake of profits, exploitation, and usurpation of resources. It was, for example, believed back then, that Irish people were inherently lazy, and heathen (because they were Catholic), and thus "deserving" of being slaves; Native Americans, likewise, were considered "lazy, and savage," so it was okay to steal their land because they weren't "using their land right (meaning not cultivating the land in the exact same way the English colonists did);" indeed, they even said that African Americans were "stupid" and "prone to servitude." In other words, from the very beginning of the US, before it was even the US, when were were just colonial holdings, racism was used to created a stratified social system.
Throughout our history, that racism persevered, and it continues to persevere. There is still a constructed system of racial hierarchy in the US. It would be incredibly nieve to say that poor black people have the exact same opportunities that rich white people have. To this day, our prisons are full of a disproportionally higher amount of ethnic minorities than our society actually reflects (e.g.: for example, 60% of men in prison are black, when only 20% of our nation's population is black). This leads into my next point: law enforcement treats ethnic minorities differently than they treat white people; that's just a sociological fact; it isn't because non-whites are more prone to criminal behavior, it's because of this racial hierarchy created by the aristocracy, as well as classist attitudes used to justify an unfair, unequal, socially immobile society.
So, African Americans, Latino Americans, Native Americans, etc, are all treated differently by modern law enforcement. This is evidenced by the racial make up of our prison system, obviously. In addition to the racial makeup of our prisons, is the high amount of unarmed citizens of color that are killed, or injured by police.
So, with that in mind, you've got people in this country who have generations of exploitation, usurpations, and maltreatment on behalf of our white supremacist society. They were protesting peacefully for MONTHS before the verdict was read. Unfortunately, the CORPORATE media did not report on ANY of the peaceful protests that continued pretty much non-stop while the police denied 1st Amendment rights to the press to enter the area. It is the DUTY of the media to report on those things. While these protests continued, the police continued beating protestors, and wearing military gear; ALL OF THIS would have been something great for the media to cover, but they did not because these protests questioned the status quo, and white supremacy, and the corporate media has an interest in the status quo (no matter how "liberal" you think the media is, it ultimately is typically owned by a for-profit company, and thus, are part of the "conservative" interest).
People with a voice do not destroy store fronts. People who are included in the process, do not torch buildings. People who have options, do not flip cars. People who have justice do not throw rocks at police officers.
Most assuredly, you, FromWithin, are probably not even reading this anymore, and probably stopped after my first word with more than three syllables, but know this: we still have a white supremacist system, and your support of white supremacy, and the "conservative" support of white supremacy, does nothing to throw people off the racist trail. Most of the critiques I see of the protestors across the nation, are critiques that use old negative stereotypes like: depicting Brown as a "thug," depicting Brown as "lazy and on welfare," and saying things like "why don't they put this much energy into getting jobs," or my personal favorite, calling the protestors "uncivilized (because white people are so much more civilized)." ALL of these negative stereotypes can be traced directly back to the racism created by white landowners in the 17th century to justify enslaving African Americans, mistreating Irish people, and stealing the land of Native Americans. America is still very racist, and still very white supremacist, and denying this is playing a part in the racism in our society.
This is a false analogy.
Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, but consentually. Bill Cosby date raped multiple women. Both immoral, but at complete opposite ends of the immorality spectrum: having an affair and raping women have different moral implications.
As far as the "liberal" bias of the "media," would you prefer that the "media" swept stories of rape under the rug? This is why many women think "conservatives" hate women. You're actually making a case for hiding stories of rape to save the face of rich famous people.
Just because Bill Cosby is black does not make exposing his rape allegations "racist." Racism is a system of advantage or disadvantage based on real or perceived ethnic differences. "Conservatives" are interested in maintaining the status quo, and part of the status quo is white privilege and racism, which is why people say "conservatives" are racist. That's to say nothing of the fact that the right wing has historically supported or out-right defended racism. It was the "conservatives" that fought against the civil rights movement, for example, and it was the "conservatives" in the 19th century that defended slavery.
NASA seems to be your only source. Although NASA has done some pretty incredible things, they're not always right.
NASA is NOT my only source. As I said a few times, ANY credible scientific source agrees with NASA. Like the NOAA: http://www.climate.gov and here's what Stanford University has to say: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html. If you get your information from scientists, they will support that global warming is anthropogenic because it's true. So, with that being said, science is not a secret global liberal conspiracy. You do not know more about science than the world's top scientists.
-Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer is quoted saying that the climate models used by government agencies "have failed miserably."
-James Hansen of NASA predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now due to global warming.
Now let's move on to other predictions gone wrong, shall we?
-In the documentary called An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore predicted that all of the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013.
Need more?
-The co-founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, was in an interview about a week ago admitting that global warming is a huge myth. He said that it was "bad-bad science."
-31,000 scientists signed a petition saying that global warming is not caused by humans.
-As I said before, ClimateGate is a huge scientific scandal basically exposing that "credible" scientists have lied about global warming. Emails that were leaked showing conversations between scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia show that they were talking about doubt or SCIENTIFIC WEAKNESS in the global warming theory. They were even planning to evade legal requests for their data, which violated the Freedom of Information Act stated in the United States Constitution.
I'd like to see your sources for these. I'll bet they aren't credible and unbiased scientific scholarly sources.
The ice caps are increasing and I do have the sources to prove it:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/
Your sources are dubious. Newsmax and the "heartland foundation" are both political propaganda sources, not scholarly scientific source.
Even your mostly reasonable source supports that arctic sea ice is declining (and all the other facts that support anthropogenic global warming), which means your argument hinges on local anecdotal weather patters in the antarctic, which does not disprove any of the data that supports anthropogenic climate change. You are not a scientist, you're a science denier.
The greenhouse effect would work if the Earth was somehow surrounded by glass or something similar to trap the heat. Heat can get into the atmosphere just as well as it can escape.
This proves that you do not understand basic fundamentals about science. The fact that you stated this as if it were a fact, proves that you believe it.
Okay, so, planets have atmospheres because of the gravity generated by the mass of the object. The gases stay close to the planet because of the gravity. That's why the OXYGEN that is in our atmosphere, or the NITROGEN in our atmosphere doesn't just go out into space. THATS HOW WE CAN BREATHE! The oxygen doesn't stick to the planet because there's a glass bubble around the earth containing the gases from our atmosphere. So, CO2, a gas, ALSO functions like every other gas in our atmosphere. Do you really not understand how the atmosphere works?
Back to Venus: Vensus doesn't have a glass bubble around it either, yet, the CO2 stays in its atmosphere. Weird! It's because glass bubbles aren't what hold atmosphere to planets, gravity does! If you're going to make claims about science, at least understand the fundamentals of it.
CO2 DOES NOT TRAP HEAT. Look at the facts. Look at the percentages in the atmosphere and then look at the specific heat. Any logical person would realize that CO2 does not trap any significant amount of heat.
Yes it does. Every single scientist in the world knows that. You'r the only one denying it. Venus is HOTTER THAN MERCURY (which is much closer to the sun) because CO2 traps heat! If that wasn't true, I wouldn't believe it, and every scientist in the world wouldn't believe it. The only people denying that scientific fact are people like you who don't like it because it doesn't fit the political narrative that you cling to.
Are we talking about science or politics? The two are mutually exclusive.
The fact that CO2 comes out of cars and factories doesn't mean anything to me. I just proved to you that CO2 is not harmful to the environment and it is food for the trees to make more oxygen for us to breathe.
You haven't proven anything. You've made a claim that runs counter to science.
The temperature of the Earth has NOT changed in 17 years. I don't know how else to explain this to you.
Well, you could start by explaining why the world's brightest scientists disagree with you, and continue by explaining why the global temperature is generally rising. During the 1960s, the heating slowed too, but it continued to rise, as it is continuing to do. I don't know how else to explain to you. Maybe you should just accept that you don't understand science. You should go take some science classes at a community college so that you understand it. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just think you could benefit from learning about science.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/
Neither of these are scholarly unbiased scientific sources. I'm using NASA, NOAA, Stanford University, and IPCC, and you're using newsman, the heritage foundation, and "climatedepot.com." Have you noticed that my sources are scholarly scientific sources and yours are politically charged and aimed at denying science?
As for the greenhouse effect, there are recently some scientists that say CO2 isn't even a greenhouse gas. Besides that, it contains so little heat that even with "increasing CO2 levels," it would not have any effect on Earth ant its atmosphere, especially the temperature.
What scientists? NASA? NOAA? IPCC? Or Newsmax?
Sadly, you've decided to look past the basic fundamental facts of science.
I'm not the one who thinks glass bubbles are how atmospheres are held to planets.
Put together the pieces yourself.
I have. I used to be an uneducated "conservative" that denied science like you. After seeing the facts, and who was telling me the facts (scientists), I realized I was wrong.
You'd much rather have the "scientists over at NASA" tell you what to think.
At least I'm getting my science from actual scientists and not Newsmax.
Do the research
I already have. The facts support that science is right on this one. I did a complete 180 because of the facts. You should get an education and stop letting politicians tell you about science.
Break it down and you'll realize that even the "brilliant scientists at NASA" are not always right
Correct, and as reputable scientists, they change their views with facts. Science denial is using a lot of ignorance and anecdotes to attempt to "debunk" science.
If you still don't see that humans are not the cause of global warming, I don't think there is anyone who can get past your wall of ignorance.
You're awfully arrogant to think you know more about science than the world's top scientists, then call people who accept science and have more education than you, "ignorant."
Not even if the scientists at NASA told you that you were wrong
If NASA, or the other 99% of the world's scientists said, "we're wrong," I would believe them. I am wise enough to know that I do not know more about science than the world's top scientists. I also don't pretend to know more about electricity than electricians. You might try deferring to people who know more about things than you do, or at least getting an education so you can at least understand the basics.
And to say that I'm more politically driven than interested in how science works is extremely ignorant.
Not really. You're not using scientific sources, and you do not understand basics about science. You're using political propaganda sites like Newsmax to get your "science." You should try actually understanding the science and getting your science from scientists.
I'm looking at the facts and putting it together instead of someone telling me what is true with no actual facts behind it.
Then you should actually do the research into science, and learn something basic about how atmospheres work. Hint: atmospheres aren't held to planets by glass balls that go around the planet.
Here's the thing: The theory behind anthropogenic global warming is accepted by almost every single educated, formally trained, brilliant scientist on the planet. Almost magically, the only people who are denying science are "conservatives," and oil companies. If it was pseudoscience, then almost every scientist on the planet wouldn't so vehemently support it. So, if you think nearly every scientist in the world is part of a global conspiracy to...do whatever you think they're trying to do, then I can't help you. It's literally you (who does not understand science) and a few politically driven science denial websites (like Newsmax) versus the scientific community of the world. You are on the wrong side of science.
FromWithin, when you down vote other people's arguments, you're supposed to do so when they have made an absurd claim that is not based in reality (all of mine are based on facts, so that doesn't apply with me), or if the logic is weak (which mine are not weak in terms of logic), or if the argument hinges on ad hominem fallacy (as yours typically do). So, instead of being a chickenshit, not addressing the points I've raised, and just "down-voting" my arguments, try actually debating since you're on a debate website. If you want to mindlessly click a "like" button, go to Facebook for your fascinating diatribes and party-line rants.
There has been no scientific evidence that global warming is happening. In fact studies have showed that the earth is getting colder.
Not according to NASA and every other credible scientist on the planet who know more about science than you.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
In the 70s scientist predicted that there was going to be another ice age.
What is your point? That does not refute all the overwhelming observable evidence that supports that the Average Global Temperature is in a general upwards trend, and it does not dispute the fact that CO2 is a green house gas, and that is not only observed on earth, but also on other planets.
Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.
Some in the past that were hypothesizing were eventually disproven because that's how science works. That means science is right, that does not disprove scientific facts. It shows that science is capable of amending its consensus when facts are presented. Presently, there are no facts that are refuting all the undeniable observable evidence that support the theory of Global Warming.
Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong.
This is patently false. We are seeing sea level rise (part of the prediction), we are seeing mass extinction underway (part of the prediction), we are seeing air that is unhealthy to breathe (part of the prediction), and we are seeing a general warming trend in the AGT (part of the prediction).
If anything almost all the evidence points away from global warming.
You shouldn't be telling me this. If you really think you're right, call NASA RIGHT NOW, and tell them you've proven all the scientists in the world with credibility wrong! Go now! You will change the world!
I must question your chosen area of study, or at least your ability to remain objective in your profession.
What is your profession? Please do question it, but I'd like to know what background you have? Do you have a PhD in American History?
For the record, I pride myself in my objectivity, but thank you for questioning it. I always welcome questions.
Southern Democrats were Democrats because they were for Unionization,
Southern Democrats were actually democrats because Democrats were for states rights (earlier in history), and small federal government. Essentially, the Democrats of the late 19th century were the small government "conservative" party. FDR did not sign an anti-lynching law because he had to keep the Southern Democrats in his coalition. In that context of history, the Republican Party had not yet adopted that line (small government, states rights, support big business, etc) fully, and so many in the South were still Democrats. It did not change fully until the Civil Rights era, when the Republicans were against the Civil Rights act (as seen in Strom Thurmonds historic filibuster).
Southern Democrats were Democrats because they were for Unionization, which was racist in nature since it kept low wage minorities (whom they viewed as scabs) out of work.
Are you aware that the south was still not nearly as industrialized as it was in the North, and still isn't? Unions are typically for industrial trades. The Democratic Party and Unions have NOT always been tied together. That is new. Don't confuse the old Democratic Party with the new one.
The southern democrat was historically racist.
You're right! I would go further to say that the Southern Democrat was typically in favor of perpetuating systemic Jim Crow racism in the south, which is why signing the anti-lynching bill into law would have alienated them, and FDR still needed them.
What's interesting about the Roosevelt Coalition is that it had so many different (often diametrically opposed) groups under the same banner. You had hardcore leftists, unions, and minorities ALONG with basically the "Tea Party" of the day. It was a motley crew to be sure.
The Democrat party became the party supposedly for the minority only after JFK helped out MLK for reasons of political expedience.
Well, kind of, but it was in that era that the switch was complete. Both parties swapped places. It began in the early 20th century, and completed during the civil rights era. You're right though, basically!
Remember, in the early 20th century, it was assumed that if an African-American was walking into a polling booth, he was voting Republican. It is not like that now.
Thank you for your input!
He's a liar because the GOP has not started any more wars than the Democrats.
Well, in my lifetime, there have been two in the same country, and one in a country that was unrelated to catching Bin Laden or the attackers on 9/11. I don't care who started more wars or less wars; that wasn't what my claim was. My claim was that the GOP starts wars, and that is a fact. Innocent people die in wars, and that's a fact. So, if you think the GOP values all human life as "precious," why are they not all pacifist/anti-war? Why are "liberals" known for being anti-war? Strange. Why is that? Don't be a chickenshit, dodge it and start a diatribe about something else!
Actually the Democrats were known to have started more because people believed they want to lose the pacifist label.
What are you talking about? Please clarify.
Democrats started the Vietnam war I believe & that was the worst war in our history.
Eisenhower was President when we first started getting involved in Vietnam in 1954. Ike was a Republican. It wasn't the worst war we've ever had in history, but it was certainly bad.
A Republican got us out of that war I believe.
You believe wrong. It was war protesters and the general public that got us out of that war. Those are people you'd probably assail as "liberals" or "communists" who don't care if we looked "weak." Nixon dropped more bomb tonnage on Cambodia than was dropped on the entire Pacific Theater during WW2 in order to look "strong." How's that for protecting all innocent human life?
Obama is the first radical Liberal president who does not care about looking weak.
This is partisan drivel and has no basis in facts, but I'm going to point out that objectively, President Obama is very "conservative" if you actually bothered looking at his policies. He's certainly not radical "liberal (not liberal in the actual meaning of the word because he IS that, but you don't know what it really means anyway)."
We are seeing the results.
What results? The results caused by a pointless war started by a Republican in a foreign land that cost trillions of dollars yet-to-be-paid that created a power-vaccum? Are you going to say something about ISIS? Are you going to say we should send the boys over there? Holy shit! You're about to advocate for more military conflict on the credit card just like "conservatives" typically do. Guess what? Innocent people die in war! Why do you advocate for that? Why are THOSE innocent lives worth less than unborn innocent lives? Answer that. Don't be a chickenshit.
It matters not who actually started the most wars when both sides always vote for going to war.
We haven't had a legal war where "both sides" voted on anything since WW2. Everything since then has been executive action or a police action with the UN or NATO. Everything. Both "sides" haven't voted on any armed conflict since the 1940s.
Moreover, when a Republican President lies to you about why he started two wars, you see men die in those wars, people try to kill you in those wars, and you VOTED for him (I used to be a Republican when I was uneducated and young), then you come back and the Republicans block VA funding and fight against your education benefits, it ABSOLUTELY matters who started the war. Most of the people who were against those bullshit wars were "liberals."
You should try debating, since you're on a debate website.
YOU are the one making the extreme left appear intellectual by being a proud uneducated, superstitious, "conservative" that doesn't learn from history. You are the "conservative" base that they pander to.
The way debating works is: you make a claim, and back up that claim with evidence. If someone disputes you, the use facts to dispute your claim, at which time, if they haven't completely disproven your claim, you can use more facts to refute them. Think of debating as being an attorney in a courtroom. What you are doing (insulting people, and using partisan bumpersticker slogans as "proof") is NOT debating. Try debating.
So, as I asked at the end of my argument after which you just insulted me and brought up points that were irrelevant, could you please bring some facts to the table instead of dancing around the points myself, and almost everyone else raises?
If you are trying to make the extreme Left wing appear intellectual, you are actually making my point time after time.
First of all, what IS your point?
Secondly, I am not from the "left," I simply care about what works, what's right, and what's factual. If you consider that to be "left wing," then you're tacitly saying that you reject what works, what's right, and what's factual. You may be interested to know that there are things that the right tends to support that I also support, as long as it works, and is right.
You deny obvious fact when you play dumb to Liberal bias in most of our media.
No. I do not deny facts. You deny facts...I think. Although, when I present you with facts, you just insult me personally, or just start typing: "liberal, abortion, Christian, lies, spewing, GOP, welfare queen."
Try being honest if you actually want to show Liberals in any kind of good light.
I'm not a "liberal," and I don't care what kind of light they're in.
You are the poster child for arrogant eletist Liberalism.
This is argumentum ad hominem. Can you please provide evidence?
You spend your lives trying to transform America to your Socialistic ideology & then play stupid as if it is not true.
Do I now? That's interesting.
Unless you are a complete moron, you KNOW of what I say.
I don't even know what to say to this. What a fascinating diatribe!
Only a fool would say we he knows for sure we are all a result of the THEORY of evolution
Do you even know what a theory is? A theory is not a hypothesis. A hyposthesis is an educated guess that has no evidence to support it (yet). A hypothesis has very little credibility in the scientific world. However, a THEORY has been tested repeatedly without having a different result. A theory, in science is basically the same as a law. So, you ridiculing science by typing "theory" in all caps is like if you said, "the LAW of gravity," and expected that to make your opposition cringe because you cracked the case.
My advice: learn about science before you go attacking it. Otherwise, you look ignorant.
You have no problem indoctrinating our kids with Evolution theories
That's because evolution theories are science, and science is taught at school. Science is not a religion. Science is an epistemological study of the universe using empiricism. The first amendment does NOT say, "thou shalt not teach a fact-based study of the universe," and it certainly does not say, "the US should lag behind the rest of the world in math and science in order to placate taliban-like, religious zealots that deny science.
LOL, you bring up history when Democrats were actually patriotic citizens & did not pander to the low income voting block. WE ARE TALKING TODAY!
Many Democrats ARE patriotic citizens TODAY. Taking care of poor people (that's the low income voting block) is actually a patriotic thing to do. Poor people do not lose their citizenship when their employer cuts their hours or lays them off to ship their job to communist china.
Lets go back to when the Democrats wanted to keep slavery legal during the civil war ok??
Jesus! I've gone over this with you before. Don't you remember? The Democrats of the Civil War era were "conservatives." The supported big business, they supported states rights, they wanted a small federal government, and were racists. Back then, the GOP were the big government progressives who wanted to free slaves, wanted workers rights, and wanted more federal involvement. Bringing that era up only makes sense if you put it in the context of its time in history. Back then the Democrats were "conservative" and the Republicans were "liberals." You, if you were taken back to 1860, would probably HATE Abraham Lincoln, because he was trying to tell the southern states what to do, and what businesses (plantations) could do.
Heck, lets go back to roman times & see what they did back then. You waste my time.
Please lets! You seem dedicated to ignoring the lessons of history in order to be fooled into making the same mistakes twice. Powerful aristocrats and Big business love you for that.
If by bringing up facts I am "wasting your time," you should not be on a debate website. Debating uses facts to form arguments, so because of that, I am NOT wasting your time, I am presenting you with evidence.
So, are you going to bother addressing my points like a man? Or are you going to call me names and ignore my points like a chickenshit?
I never said ONLY the GOP starts wars. What I said is that the GOP HAS started many wars (often times, as with the pointless, wasteful wars in Iraq twice and Afghanistan, they were done through executive action, since we haven't had a legally declared war since WW2, which would get the approval from Congress). Then I asked, "if the GOP really values innocent life, then why aren't they all pacifist?" That is a valid question, and instead of addressing that question, you resorted to name-calling and partisan rhetoric.
This what's called a debate website. The way it works is, you debate like adults (i.e.: use facts and logic to form an argument or counter-argument). You don't argue or name-call.
So, if the GOP is really fiscally conservative, and really cares about life, why is the GOP not all entirely pacifist? War is very expensive (both of the Iraq wars and the Afghan war, were put on a credit card by the GOP, rather than raise taxes to pay for them. Talk about wasteful spending.), and innocent people die in wars, so why is the GOP the party of hawkish foreign policy?
The burden is on you. I have asked you the question. Now it's on you to show me how President Nixon valued human life when he authorized dropping more bomb tonnage on Cambodia than was dropped on the entire Pacific Theater during WW2. It's on you to show me how it was fiscally responsible to start a war in Iraq under false pretenses and lies, and how it was fiscally responsible to start a war in Afghanistan where the guy we were after wasn't even living. It is also on YOU to tell me how all the innocent people who died in those wars deserved to die, but unborn fetuses do not. It is on you to tell me how some innocent life is literally disposable, and other innocent life is precious.
Answer that. Don't be a chickenshit and ignore it.
Well it's about time to ignore once again.
That's a good debate tactic: don't debate.
When I hear the same lies & rhetoric of how Obamacare was a Republican idea when NOT ONE Republican voted for it.
Well, we know factually that Mitt Romney invented it. Republicans tried to block it for political reasons, not because it doesn't help out big business, which is something Republicans like doing. Parties do things like this, and that's why I don't belong to a party, and instead, think for myself.
You keep spewing the same lies that the Republicans want to take people off welfare & give them no food to eat. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL, then why are they the ones that are always talking about taking people off welfare and cutting food stamps? It doesn't seem like much of a lie to me.
We want stricter limits on welfare so that the able bodied people do not use the system & steal money from the truly needy.
You sound like a "liberal" now.
I would have able bodied people stand in food bank lines for food & thereby make them want to find a job.
That system hasn't worked in the past. Also, most people on welfare programs work full time. So, how can you make people who work 40-60 hours a week stand in food bank lines, and how does that make them "want to get a job," if they already have one. Stop (let me take a page from your book) "spewing lies" that poor people are lazy, stupid, and choose to be poor. No one chooses to be poor! If you asked someone, "would you rather be rich, or poor" most everyone would say, "I want to be rich." Or if you asked, "would you rather be destitute, and live in the ghetto, or have a decent paying job," almost every would choose the latter.
Is that starving them? No it is making them accountable for asking us to support them.
You should be in favor of higher wages for workers, and increasing the minimum wage. If people were paid enough that they did not qualify for welfare, you might have a point.
Why do people like you CONSTANTLY bring up the companies who paid no corporate taxes because of loop holes.
Because those companies are causing you and I to pay more by dodging taxes, and I feel that is important to mention.
if that were true in most cases, businesses would be flocking to have their head quarters in this nation, not moving them to other nations.
It's much easier to just move to communist china in the short-run, because then you don't have to worry about getting caught evading taxes. Moreover, our environmental protection laws, and worker's rights laws are seen as a threat to the bottom line of these corporate entities, so they move away. So, that's why.
It takes a little common sense to see through the rhetoric!
No it takes education, and non-partisan thinking to see that it's happening.
It is the GOP party that wants to overhaul our tax system & get rid of loop holes while lowering the highest corporate taxes on Earth.
They want to overhaul the tax system so that YOU pay higher taxes than GE, who hasn't paid taxes in a decade. I would rather non-human entities pay taxes than people, but that's just me.
Sounds great if the Democrats would quit refusing to address it.
I don't know about the Democrats. I don't follow party lines. I think for myself.
You just keep on proving my points.
No, I keep, DIS-proving your points.
When ever anyone points out the moral breakdown in this culture, insecure Liberals like yourself can not stand it!
For the... eleventh time, I AM NOT A LIBERAL. I AM AN INDEPENDENT. I just care about the truth and what works, and vote accordingly.
What moral breakdown? When did we have a more "moral" culture in our history? When prostitution was legal? When it was legal to hunt Native Americans? When it was legal to own a black person? When was our society more moral than today? Please enlighten me.
No, I was talking about the amoral culture that was ushered in by Liberals under the lie of separation of Church & state.
Okay, so if separation of Church and State is when our society began to have a moral breakdown, then you must think it began back in the late 18th century when Separation of Church and State became a thing here, or possibly back during the 17th century when the Enlightenment movement called for secular governments.
When the people of any nation have no faith to ground them in personal responsibility, a nation's values keep sliding down that slippery slope.
As someone who actually knows and studies history, you're patently wrong on this. Theocratic states (that's the opposite of secular) have been some of the most oppressive places in history.
Look at the Atheist state of Russia.
Russia was every bit as bad under the Czars, when Russia was a autocratic theocracy. This claim makes no sense.
Get over your clinical insecurities and quit worrying that someone might be judging you!
LOL, are you a psychiatrist now? You already told me you have no education.
Admit the simple truth of the moral breakdown in this nation.
I will not admit to something that hasn't happened. I know history better than you do, and our society has never been more more or immoral than it is now, but you don't know that because you're uneducated.
But you won't because that would be admitting that Separation & Liberalism is hurting this nation.
No, I just know that Separation of Church and State is an enlightenment principle that has pervaded this nation's conciousness since before it was even independent. You don't know that because you have no education, and you're following a political narrative rather than facts.
Statism... A made-up four-letter word that libertarians use for people who think the government should promote the liberty and prosperity of the average individual citizen.
Anyway. If you think that believing that the government has a role is unpatriotic, you should go ask the framers of the Constitution about that, because they created our government. While you're at it, you should tell them they aren't patriotic.
How dare you ever call me unpatriotic anyway? I've fought in two wars for this nation, and I love my country. I have dedicated my life to making my country and the world better. You're the one trying to "burn it all down," by giving the rich a helping hand at the expense of the working class, and defunding programs like the VA that help heroes who actually stood up to do things for their country rather than just sit around and think of ways to dismantle it.
Statism is another way to say, "responsible." If you think that America is a state (nation), then you are a statist. So, if you're in favor of globalization and destroying borders, then you're NOT a statist. I'll bet you still think America should be a country, so you're a statist too: you believe that states are real.
It is not slavery, but the Government owns us since we must pay to live. Taxation = pay period...I live and I pay and that is just how it is because the Government me and everything I produce. If you spend some time in an anarchaic society in Africa where you are absolutely free, you will understand exactly what I am saying.
This is an incredibly hyperbolic claim. The government does not "own" you. You are free to leave any time you want. You can always move to Africa, if you like it there better. You have a responsibility to pay for the civilization you live in, but no one is forcing you to do it. Just leave if you don't love America so the rest of us can enjoy living here.
It isn't absurd. I am not forced to pay taxes. I've never had anyone come to my house with a gun, point it at my head, and shake me down. Normally, what happens is, in January, I get my W-2 statement, and I fill out a 1040 EZ, and send it to the IRS. I do that because I realize that as a member of this society, and an American patriot, I need to pay into the society I live in. We all have to do our part for our country. I've fought in two wars for it, and now I have no problem paying for my society. It's called "responsibility." It would be absurd to feel entitled to the perks of living in civilization without having to pay for them.
As I've said, at 10% flat tax rate does not benefit you or I. It raises taxes dramatically on the poor, and dramatically lowers taxes on the rich. Only the rich benefit from that.
It is also not more fair, nor is it more logical. It is fair to ask the people who benefit the most from society (the rich) to pay more taxes (they can afford it) than people who benefit the least from society (the poor). That is why progressive taxation makes sense: it's more fair. Raising taxes on the poor, and lowering taxes on the rich is NOT fair, and it does not promote social justice.
Well well well, where do I start? Before you go talking about the basic facts of science, you should learn some for yourself.
I know plenty about science, and I have friends who do research for Universities in the field. I've also taken a bunch of classes in Astonomy and Earth Sciences. Moreover, all of the basic facts I've mentioned are also the basic facts accepted by NASA, who, I'm assuming probably know more about science than both of us.
-Ice caps are, in fact, not melting. At all. They are increasing. Arctic ice has gone up 50% since 2012. That's 1.7 million square kilometers.
Not true, at least, according to NASA and every other credible scientific source in the world, and pictures of the ice caps from space. If you think you know more about science than NASA, I don't know what to say to you. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
-Instead of talking about other planets, why don't you talk about Earth, THE PLANET WE LIVE ON and also know the most about.
The reason I brough up Venus is to show that the greenhouse effect is not some strange anomaly that only happens on Earth. So, I WAS talking about Earth, but I mentioned Venus to illustrate that the greenhouse effect happens other places too, and it universal.
-To say that the fact that CO2 contains heat is not up for debate is just ignorant. Earth's atmosphere is 0.03% CO2 and approximately 1% water vapor. Water vapor has a higher specific heat. A high specific heat means that it takes more energy to heat something up, thus maintaining that heat for longer. A low specific heat is the opposite. So if water vapor maintains heat for longer and there is exponentially more water vapor than CO2, why isn't water vapor something to worry about?
CO2, does not contain heat. CO2 TRAPS heat, and it does it on every planet that has CO2 present in its atmosphere, like Venus and Earth. It is actually ignorant to deny that. Here's what those "idiots at NASA" that you seem to think you know more about science than say about it. I am assuming that you just do not understand the science behind it. Please read what NASA has to say and how they know what they know: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
-Yes, CO2 comes out of cars and factories. This is simply a fact with no further explanation.
Okay. So you DO see the problem then.
Even with those so-called increases in CO2, it is still only 0.03% of the atmosphere. THAT, by the way, is a fact.
Those "so-called increases" are actually measurable. Here's what NASA scientists say about it: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
-The temperature of the Earth has not changed in 17 years (since 1997).
Actually, the general upward trend in the Average Global Temperature (AGT) continues, just as it has since the Industrial Revolution and the advent of burning fossil fuels on a large scale. Here's what NASA scientists have to say: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
-Those that say the polar ice caps are melting, polar bears are dying, and the sea level is rising are completely wrong. I mentioned above about the polar ice and how it has increased 50% in only two years. As for the polar bear population, it has more than doubled in the past thirty years. As for the sea level rising due to the ice caps melting, it is impossible. Even though it is a proven fact that the ice caps have expanded rapidly, let's just say for argument's sake that they were melting. Imagine that you have a half of a cup of water. Now add some ice to that water. You will notice that the water level will rise. Well when that ice melts, the water level goes back down. It would be just silly to say that the cup will overflow from the melting ice.
You're wrong that the polar ice caps are not melting. They ARE in fact melting, and we know that because we can see it happening. The ice in a cup of water analogy is an over-simplification intended to make the rising sea levels (something we've measured) from seeming like it could be happening, but it is, and the ice caps ARE melting, and so are the glaciers and permafrost, which is what is actually adding to the sea level rise. Here's what NASA scientists say about it. Please read what they have to say. They are brilliant scientists who have a higher level of knowledge about science than you:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
-Scientists predicted about 15-20 years ago that in the near future, we would have to wear special suits to protect us from the heat. We are obviously not walking around with crazy suits to protect us from heat.
I do not recall that. Do you have a source? Any reputable scientists knows that it is happening, but not as quickly as that. Here's what NASA scientists have to say, please read it so that you understand the science about this. They know more about science than both of us: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
-Those who claim that Earth is a giant greenhouse are also wrong. Earth is by no means a greenhouse. A greenhouse is surrounded by glass and traps heat inside. Earth is obviously not surrounded by glass. When clouds form, they reflect heat back into space. This is Earth's way of cooling itself down. So we could not heat up the Earth if we tried. This is why when you are outside on a hot summer day and a cloud rolls over your head and blocking the sunlight, it instantly feels cooler. The heat is being reflected back into space by the clouds.
That's not how it works entirely. You've oversimplified how the environment works. No one is saying that the Earth is a greenhouse. The Greenhouse Effect is something that happens, but the earth is not a greenhouse. The greenhouse effect is something scientists have named the effect that CO2 has on trapping heat on a planet and keeping it warm. If we did not have a natural greenhouse effect, it would be uninhabitable and cold at night, and too hot during the day to live. So, the trapping of heat that happens naturally with the Earth's geology is why the planet has maintained a habitable temperature.
-If you're wondering why the THEORY of global warming has become such a widely accepted theory, go ahead and look into Climategate. It is a scandal literally showing that scientists have lied about global warming.
Why did you type "theory" in large letters? Anyone who knows anything about science (something you've tacitly claimed to know more about than me), knows that a theory is actually one of the highest standards something in science can attain. So, calling something a theory is saying, "it's true." You're thinking of a HYPOTHESIS, and Global Warming is NOT a hypothesis. It was a hypothesis back in the 1890s before they had data to back it up with, and now it's a theory. Scientists are not lying about global warming. It's happening. Some right wing political interests are lying about global warming to ignorant people who do not understand science. Here's what NASA scientists have to say about it:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
-Don't believe everything you've ever heard or what has been brainwashed into peoples' brains.
Science is not a lie. Science is not made-up. Science is not a "liberal" conspiracy. Science is man's epistemological study of the universe which uses a method that relies on empirical evidence. The opposite of science is superstition. Scientists are not there to lie to you. Scientists are there to learn and research using factual, empirical evidence. It is not politically-driven.
In reality, credible scientists are not even debating if this is happening, or if CO2 traps heat in an atmosphere. To actual scientists all around the world, that's not a debate. Only people like you are debating it. So, before you go telling other people to "learn some basic facts of science," you should probably take a few community college science classes so that you can learn how science works, or at least read what experts in science have to say so that you understand the whole idea before you attack it: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Sadly, I am afraid you're more politically driven, than interested in how science works. Please, look at the NASA link. Any other reputable science website that is about science will agree with their findings. This is not a secret conspiracy to take your gas-guzzling truck. It's science. If you think science is an international conspiracy, or if you think that you know more about science than the brilliant scientists at NASA, or anywhere else in the world, I'm not sure I'll be able to lead you out of the cave though (that's a Plato reference).
I do not consider President Obama to be a "great leader," although I know why someone would want me to say that (it's a reference to what North Koreans call their dictator). Moreover, I do not condone killing of any kind. Therefore, I if this is even true, I do not support it.This is not a matter of "how dare he" versus "hail the 'great leader.'" The last "great leader" we had did the same kinds of things, and I never heard from the right wing about it.
However, the source for this is dubious, biased, and not credible. The language the narrator uses is highly inflammatory, and the rhetoric is designed to make me be afraid rather than be informed. Fear is a way the powerful control us, and information is how we fight against it. So, when someone comes out telling me "the gob'ment is gonna kill you; you better be afraid," I question why they are telling me how I should react to information. Normally, I like deciding how I feel on my own when I read information from a credible/unbiased source. There is nothing about that video that is credible OR unbiased.
So, since the information is incredibly biased, and the rhetoric is designed to induce fear inside me, I question the authenticity of the information. It is well-known that fear is a primal emotion with which humans tend to disregard rational thought, and react without thinking; I believe this video, and other polarized sources all over the internet use that fear to fool us into thinking things that aren't true.
It may be true, I have no idea. I am merely saying, I have not seen anything about this from a credible/unbiased source. If someone knows of one (foreign media is usually much more reliable than American for-profit corporate-run media), please let me know, and maybe post a link on here. I like knowing the truth, but when someone gives me information and tells me how I should react to it, I question the source. If it's really that scary, I shouldn't need to be told it's scary.
You obviously have no faith in total freedom, and I am not going to change your mind.
I do have a ton of faith in total freedom, for individual people, but not corporate entities or governments. That's why I am not a libertarian. You are told that in that philosophy, YOU get a total freedom, but they fail to mention how the corporate non-human entities ALSO have total freedom to shaft YOU and impose on YOUR freedom.
About the mining towns though, that mustv'e been an adaptation to the time. And people mustv'e went there for the mining jobs, and then if they didn't like them, they couldv'e caught a road out of there.
They didn't have a choice. There was no "learning a new trade at a community college." If you walked down the road (which is how you'd leave the company town), you'd find another company town that offered the same deal. I'm sorry man, your speculation about how things worked in history is not true. Workers did not have a choice when corporations had total freedom to shaft their workers.
With the railroads, I heard the companies bought up all the land for cheap or something...chrony capitalism
The railroads were given, as part of their compensation, vast expanses of land along the railroads themselves in an alternating checker pattern. It was part of how the government paid them for providing a public service. The corruption came when the railroads would go to a town, demand tens-of-thousands of dollars, and a bunch of free services, and if the mayor declined, the railroad would threaten to build a town 20 miles down the line, which would effectively make the mayor's town a ghost town. So, that's just one example of how the railroads were corrupt and exhorted people and entire towns. Those towns they built to destroy existing towns were called "spite towns." Fresno California is a spite town, and the railroads still own most of the land there. That's just a tidbit of information that doesn't directly matter, but I'm studying to teach history, so I always like passing along things from history for people.
As for the other monopolies...they were only consired that for their scale and lack of immediate competition.
That is exactly what a monopoly is. That is why we regulate markets.
As for the 'pay inequity,' the dollar amount workers are paid doesn't matter because prices will be lower with competition if pay is lower, which will cancel everything out.
That is not true, and it has never worked that way in history. Here's a contemporary example: Costco pays their workers about $15/hr with full benefits and paid vacation and allows workers to form unions (they don't really need to). Walmart pays minimum wage, offers no benefits, and keeps their workers on welfare to pay their labor costs. Those two places are competitors, and there is a HUGE disparity in worker treatment. The way corporate non-humans treat their wealth creators (the workers who make the company exist) is totally up to the business executives, and they are accountable for the actions of their entity. To quote Glen Beck, "100% liberty and 100% responsibility."
Because the only thing that matters is buying power...unless you are saying that the inequities were caused by monopolistic powers that companies held.
I am saying that very thing. Those monopolies, and robber barons are exactly why Classical Liberalism (now called "libertarianism") is a bad system. It has been tried before, and it sucked miserably.
My point is that I do not trust the powerful (that is why I used to be a libertarian). I think there should be checks on power, but checks on power mean that there is a limit on how much political "liberty" billionaires have. The sad fact is, no one benefits more from libertarianism than the Kochs, the Waltons, and the other modern day robber barons who already buy and sell our government. One man=one vote. America is built on checks on power, and just because someone rules with an iron fist from a corporate office does not mean that their absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. Corporate entities should be checked just like governments. I am not talking about mom n pop grocery stores, or small business. I am talking about the corporate non-human entities that dodge taxes, shirk responsibilities, destroy the environment, threaten liberty, and challenge the power of democracy.
In addition to that, we know that monopolies and deregulation do not work to improve the quality of life for people like us. Don't you see? Only the rich and powerful benefit from you thinking that.
If the supply of labor were to shrink, wages would rise.
Disproven by history. Wages rise when workers strike.
When other businesses set up shop to address demand for this or that, they hire people.
Businesses only hire people when they need people. They don't hire people for the sake of hiring people.
In time, the demand for labor increases and the supply of labor becomes spread out. This causes wages to increase. This doesn't happen over night.
There is no "iron law of wages" in practice. This has been proven false repeatedly in history. Wages go up when workers strike, or demand higher wages. Wages go down when employers are socially irresponsible. It's a dialectic between employer and employee who have interests that run counter to each other. That's how it has worked in practice. As long as employers can get away with paying nothing, they will. When workers have had enough of maltreatment, they strike, and wages go up after often bloody struggles against the class warfare from above. Our middle class wasn't born out of the benevolence of corporate interests, and it has been killed by the selfish interests of corporations and right wing politicians.
they are beginning to skip cheap labor countries like China and India because wages are rising
Note the social unrest and media attention to poor working conditions there.
They won't be hailed as heroes for bringing this development which will eventually lead to a higher quality of life, they will be vilified.
They should be vilified for using child and political prisoner labor; we should have never done business with Red China in the first place.
On a side note. I knew a college professors of economics who came from the Bengali region of India and identified himself as a Marxist. He said that corporations going to poor countries was actually 'great'.
That's because Communists want the capitalist system to fail so that workers of the world will unite against the capitalist class. That's why most socialists and communists actually cheer for deregulation and globalization: it creates a class consciousness amongst the workers. That's why it is in the interest of the corporations to ensure all of their workers have a good quality of life: the peasants won't be coming after them with torches. Unfortunately, unfettered greed will likely be their downfall unless they understand that.
That's an antiquated theory that has been proven false. Wages are low because the employers there have no scruples and do not care about the welfare of the people who make that company what it is. This flies in the face of your theory that all businesses are benevolent and do good for the sake of doing good.
There should be some kind of mechanic built-in to this debate site for people who use weak arguments, fallacies, or ignore their opponent's points and attack them personally; those are all cheap ways to debate, and really just amount to arguing. To not have a system is to implicitly give equal respect to weak, sophomoric arguments as what is given to truth-based, logical arguments. Not all arguments are equal, some of them suck.
While I agree that there should be some kind of system that rewards solid, logical arguments and punishes weak arguments (or at least exposes them as weak), the power to punish/reward debaters should be in the hands of the debate creator, or a neutral moderator who works for the site.
I know for example, that the broad consensus among economists (you'll never get full agreement) is that WWII got us out of the depression with it's increased demand for labor and simultaneous decrease in supply.
Most economists I know (and the books I read) actually attribute us getting out of the depression to the increased demand created by people having money from having jobs essentially. If people do not have money to spend, the economy stays in a state of depression (as history has shown repeatedly). It is true that FDRs programs worked slowly, and the end of the war was a major contributor, but if we went back to how we were before the FDRs programs, our middle class would have dwindled much earlier. That is evidenced in how we did not really have a middle class for most of our history.
FDR's policies were what most economists would call "Keynesian Economics," and many economists actually support that school of thought. It just does not support the "conservative" narrative, so many "conservatives" reject it.
I know that it's bad for the economy to burn crops while people starve.
That was not FDR's policy. That was the greed of big business (I'm assuming you're talking about the crop burning in California, where Upton Sinclair was running for governor on the platform of preventing that). If you have a problem with crop burning, talk to agribusiness.
Or lock people up for trying to work past the legally allotted hours.
Do you have a primary historical source that corroborates this claim? I'd be interested to know why someone would WANT to work longer when they are protected by law to not be forced to do so.
I don't know how conservatives viewed things back then, but even if they pushed his bad economics, he was at the helm.
The Republicans back then thought the way they do now. They thought, like Herbert Hoover, that if the government just sat back and did nothing, eventually the market would fix itself (which, of course is not true, and has never been true). FDR's policies were actually doing something, so thank God for that, or God knows how long the depression would have lasted.
So, if by "bad economics" you mean, "economic policies that pulled us out of the great depression and created the middle class," you'd be right.
If by "bad economics" you mean programs that took our country from a 28% unemployment rate to a 2% unemployment rate, you'd be right.
I wouldn't call them "bad economics" and neither did my grandfather, or any of his brothers and sisters.
I know that it's easier to get votes when your government work programs are targeted where you need support.
Exactly. They government should actually work for the people of this country.
I know that everyone loved him so much that just as soon as the he died they put term limits on the presidency.
This is how much they loved FDR:
In the 1932 Election:
-FDR had 57% of the popular vote, and carried 42 states.
In the 1936 Election:
-FDR had over 60% of the popular vote, and carried 46 states.
In the 1944 Election:
-FDR had 54% of the popular vote, and carried 36 states.
In other words, FDR never had a close election. People loved him, in general terms. Of course, there were still "conservatives" back then that wanted to deregulate the markets again, and they were responsible for getting that amendment passed. It was not (obviously) because people did not like FDR. In truth, the idea of creating a limit of Presidential Terms, has been talked about since the early 19th century, most specifically, Thomas Jefferson, talked about it.
In truth, it probably scared Republicans and "conservatives" that a President like FDR, who was left-of-center (but not much, in the context of those times, actually), would break the previously held de-facto rule of only holding two terms, and potentially keep a President from being a Republican for decades. Remember, there was no written rule for that. So, in short, the 22nd Amendment was passed for political reasons, but I like what it does.
I'm not saying he was terrible, times were hard and much of the economic manipulation was untested. It's not like he was President Jackson, but he sure as hell wasn't the best.
I can't think of a better President, frankly. He wasn't perfect, he had his problems, but I think he did the most for the country when it needed someone to step-up and do something. Hoover and the "conservatives" certainly weren't doing anything.
EDIT: PS. My Grandmother was not a fan.
There are always some people who are the exception, not the rule.
You know, everyone in history is human, and everyone made mistakes, or decisions that we don't like with our modern sensibilities.
One thing FDR did was refuse to sign an anti-lynching bill. Back then though, there were racist "conservatives" from the south who were still Democrats and thus part of the Roosevelt coalition. So, to keep the coalition together, FDR had to appease them. We look at that now, and say, "that was a crappy thing to do," but it made sense in that time in history.
Most anyone in history did bad things, or made bad decisions. Ghandi did bad things. MLK is the only guy I can't really say anything bad about.
Yes. Yes I did. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to insinuate that I am wrong? Or are you agreeing with me by pointing out that I DO in fact know my history because history is my life (and it would be wierd if I did not know history)?
If you are trying to cross swords with me over history, I would love for you to actually try to.
