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.

I'm not sure what your point is with this. You're right that some 1% ers did not always pay that, but it was a tax rate that used to exist, and it still stands that taxes have been lowered.

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.

Thank you. You said basically what I was going to say. There is a reason people who lived back then loved FDR.

I never read that any wages were stolen in any of the history books that I have read. Can you prove this?

Why do you seem to be dedicated to the idea that powerful people will not shaft descent people?

One idea that comes off the top of my head is the Wheatland Hop Riot in 1910 (it might have been 1911, but it was in that period of history). This is not the best example, it's just what popped into my mind. Anyway, so Ralph Durst who was an illegitimate agribusiness robber baron had thousands of migrant laborers working on his corporate hops ranch (this guy was a business man, not a farmer). He paid his workers almost nothing, and took 10% of their wages for what he called a "completion bonus" to force them to not quit, and 10% was taken out of their checks without their permission for store credit in Durst's Company Store which sold supplies like medicine or food at incredibly inflated rates. Well, he also had only eight open-pit latrines for the thousands of workers and their families. His workers lived in tents. His workers were not allowed to drink water when they were on the clock. If someone died while working, they would just go grab someone else. This was a common practice. Back then, corporate farms would form co-ops, where they would set the price for the industry and set the wages for the industry, so you couldn't just go walk down the street and work on another ranch and get a better deal because they all offered the same deal. So, in closing, in many cases in the 19th century and early 20th century, wage theft was common, and choice was not in the hands of the consumer/worker. Unregulated markets do not benefit people like us.

Read about the Robber Barons: Rockafeller, Carnegie, Duke, JP Morgan, and all the other Robber Barons. They were called Robber Barons by their contemporaries; that is not a term projected onto them by modern historians. Read about the Central Pacific Railroad; there's a reason people back then hated the rail roads.

Read about the Wheatland Hop Riot here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WheatlandHopRiot

And why would that be?

It was that way because it is in the interest of the business to pay the lowest wage possible for the most amount of work. They do not WANT to pay a fair wage if they don't have to. Just as it is in your interest to get paid the most for the least amount of work, it is in their interest to have the opposite. Businessmen look at the bottom line of their business. Your welfare is not taken into account.

because they didn't enforce labor contracts...? I doubt it.

Are you implying that unions had a voice in the 19th century and early 20th century? When strikes happened, businesses would hire thugs to go bust the unions up. They would also use fire hoses, and machine guns. They would also send the police in and round up the people leading the strikes, and they would spend the rest of their lives in filthy prisons and called "communists."

It isn't that the did not enforce labor contracts, it's that there WERE NO labor contracts. Labor contracts is something new in our history BECAUSE of those days.

Low pay compared to today is what you expect; the economy was developing.

That pay would still be low if it wasn't for backlash against the unfettered greed that ran the economy for a century. Social change, and labor movements are why pay was descent for the latter half of the 20th century, it was not through the benevolence of business.

How about how people were payed in 1600?

In the 17th century, most of the world was still in an agrarian economy. So, the wage system had not really been put into place yet. If you farmed a plot of land, you ate food off it, and traded your extra food with people growing other things. You might work someone else's land for a few days a week too, but you weren't paid wages for it. The wage system came about with industrialization.

Yes you work because you have to live, duh.

I said what I said, because you implied that people worked in those mines because they were nice places to work and the pay was good.

And there was supposed be another choice besides working to live?

There were no social safety nets back then.

And, as far as no choice on what mining company they worked for. Nonsense, they chose to leave the city and go out to work at a mining town in the mining industry. Industies typically pay some base amount right?

You're still caught up in the idea that powerful rich people will never take advantage of their position and shaft people, and that is not true. If you think the government is power-drunk, why don't you think robber barons are power-drunk? Same people most of the time!

As mentioned earlier, mining companies would often form co-ops where they colluded (now illegal due to "regulation") to set industry prices, and wages. Those wages did not have to be money at all, because there was no minimum wage. Most of the Company Towns that existed were mining towns. Let's say you're a miner, and your father was a miner. You couldn't just go to a community college and learn to do something else. Being a miner was something you were, so your only choice would be to WALK down the road (you don't own a car because you've never been paid enough to buy one, and that's if cars even exist yet) to another company town, who may or may not hire you to work for company scrip (the same amount you were earning before). That "base amount" you're referring to, was not enough to live off or raise a family off. It was usually $1/day, or less, and (as with the Wheatland Hops Ranch), 20% of that would be withheld by your boss without your permission.

No, I didn't say a corporation was a person, I said that it was a group of people which mutually own a thing and coordinate together to run it.

Exactly, so is the government. Neither are people, and neither should be treated as people. They are entities, and they should be performing their functions with the good of the people in mind. There's a whole history that goes into that too.

That is an ad-hominem against CEOs.

It is NOT ad-hominem against CEOS (why are you so dedicated to defending powerful aristocrats anyway?). There is NO businessman who runs a business for the sake of creating jobs. It's about profit margins. Businesses are not started for the sake of the public good; that is exactly why they need to be regulated; it's a check on self-interested power.

And um, corporations like to create jobs because that means they expanding, selling more stuff and making more money.

No, corporations like making money. "Job creation" is a byproduct of that but it isn't even intended. Labor is a huge cost for corporations. If they can get a factory to run 100% automated, they would because it would be CHEAPER FOR THEM. It's about the bottom line, not how good YOU have it. Why don't you understand that? Corporations do not exist just to do morally good things; that's the basis of Gordon Gecko's "greed is good" speech. Even Adam Smith, the father of modern Capitalism said, "it is not through the benevolence of the baker that we get our bread, but his own self-interest." Smith (a libertarian, basically), said that the government that governs least, governs best. He was a total classical liberal (libertarian) thinker. Read Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus; they are all capitalist thinkers that created the ideological framework for our "free market" system.

Prove it

Do you really doubt that monopolies do not price-fix? That's why monopolies are bad!

So, the Central Pacific Railroad (I mentioned them in my statement before you said "prove it," you should have just looked up the Central Pacific Railroad). The Central Pacific Railroad (CPR), had a transportation (stage coach lines, river boats, and docks too) monopoly west of the Mississippi at the latter part of the 19th century. There was no competition, because if someone tried to start a railroad company, the Big Four (Crocker, Stanford, Hopkins, and Huntington), would buy them out before they got started. The Central Pacific Railroad was really a great example of why unregulated markets are bad for me.

When the CPR had a monopoly, a train ticket from Chicago to Sacramento would cost $112 in those days' dollars. After the government stepped in to limit the power of the railroads, and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad started, that price dropped to $12 in those days' dollars. That's how markets work. If there is one seller for a market, they can fix the prices at whatever they want. That's why competition is good in a market; that's why we have anti-trust laws. History.

Tnat was an impossibility in that time because our economy was not developed enough.

Not true. Children were made to work in dangerous factories or mines because they didn't want to hire grown men at a substandard-yet-higher wage. This goes back to what I said about capitalism: it does not exist for providing public services, companies exist to make money. Labor is a cost. That does not mean "free markets" cannot exist without morals, they can, but because they never have in history, we regulate it. You don't need a "developed economy" to have child labor laws.

You're making excuses for powerful aristocrats' poor behavior. Do you do this with all forms of power (i.e. do you blindly make excuses for politicians too)?

I just tol you the reason for that gap in income distribution. And things were inherently dangerous.

That did not answer why things changed in history though. In history, they did not change because our "economy developed" they changed because people went on strike, people demonstrated, people stood up to the aristocrats to get things done. The social unrest of the early 20th century is why there are regulation and workers rights; it is not because the robber barons decided to be nice on their own. Roackafeller ran from the police for weeks before he went into court and said "you call this a monopoly, but I call it free enterprise." He did not regulate himself and bust his own trust, it happened because people clamored for it. Do not forget history.

Whatever.

So, does that mean you'll actually add the extra asterisk because you're a nice guy? Or are you too lazy for that?

The reason you have not heard of most of this is because much of this country's labor history has been swept under the rug or forgotten about (there are people who benefit from you not knowing about it and thinking the powerful aristocrats have always had your interests at heart). In many ways, the history of labor in this country is like the history of the native Americans: it is the story of injustice, defiance to that injustice, but sadly, the bad guys win a lot. Look at how Rockafeller treated his workers. It was not uncommon to chain people to machines and deny them breaks. It was not uncommon to force people to vote for pro-corporation candidates, literally. It was not uncommon to pay starvation wages or worse. It was not uncommon for children to die on the job from poor working conditions and dangerous tasks. These things were not because we had a "developing economy," it's because classical liberalism (libertarianism) was the order of the day. There was no regulation, the robber barons were able to get away with not paying much in taxes, there was political corruption, and what government there was, existed to protect wealthy aristocrats. The 19th century was libertarianism in action; it was not awesome for people like us. It would not be different if it were tried again. Exploitation and greed never change.

Students should be able to wear the clothing they want to wear, if it is a public school. We obviously have public education to make the majority of people less easy to fool by the powerful, and it is the cornerstone of our democratized society. However, implicit in that is we are teaching our kids how to be citizens of a free society. In our free society, we aren't told to wear Mau Suits everywhere we go. Forcing kids to wear uniforms when they go to school does not train them to be functioning members of a free society, it trains them for prison, where they make them wear uniforms all the time. Free society--no uniforms.

FDR. FDR was the most beloved President in US History. He gave people hope, he got people working when corporate industry wouldn't. He governed in the interest of the people. He put safety nets in place to ease the suffering of people in the future (social security, unemployment insurance, welfare programs, etc). FDR lead the US, a disillusioned broken country, our of the depression, gave the people hope, and lead them to fight against the Fascists in Europe and the Empire of Japan simultaneously; he did it all from a wheel chair. There is a reason that if you ask any person who was alive back then (if you're lucky enough to find one anymore), that they will tell you how great FDR was, and how much they hated Hoover (the Republican who wanted to "let the market fix itself"). My Grandfather was a Democrat till the day he died because of FDR, and he was an NRA member.

I don't know if you're aware, but the US is probably the most un-communist country in the developed world. Many of the problems our country has stem from our inability to accept that the "free market" is not actually a 100% benevolent force.

He also didn't really start the country. He was a figure that was often put in charge of things because his image was bigger than the man because he was at places like the Battle of Bunker Hill, or Yorktown (he was not a great military commander, and lost more battles than he won). What made Washington Great is he would step up and take charge when other people shirked the responsibility. So, his name was out there a lot. He wasn't a large contributor to the ideological wing of the Independence Movement, and he didn't contribute much in the drafting the Constitution (although he was the President of the Convention, again, his image was important to have associated with it).

I think that instead, we should bring back the war tax to pay for all these glorious victories. The reason no one is demonstrating against these wars is because no one is paying for them right now because they're all going on a credit card. We don't need to cut pay, we need to pay for these wars, and since these wars are conducted in the name of all of us, we should all pay for them, and if we don't like it, get involved and do something about it. I'll bet you'd see a lot less "conservatives" getting excited about war, if their taxes got raised too. Asking one group of people who happen to be lucky enough to have a government job to pay for it is picking on one group simply because they were lucky enough to get a descent paying job with benefits from the government.

Let me repeat, you are a Liberal or you would not be wasting your time defending them.

Let me repeat (do you even read what I write?): I am not a "liberal," I just care about what's true and what works. I defend the truth. Science has proven that the earth is getting hot and people are causing it, so I feel that it is my duty to humanity to convince people like you of the truth so that the world can have a shot at being a safe, habitable planet for humans for another 300 years. If the science supported what you think is true, I would agree with you, but it does not.

I DO NOT LET POLITICIANS TELL ME ABOUT SCIENCE. I LET SCIENTISTS TELL ME ABOUT SCIENCE.

I would have better things to do than defending activists who you claim you are not one of.

I am not defending activists. I am defending factual evidence that science supports. You are arguing against factual evidence and science.

As an educated man, I feel it is my duty to inform people like you, who have no education, of the truth (read Plato's Allegory of the Cave), in the hopes that the world will be a better place. There is not a "conservative" version of reality and a "liberal" one. If the planet is uninhabitable, "conservatives" die just like everyone else; this will effect you whether you believe it or not.

Did you bother looking at the link I gave you to the page that was written to explain how the science works by NASA Scientists? Or are you going to just keep ignoring the science and going party line?

Hogwash, the predictions from environmental control freaks have been wrong most of the times.

Not true.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Of course you can always bring up something that they predicted that came true.

All of it has either come true, or is coming true.

Look at what the people who put the man on the moon say about it:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Everyone can do that!

Apparently you can't.

'm talking about serious problems that were going to affect our environment by the year 2000 & they were completely wrong as usual.

Those things happened, but let's pretend they didn't happen.

THE EARTH'S AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS STILL RISING; THE CO2 LEVELS ARE STILL RISING; THE SEA LEVELS ARE RISING; THE OCEANS ARE STILL ACIDIFYING; GLACIERS AND ICE SHEETS ARE STILL MELTING!

(Pssst... that's what was predicted)

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Please read the information that is written by scientists before you start railing against science again. You aren't arguing against the science. You're using partisan rhetoric (science is empirical, not political), and anecdotes. I don't think you understand the basics of the science here.

Some big business lobby for liberal canditates and socailist candidates because heavy regulation greatly diminishes competition.

Socialism means hits to the bottom line because then rich people and corporate-entities have to pay back into the system, pay fair wages, allow free unionization, offer benefits that compete with the developed world and democratization of the work place. I would LOVE to see an example of a multination corporation that is in favor of that. Could you cite me an example?

I am also not sure what you mean by socialism or left-leaning politics diminishing competition. So, if you could clarify that, it would be cool.

Its why democratic have so many business lobbyists.

It's actually because they are trying to buy-off politicians to not regulate their industry. They like Libertarians, because they have people like you thinking the interests of big business are YOUR interests, so with libertarians, they don't have to pay anything.

And the ultimate ends of liberalism is socailism because they can never have enough regulation or spend enough money.

That's a slippery slope fallacy, and an argumentum ad poplam.

I was probably wrong to assume you were a liberal though just for a lack of faith in the free market.

If you used the term "liberal" properly, you would be a "liberal."

The word "liberal" actually means you're in favor of unregulated free markets. In the US, we misuse it. Adam Smith was a liberal.

I put my faith in facts and evidence for what works. If it doesn't work, I don't put faith in it. The "free market" system works really well for some things (i.e.: producing consumer goods like TVs, Cars, food, etc), but the "free market" sucks at some things (i.e.: fire departments, police forces, the military, road-building, infrastructure projects, public education, and healthcare). Likewise, socialism works good for some things, and not others (just look that the same lists I gave you in reverse, basically). So, I am not against the free market. I am just against things that don't work.

There was a banking crash caused by the Government in 1837

Actually, the Panic of 1837, was caused by deregulated banks doing unscrupulous things, and a horrible wealth distribution caused by a an unregulated market in an expanding economy. I suppose you could blame the government for not protecting the people and regulating the banks and businesses though.

there was a stock market crash in 1873 which coinsided with big losses in the rail road industry

The railroads lost nothing. They were actually artificially inflating prices at this time, and the "Big Four" (those were Stanford, Hopkins, Huntington, and Crocker; you'd like them they were horribly corrupt robber barons) were openly running the State of California because they were able to buy it, literally, and did not hide it.

Beauracrats can never have enough rules, to me that is an inclanation to use maximum power over the industries they 'regulate.'

That is an argumentum ad poplam.

So, the lady that works at DMV and takes my registration paperwork wants more rules?

Be aware that when you start talking about history with me, you're talking to someone who studies history for a living. History does not support classical liberalism (which has been re-packaged as "libertarianism" so we'll try it again). I know my history, which is why I am not a Libertarian anymore. It is an irresponsible, extreme, regressive political philosophy that has been proven to not work.

I think we can both agree that the Soviet System did not work well. Most people say, "look at what how the soviet system worked, why should we do that again?" Or, look at how horribly the feudal system worked for most people. You might make the argument that "the feudal system did not work well for people like me, so we should learn from that, and not try it again." Well, we also know that classical liberal (libertarian) policies fail most people too. So, why should we try that gain, if it doesn't work?

The vast majority of workers were payed money. And why would working have went to those mining towns if their pay was so terrible?

You evidently do not know much about history. Most people were not paid adequately, if paid at all; wage theft (if there were wages) was also very common.

People worked in mines or in dangerous factories not for the money, they worked there because they had no other choice and they needed to feed their families. There was no choice in the matter, really. It was work for nothing or starve for sure. Often times there were co-ops where the wages of all the mining companies in the region paid the same wages, so you really had no "choice." The "liberty" remained in the hands of the stronger party--the employer.

Corporations are businesses OWNED by humans who made those jobs available for those workers.

Exactly, corporations are not people. People are people. This argument is exactly like saying, "the government is a person because people work for it."

Most CEOs will tell you that their corporate non-human entity does not exist to create jobs. "Job creation" is something they say when its election time, or the people are asking them to pay taxes. If corporations really existed to provide jobs, today, with the horrible wealth distribution we have, EVERYONE would have a job that paid well.

Beyond that, the entire history of industry shows that those companies had to keep their prices low for the most part, does it not?

No. Not at all. When a corporation dominated an industry, its pricing was arbitrarily high. Look at the Central Pacific railroad's history.

And the the businesses were charged with price gouging based on evidence that was not concrete.

That is wholly untrue. The price-gouging was real. Look at the central pacific railroad.

No family should be able to have their kids work to support themselves no matter what?

Kids shouldn't be working to support themselves. Their parents should be paid enough to support their kids while they go to school and get an education. I cannot believe there are people like you who are against that now! That was such a basic thing for a long time in this country!

Actually living standards were lower then because of a lack of technology, and profits were high because that is what happens during the development of cities.

Actually living standards were lower because the wealth distribution was horrible, and corporations had so much power that they were able to do things without any regulation, which means things were not done safely.

Businesses develope rapidly so the demand for their goods causes profits to soar and them to need workers which makes cities grow rapidly.

History has never worked that way. When everyday people have money, there is demand in the markets because people buy things, and then the suppliers have to hire people to meet the demand. That's how it works in history. That's how we got out of the great depression. The great depression was created by deregulation and supply-side economic hypothesis, like you're talking about.

Not to be a jerk, but could you use two asterisks before and after what you quote of mine so it's bold? Italics was hard to differentiate your writing from mine.

slippery slope

= Historically proven. Ever hear of a Company Town?

I don’t see how this is an argument against libertarianism.

It is against libertarianism because libertarians are against regulation of corporate entities. If corporate entities are not regulated they will take advantage of that. Look to history at the 19th century to see what I am talking about. Corporate entities used to force people to work without drinking water like they did at the Wheatland Hops Ranch. Corporate Entities used to chain workers to their machines and infringe on their 1st amendment rights. Even today, corporations infringe on our rights, and people cheer for it for some reason. Libertarians will often say "it's their choice" when a corporation union-busts or uses coercion to scare workers into compliance.

I’m not sure what you mean here. This is not what libertarians advocate.

If you ever read John Locke or the Declaration of Independence, you'd be familiar with what political scientists call "social contract." Basically, the idea is, the government is ultimately accountable to you because you vote and pay taxes. In other words, without citizens, there is no government, so the government is supposed to govern in your interest.

Corporations, ALSO derive their power from you. You buy their products, you work for them, and they SHOULD be doing things in your interest as a result. Without you, corporations do not exist. However, corporations deny this connection, and that's how they justify doing things that harm you and the environment.

She had a few good points, but for the most part I agree.

Which part? The Social Darwinism? Or the "greed is good?"

Privatization of everything is not what libertarians advocate. I believe “limited control” of the government is what’s being promoted.

Then why do libertarians always aim to privatize things? I cannot remember the last time libertarians were in favor of fully-funding public education. In an Ayn Rand paradise, there is no service provided by the government.

Examples please?

19th Century America, for one. I can offer many more. 19th Century, and early 20th century America was a world where there was small government, and business had lots of power. There was no regulation, taxes were non-existent, there were no worker's protections, there was no minimum wage, there was no environmental laws, and there were no child labor laws.

There was plenty of "liberty" to be had, but that "liberty" only existed for big business. We had the worst wealth distribution this country has ever seen, no middle class, market failure, monopolies, robber barons, and veritable slavery. Company towns were basically fiefdoms.

It is absolutely and issue and to say that it is not is to deny basic facts about science.

-Sea level rise is being measured; that's a fact that has been observed all over the world.

-Glaciers are retreating, and ice caps are melting at an alarming rate; that has been observed all over the world over the last century.

-CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps solar radiation; that is a fact that exists all over the universe including here. The Planet Venus has active geology, which has given the planet what Astronomers call a "runaway greenhouse effect." The Average Global Temperature on Venus is around 900 degrees fahrenheit. It is hotter on Venus than it is on Mercury, which is MUCH closer to the sun. So, we know CO2 traps heat; that is not up for debate.

-Earth naturally has CO2 in its atmosphere because Earth has active geology (not nearly as active as it is on Venus); that is why the planet is inhabitable at all, and isn't -200 degrees at night and +300 during the day. So, we know what CO2 does, factually.

-CO2 comes out of your car's tailpipe; that is a fact that everyone should know by now. CO2 also comes out of smokestacks and industry. We know that; it is not up for debate.

-CO2 levels have risen exponentially since the industrial revolution (when we started using fossil fuels for energy on a wide scale). This is not a conjecture. It has been observed. Today we have levels of CO2 that the planet has not seen in over 800,000 years, when we had a much more active geology and no broadleaf vegetation.

-The AGT of Earth has risen at the SAME exponential rate as the CO2 levels starting at the same time, almost like magic, except it's science; this has also been observed.

-We are seeing a mass extinction beginning as a result of climate change. It will likely be every bit as bad as what happened to the Earth when the dinosaurs were killed. My friend who is a scientist at a University in Florida is doing research on this very topic, and he is seeing it for himself in the everglades.

Most of the arguments against all this evidence are from people that either do not understand the science and evidence behind it, or it does not fit their political views, so they reject it. The problem is, whether you are a Republican or Democrat, you still live on the same planet and scientific laws and theories still apply to you. This is one of those times when "conservatives" should stop denying science or they risk becoming irrelevant and going the way of the whig party.

98% of scientists with PhDs from all around the world are not denying these truths because it would be stupid for them to. Since 2012, there have been around 2500 peer-reviewed scientific journals that were written by over 9000 respected scientists. ONE of them denied climate change.

Everything I said about climate change can be found on NASA's website: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ It can also be found on ANY reputable science website. None of this is made-up conjecture. I don't care what party you belong to, facts are facts, and we are seeing it happen. It isn't a hypothesis. The theory regarding CO2 trapping heat has been around since the 1890s, so this theory is nothing new; now we just have a century of evidence, and evidence from other planets, to corroborate it.

Denying that global warming is a problem is absurd at this point. We see it happening, and it has been happening.

To deny it, you would have to:

-Deny that CO2 traps heat, which it does on earth and on other planets, which is observable.

-Deny that sea levels are rising, which is an observable fact.

-Deny that glaciers are retreating, which is an observable fact.

-Deny that heat melts ice, which it does on your counter when you set an ice cube on it; you can watch that happen in your home.

-Deny that there is a mass extinction happening, which is observable.

-Deny that CO2 levels are rising, which is observable.

-Deny that the Average Global Temperature of Earth is generally rising, which is observable.

Again, any reputable scientific website will explain everything I just said. If you don't believe me, hopefully you'll defer to the brilliant minds that put a man on the moon: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

If you do not have a PhD in science and think you know more about science than NASA, you're pretty much beyond my help.

What facts?

Facts are truths found from credible, unbiased sources.

I just gave you facts about information showing facts that refute Global warming.

You did not. You told me something that is not true according to all the brightest minds in sciences form around the world, or 99% of the world's scientists. Just because you, an undedicated "conservative" tells me something does not refute any of the facts and statistics.

Did you see the link to NASA that I gave you? http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

That is the words of some of the most respected scientists in the world. If what you saw on Fox News Entertainment, which is not unbiased, which is not fact-based, which is not a credible source for scientific information was actually true (and, I've repeatedly shown you it is not), the brilliant minds in science from all over the world would have actually hold a conference and discuss the findings from the Fox News Entertainment pundit. However, pundits with political agendas are not scientists. There is 120 years of data that proves you wrong. One pundit does not refute 99% of the scientific community. Don't you find it strange that the only source "refuting" the words of scientists is a non-scientific, biased politically-charged entertainment channel on TV?

Science is a very open-minded discipline. It is interested in the truth and understanding the universe. New information (if true, which yours is objectively not) is actually WELCOMED by scientists.

So, the facts I'm talking about would be links or at least a citation to what you are talking about. Consider how I've shown you specific examples in our debates, how I've given you links to credible sources (like NASA), or even citing a specific time in history (as I have when mentioning child labor in the late 19th century). That's how you debate. You don't just make claims that you believe in; part of what lends credibility to your position is the quality of the sources you cite. When you cite nothing, your argument is garbage, and amounts to talking points and name-calling, like yours has been.

f not you proved my point of how the Liberal media refuses to show anything that goes contrary to their agendas & what they want you to believe.

Or, you are proving MY point which is that the "conservative" media doesn't tell the truth about things like science for political reasons, and it counts on uneducated people like you to believe it unquestioningly.

You still live in that nice little world where your beliefs are not questioned because you never hear the other side.

I used to be a Republican (never been a Democrat). In fact, I used to make the very same arguments you are. So, I've actually had an internal dialogue about everything I believe. The way I test my ideas is by debating with people like you. So, actually every single one of my ideas has been questioned, not only by me, but other people constantly. When someone proves me wrong, I change my beliefs. I don't follow a party line, I follow the truth and what works.

There is plenty of evidence going against Global warming.

No there isn't. Since 2012, there has only been ONE peer-reviewed article (that is an article written by a scientist and looked over by other scientists for quality of research) out of about 2500 peer-reviewed articles that see what's happening.

Temperatures have not risen for 18 years now!

For the FIFTH TIME, that is not true. You saying that does not refute the words of NASA Scientists: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Have a gander at that link, actually read everything, and look at the evidence. 99% of the scientists from around the world (remember the Democratic Party only exists in the US) disagree with you.

There are huge sheets of Ice being built up in places where they claimed Glaciers would be melting.

Also not true. Glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate. That is observable, and has been recorded for well over a century. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Please read that link. Science is not a liberal conspiracy. Its a fact-based study of how the universe works.

I laugh when you say you do not take sides.

I don't take sides. I just consider what works, and what the truth is.

The words from your mouth are text book Liberal rhetoric.

Because YOU take sides, anything that does not follow your false, partisan narrative appears to be "liberal" to you because you actually believe the false-dichotomy created by the two party system.

Tell me again how people are not forced to pay for abortions through Obamacare.

Besides the fact that this is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, tell me how they are, and use credible, unbiased information to prove it.

That lie was just shown with some new information on how insurance companies pay for abortions.

This is completely irrelevant. Citation please?

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS. I AM TRYING TO LEAD YOU OUT OF THE CAVE (if you read Plato, you'll get that).

Here's the thing FW. Everything I am about to tell you about global warming can be corroborated by any credible scientific website around the world (i.e.: NASA, NOAA, IPCC, any .edu, and almost any scientific journal).

CO2 traps solar heat on planets. This happens on Planet Venus, where the active geology has caused a runaway greenhouse effect. Now the Average Global Temperature (AGT) of Venus is about 900 degrees farenheit. The earth has natural CO2 from active geology too, even without cars. That's what makes the planet habitable. Otherwise, it would be -200 degrees at night, ant 500 degrees during the day. Okay, so we've established that CO2 traps heat. Bear in mind that CO2 comes out of your tailpipe and is emitted by industry, as it has since the industrial revolution; the earth's geology hasn't been active enough for that level of CO2 in about 800,000 years.

Now, CO2 levels have risen exponentially since the late 19th century, and the AGT has risen at the same rate--like magic, except it isn't, it's science.

We are observing sea level rise. We are also seeing species going extinct at a cataclysmic rate. My friend who is a scientist from a University in Florida (it's a private school, so don't start with how it's government funded), is doing his research on the mass-extinction being caused by global warming.

We are seeing sea level rise because of rising temperatures that are being recorded by every scientist in the world, except the pundits at Fox News Entertainment. Heat melts ice. There are pictures you can look at on the NASA link I gave you.

Here's the thing: even when I was a Republican, I was able to understand that if the earth is uninhabitable, being a Republican will not save me. We, you and I, both live on the same planet. You can ignore what is happening, or you can start doing things to stem the tide of the destruction. At this point (and I've been told this by various scientists), if we start cutting our CO2 emissions, we will be able to lessen the damage, but not avert it because it's already happening.

Simply being a Republican does not mean it isn't happening. Science is not political--it's fact-based. The words of a fox news entertainer does not negate the words of 98% of the entire world's scientists and over a century of observable evidence.

PS: if you want, I would be happy to give you links to each specific claim I made, but you can find them on any reputable scientific source. Message me, if you really want to understand. I am always glad to teach what I know.

No I didn't. To say that it is not minarchist is absurd. That is EXACTLY what the Libertarian party is. I have no idea how you came to think I said it was not minarchist.

So, back to my original argument:

19th Century America is libertarianism/minarchism/Classical Liberalism in action. It was a horrible place to not be rich. Cities were filthy cesspools of crime and disease. We saw the worst wealth distribution this nation has ever seen. We saw the rise of monopolies and robber barons. We saw environmental disasters caused by businesses who were unregulated. We saw child labor. We saw women being paid HALF of what a man was paid (children paid 1/4 of what a man was paid, typically for doing much more dangerous work). We saw slavery. We saw social darwinism as the myth to maintain social stability. We saw an extremely poor working class. We saw ZERO workers protections. We saw states, like California, literally run by big business overtly. We saw businesses forcing people to vote for certain candidates. We saw Jim Crow south. We saw legal hunting of Native Americans. We saw states try to destroy the US because they didn't want to have to listen to the Federal government tell their business owners you could not own other human beings. We saw agribusiness big whigs denying farm workers water. We saw people working for literally no money, and had no choice in the matter (they were paid in company scrip, and forced to live in a town owned by the company). ALL of these things were made possible by minarchism and classical liberalism (which, are now both called "Libertarianism")

We know that minarchism does not benefit you and I. We know it has never worked before for people like us (I'm assuming you work for a living and are not a billionaire). So, why should we ignore the lessons of history in order to try that system again? It's not new. It's been tried, and it was an utter failure for most people. Why should we do that again?

This does not make me a socialist or what you would probably call a "statist." It makes me responsible with my vote. It makes me choose the less reactionary route for a more tried-and-true route. It makes me a pragmatist. I only care about what has worked in the past, or what could work if we try it. Politicians never try things that might work. They only keep trying things that have never worked before (for the most part); that is why I do not belong to a political party.

Do you have a compelling reason that I should consider disregarding the lessons of history? That is my argument. I already knew what the Libertarian Party stood for because I used to be one, and I have a degree in political science which means I can at least identify a political ideology correctly (it's actually more than that, but for the purpose of this, I'll leave it there). Why should we try what has already been tried and proven to not work?

Being poor, or homeless should not be illegal in the first place, and hopefully, it isn't any more illegal than it already is in the future.

With that being said, no one in the US should go without a roof over their head. We are supposed to be the best country in the world. The fact that we have millions of suffering, poor, starving, sick people wandering the streets, or living under newspaper should embarrass all of us. Lady Liberty says: "give me your poor, your huddled, your tired masses." She did not say, "come to American and see all the poor, tired and huddled masses in our filthy streets."

Thank you for admitting once again your superior arrogance to actually paint all people who did not go to college as stupid and uneducated.

I never said people who never went to college are stupid, they are just uneducated by definition. Education is a GOOD thing.

As for arrogance, I'm not the one who has no education in science and thinks he knows more about science than NASA.

You truly show how STUPID you are.

I am not the one who denies facts. You are.

Narcissism is alive well in the Liberal community.

Is it? I wouldn't know.

I took College courses to move up in my place of business. I had a 4.0 grade average on every course until I was promoted at work, & then I quit going to school.

Where did you go? University of Phoenix? Or a community college?

I had a 4.0 grade average on every course until I was promoted at work, & then I quit going to school.

Evidence of how much you value knowledge.

I already knew what I needed to be promoted but my employer like so many others wanted to see College courses on my resume.

That's because a college degree says a lot about a person's character and knowledge base.

They are also indoctrinated to believe people should go to College for jobs that don't even require a College degree.

Well, sure, but it doesn't hurt to have educated people working for you. It's good to reward hard work and dedication with higher pay and employment opportunities. Otherwise, it will create an unstable society.

The huge cost of college was in no way worth the degree.

That is argumentum ad poplam. The only reason the cost of education has gone up, is because of your GOPs war on education to create a pool of cheap, uneducated laborers.

I learned NOTHING from those College course that I had not already learned on the job.

Of course you didn't. You already "knew everything" before you walked into the room.

But don't let that stop you from painting all jobs requirements in the same narrow arrogant light.

I have no idea what you're talking about with this one.

Stop bringing up the word "arrogance" unless you're prepared to accept the words of people more educated than you when they talk about science (something you know nothing about, apparently). Arrogance is saying you know more about science than NASA when you haven't even completed a survey course at a community college.

Can you admit none of us have all the answers? So what do we have to enlighten ourselves? HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!

Oh good! That's my area of expertise!

I already told you that 60 years ago the radical environmentalists and their SCIENTISTS were crying wolf, telling us all the devastating results in our nation's environment by the year 2000 if we did not make draconian laws preventing the use of fossil fuels.

Well, actually the theory supporting the greenhouse effect comes from the 1890s. So, they've been talking about this for well over 120 years, and it exists on other planets as well as here, so the science is indisputable about the greenhouse effect, unless you want to deny that the Planet Venus has an AGT of 900 degrees fahrenheit (which it has).

As for your presumably false claim about 60 years ago, and the year 2000, we're already seeing mass extinctions from climate change. My friend is a biogeochemist at a University in Florida, and his research is on that very thing, so those damn environmentalists that want to keep the planet alive were RIGHT.

IT NEVER HAPPENED! THEY ARE PROVEN LIARS! ONLY A FOOL would allow these same radicals to lie to us again & swallow everything they say as fact.

As with my last reply, I've shown that it is TRUE. You should stop using argumentum ad hominem, because when you're wrong, and you call other people "fools" it makes you look stupid.

IT'S POLITICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! where are all the hurricanes?

Are you serious? We have hurricanes every year. We had a polar vortex last winter that put snow in Georgia. We also have more superstorms and tornadoes. It's not politics, it's science and facts.

Where is that Global warming?

It's been happening since the 1890s. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh, that's right, they changed the name to climate change after their lies were proven once again.

The truth was never debunked. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The planet is still warming according to observable evidence. The name was changed to facilitate ignorant people that denied science because they often use local anecdotal evidence like "it was cold here yesterday" to attempt to make a case against the most brilliant scientists in the world.

Spare all the people who know history, your ludicrous OVERWHELMING garbage!

I have a level of expertise in history that you do not (been studying it for about 25 years), and science is definitely right about global warming, just like they were over 120 years ago, except now there is plenty of evidence to support it.

Science is not a liberal conspiracy. Science is not political. Observable facts are facts. Please, if you have the capacity for abstract thought, and can at least comprehend the word of scientists, please look at what the NASA scientists have to say about that: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

If you think you know more about science than the brilliant scientists who put a man on the moon, and you have zero education or training in science, you are incredibly arrogant.

did not appeal to authority at all because I am not asserting myself as an authority about anything but my own beliefs.

When you say, "I am a communist, so I know what communism is," it's an appeal to authority. Truthfully, I would believe what a communist says about the communist party than what a Republican says about it. So, it IS an appeal to your authority as a libertarian. It doesn't matter though. In that regard, I equal that level of authority because I used to be one myself, and I know exactly what I believed.

You have failed to prove that , minarchism and anarchism are the same thing because they are not.

That is because I NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM!! Please address the points I raised. I feel like you're strawmanning me now.

My claim is that minarchism, or libertarianism, or classical liberalism, which are all the same thing essentially, have been tried before, and they did not work. You've ignored that, and went on to straw man me for a claim I did not make. I think in every single rebuttal I've made, I've pointed out to you that I know what anarchism is and I know what minarchism is, and I even spelled-out to you what they were so that you knew I understood the difference, then I brought up my degree to show that I have at least a basic understanding of political science and history so that you could be assured that I knew the difference on a fundamental level. It was not meant to establish authority, it was meant to assure you that you did not need to keep bringing up something that had nothing to do with my argument.

In short, I said, "in history that has never worked," and you said, "minarchism is minimal government and anarchism is not the same." I KNOW THAT, and it had nothing at all to do with my argument. My argument is that when tried, minarchism does not work well for anyone except those who are already in charge, and I proved it with the social, rigid class structure, poor distribution of wealth, lack of social safety nets, inability of private charity to solve problems, lack of workers protections, lack of minimum wage, and lack of regulation of the 19th century.

It is on you to debunk that by finding some way to prove to me that things would not be the same if we tried something again that failed before. This is why I have said, "libertarians have to forget history to believe what they believe."

Again, I have NEVER claimed that Libertarianism is anarchism. I know the difference. I haven't spent years in college studying political science, having been a libertarian myself, to not know a fundamental basic difference like that.

So, anyway, back to what my actual claim was: we know classical liberal policies (that is libertarian policies) do not work because in history, they have never worked for anyone except robber barons and very, very wealthy people. I hear people say, "communism has never worked when tried," and that is a case for not trying it again. So, since Libertarianism has never worked when tried, why should we try it again?

Keep showing us all you total superior arrogance.

I am not the one who thinks he knows more about science than NASA when I don't have any education in science.

Do you actually think going to schools where biased professors push their agendas makes a person intelligent?

Well, you've never been to college, so you don't know if professors are biased. However, I HAVE been to college, and I can tell you that most professors leave you wondering what their political leanings are. A GOOD professor does not reveal his or her bias. It is considered unprofessional to do so. Of course, you wouldn't know that, because you've never been to college. Stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Being educated does not make you intelligent, but you need to be intelligent to be educated. So...

LOL, I've worked with thousands of college degree engineers, and many other professions & guess what.

That sentence should have ended with a question mark, but you wouldn't know that because you're uneducated.

I would take a person with common sense working experience over any college grad. ANY TIME!

Good for you. I would think the best thing would be an educated person with common sense, but that's just me. I actually respect education.

FW, your virulent hatred of educated people is a commercial for the GOP hating educated people; this is exactly why "liberals" think "conservatives" are ignorant, and are waging a "war on education."

It matters directly to this conversation, because FW has never set foot on a college campus, and is making outrageous claims about what college campuses are like. Since he has no education, he has never been to college, so he has no first hand experience about it. His entire claim hinges on something her heard on Fox "News."

I am well aware that you can educate yourself. I was an autodidact for about 15 years before I went to college. I have to say though, when you're teaching yourself, you do not know what you do not know. Having a subject matter expert teach you helps to keep your education well-rounded and high quality because you learn EVERYTHING about a subject. Example: I spent, oh, about six years reading about Ancient Rome. When I took a survey class on Ancient Rome, I learned a hell of a lot because there was a lot I didn't teach myself about because I didn't know to do so.

You are like a talking robot for the Left wing media talking points.

No I am not. I am talking like someone who is informed beyond a party line, because I do not belong to a party. You just think I sound like what you call a "liberal" because I do not sound like a robot for the right wing.

There ARE scientists who are not in lock step with the Global warming activists.

They are not reputable scientists, and are often hired by oil companies to "debunk" science. It is a fact that 98% of ALL SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD disagree with you. So, you've got two percent of non-reputable scientists on your side. Oh, I almost forgot. Since 2012, there have been 2259 Peer-reviewed journals about climate change authored by 9136 scientists, and only ONE of them denied climate change.

You do not hear of these scientists because you don't watch or listen to Fox news.

That is because I get my science from scientists, not from politically biased entertainment shows.

I repeat, our Global temperatures have not risen in 18 years.

For the THIRD TIME, you are wrong. NASA disagrees with you: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Spew your indoctrination to someone who does not follow all the news, just Liberal news.

What are you talking about? You can accept scientific facts and still be a polarized Republican. I did when I was a polarized Republican.

You have done more in your life than I will ever do?

Yes

LOL, you know what I've done?

You have no education, you watch lots of politically biased entertainment shows and pundits, and (probably) have never done anything for your country.

Like I said.... arrogant Liberal who think's he's better than all the little people.

Like I've said several times I AM NOT A "LIBERAL!" PLEASE READ WHAT I WRITE! Also, I do not think I am better than the "little people (how arrogant and classist are you, to use such a phrase)," because I AM one of the "little people." You're the one that wants poor people to suffer because they are (supposedly according to you), morally inept.

You are a polarized Liberal.

Once again for everyone in the cheap seats (this is the fifth time on this thread alone), I am not a "liberal," and I am not polarized. I am just interested in facts and what works. If the "conservatives" can come up with something that works, I would be in favor of it, but lately, all they've been in favor of is regressing to the 19th century socially and economically, and I cannot get behind that because, as a historian, I know how bad that was.

You are a polarized "conservative."

So, in short, you're uneducated and you don't respect educated people. That's all you had to say. Actually, you didn't have to say that because I already knew by your denial of scientific facts and inability to debate using facts and logic. Thank you for confirming that.

Okay...

Now, can you confront the points I raised? You're not debating right now. You're ignoring the points I raised, and you resorted to argumentum as hominem (as usual), which reflects your inability to reason, think critically, or debate at all.

If you are trying to make the extreme right wing appear intellectual, intelligent and educated, you're not on the right track. Everyone else is running circles around you while you just parrot Glen Beck, and say "Fox News," and "you're a fool" and "liberal media."

How about bringing some facts or logic to the table? I can do it, why can't you?

You just appealed to authority by saying you have it simply because you're a libertarian (I used to be one too).

I am not wrong, because I never implied that libertarians are anarchists. You said I said that, and I did not.

Also, having a degree means I have a higher level of knowledge and expertise, so I should be listened to. So far, I've spend four years studying history and political science, devoting all my time to it. Before that, I studied them on my own for about 15 years. So, all together, I've got about 19 years studying history and political science. It has been my passion since I was very young (about 8-9 years old). People do not devote 19 years of their time learning about something to make up things and mislead people.

Also, if you'd noticed, my argument was LOGIC-BASED using historical evidence of why classical liberalism (NOT anarchy), doesn't work very well, and you haven't confronted that.

What color was the sky during those events that happened at night?

Exactly, the color of the sky is still the same for everyone there.

During a drought the grass is not green, but brown.

Exactly, but it is still brown for everyone, not just certain people. Dry grass is one color, factually.

Gravity does not affect one that is in space.

Actually, it does. When you're in earth's orbit, you're influenced by Earth's gravity. Gravity is always acting on things in space. That's why planets orbit around stars, and do not just travel around space aimlessly (excluding rouge planets). So, gravity is definitely real.

People have never been honest, honesty is a myth. Since historians are people.....See the problem?

I disagree. I try as hard as I can to be honest. Lots of people are honest. Honesty is one's ability to tell the objective truth. Every time you say something that is true, you're being honest. The job of a historian is to tell the truth. See the problem?

I don't feel it is my duty to put out the exact quotes, the exact time & exact Colleges where these censoring bigots trampled all over our freedoms.

It IS your duty, if you're going to make outrageous claims like you routinely do. Otherwise what your arguments amount to (and they do, if you pay attention) is name-calling and partisan rhetoric that no one takes seriously because it shows an apparent lack of critical thinking on your part. What's more, it's not debating when you do that, and you're on a DEBATE WEBSITE!

I truly believe most people on these sites know full well what I'm talking about & they indeed know what I refer to

Anyone who is familiar with the extreme right wing party line already knows.

If it is true that they never hear of these stories, it only proves my point of how the Liberal media buries the stories that makes their side look like total close minded hypocrites.

What stories? Why should I watch someone else talk about what I do all day? I go to school myself, and have many friends who work in academia, and NONE of them believe you. WE are the ones that know what goes on at college campuses, not you.

Once again I say watch both sides of the news, the shows that tell the Conservative side of the story & you will become a more balanced person with more facts of what is going on.

The problem lies in that you think there are "two sides" to objective facts. There are not "two sides" to reality. Reality is not "conservative" or "liberal," reality just is.

FromWithin, I've asked you this six times on different threads: what education level do you have, and where did you go to college? Don't be a chickenshit and avoid this. I double-dog-dare you to tell us what your (actual) education level is, and how much research you do from credible/non-biased sources on a daily basis.

Come on, indulge us. How educated are you?

You are sooooooooo brainwashed!

No. I just have an education, and you do not.

It matters not to you that our Global temperatures have not risen for 18 years?

As I said before, this is not true. If you go on NASA's website http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/, you'll see that Global Temperatures HAVE risen in the last 18 years. If you think you know more about science than NASA, you're incredibly arrogant considering your apparent lack of education.

Those facts don't bother you?

No because they aren't facts. NASA and every other reputable scientist on the planet disagrees with you.

Those facts fly in the face of all the rhetoric you hear from the Left.

Again, not facts. This is what happens when you get your "science" from pundits and politicians.

If you don't think science is influenced by politics & big money, you are a fool.

So, you think science is a conspiracy. That's interesting...

You are not old enough to know that 50 years ago, Liberal Democrats and scientists were spewing so called facts that by the year 2000 our nation would be in a state of environmental disaster.

And they were right. We're already seeing mass extinctions from climate change, and measurable sea level rise.

Al Gore told us all that our ocean homes would have the waves lapping at their doorsteps from the melting glaciers.

That's an over-generalization/over-simplification fallacy. He never said that exactly. However, we ARE, FACTUALLY, observing sea level rise.

Just a few years ago they were telling us we would be having many many many Hurricanes hitting the US.

We are. Moreover, have you seen all their super storms and snow in Georgia, and massive killer tornados at an unprecedented rate? At what point will you accept objective reality?

We are having FEWER Hurricanes hitting our coasts.

Not true. Look at NASA's website. Oh wait, you think science is a global liberal conspiracy, so that won't do anything to change your mind...

All proved to be false!

Not by any stretch of the imagination: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Ignorant college students who have not lived life nor have lived the corruption & lies from Government to control their agendas, are so easily molded.

See? You do not respect education. What "college students" are you talking about? I'm 32 years old, fought in two wars, saved men's lives, saw blood glow in the Iraqi moonlight, been to Afghanistan, known men who died, worked in construction trades, and have licensure from the FAA to work on aircraft. I am now a disabled veteran using my benefits to go to school. I'm afraid the "college student" you have in mind does not apply to most college students. I know that from actually going to college.

FW, I'm afraid that given you have never actually been to college, you should be listening to what I tell you about it, rather than telling me, the current college student, what I do.

THEY CONTROL YOUR SIMPLE MIND!

I'm not the one who believes everything a "conservative" pundit tells me over NASA scientists.

Facts mean nothing to Liberal's.

Given your denial of scientific, observable facts, I'd say facts mean nothing to YOU, and because you're always telling us you're a "conservative Christian," you're making "conservative Christians" look stupid.

It's all about money & power to push their Godless, socialistic, anti gun, anti business ideology.

This is argumentum ad poplam. You do not even know what socialism is.

Maybe you are too stupid to see each election cycle when the Liberal media starts putting out all the racial, feminist, Gay propaganda to try & paint the GOP as hating Blacks, hating women, hating poor people, hating the elderly, hating Gays, etc. & simple minds like your's eats it right up.

This sentence is counterintuitive to your supposed point (whatever that is). First you talk about how there's something called "gay propaganda" and then you complain the GOP is painted as "hating gays." If you think gay people have a secret agenda to begin with, you're a commercial for the GOP being homophobic; I don't need this "liberal media" specter to tell me that.

I understand the difference between Classical Liberalism and anarchy. Minarchism does not protect anyone from the stronger party. Minarchism means that there is enough government to ensure that commerce can continue, but not enough to protect workers from their employers, or to protect the poor from the rich. Minarchism is "MINIMAL" government; that benefits those who are already at the top because then they have less government hindering their pursuit of endless wealth at the expense of everyone else. Minarchism does not benefit you and I, it just benefits the Kochs, and the corporations that dodge taxes.

Please stop telling me that I am "confused" between minarchism and anarchism. I have a degree in history and political science. I have formal training in knowing the difference.

If you want to know what minarchism looks like, look at the 19th Century in the US, and tell me how great that was. It was not anarchistic, it was minarchist. We had a government, just a very small one with low taxes on the rich, and very little regulation (if any). 19th Century America is a libertarian's paradise. It was libertarianism in action; that is because the Classical Liberal ideals that make up libertarianism were the prevailing political/economic theories of the day. In the 19th Century, there was just enough government to protect property (and most people did not own property, so it protected rich people's property, and businesses), and just enough government to ensure commerce runs smoothly; there was not enough government for unemployment, social security, enforce worker's protection laws, enforce environmental laws, or minimum wage.

No I am not.

19th Century America was not an Anarchist state. It was a monarchist state, and look how wonderful it was for people like us!

I totally understand the difference. My education is in history and political science. Please do not think I don't know the difference between classical liberalism and anarchism.

Most of the libertarians I know, including myself when I was one, believe in bare-bones, low taxes.

The problem is, to pay for that, the working class must suffer and the quality of life of the average American goes down. The reason we have the $17 trillion deficit is BECAUSE of low taxes (along with misappropriated funds).

Here's the thing though:

People like us do not pay much in taxes. The people theses "minarchists" are really talking about cutting taxes on are the billionaires. a 10% flat tax, like you're talking about RAISES taxes on the poor, and dramatically LOWERS taxes on the rich. So, who benefits from that? Charles Koch, not me.

Regulation:

When was the last time your life was made tougher from a law that makes it illegal for a mining company to dump mercury into lakes (that has happened a lot in history)? It doesn't. Removing that regulation does not benefit us, it just makes it cheaper for big business to dispose of poisonous materials. We are still dealing with the affects of big business when it was not regulated. Regulation doesn't harm us, and it doesn't harm a mom 'n pop grocery store (they aren't the ones dumping tons of hazardous material into drinking water) it just adds a step to a corporate non-human entity when it disposes of poison; that non-human entity would like to increase its bottom line by not having environmental regulation.

You see? You and I do not benefit from low regulation and the Koch Brothers not paying as much in taxes. Only billionaires and non-human entities do.

If that were true, then how come we do not see more Democrats (the party with the best human rights/civl rights record of the two), losing people to the Libertarians? We only see Republicans becoming Libertarians. Why do we not see more Unions supporting the Libertarian party (versus vile billionaire robber barons like the Kochs)? Why do we not see hardcore lefties that are against any violence supporting libertarians?

It's because human rights are not at the forefront of libertarianism, "liberty" is; Social Darwinism is. In order to believe that libertarianism works, you have to believe that the cream always rises to the top, and that the people at the top are better than everyone else.

If the Libertarian Party were actually concerned with supporting rights, they wouldn't be aimed at deregulating that which was put in place to support rights. They would be supportive of existing rules.

I know the allure of libertarianism, as it is sold to us, is very alluring. I fell for it myself. I am telling you though: libertarianism is classical liberalism re-packaged, and we know what that looks like in practice, and it isn't good for us.

You don't have to believe me. I don't care. I am just confronting you with the facts about the end state of libertarian policies. It is the mid-late 19th century. If you want to repeat a mistake in history, go ahead and be a libertarian, but if that movement gets what it wants, after you're done celebrating, and then you chained to a piece of factory equipment for 18 hours a day, six days a week, denied a right to unionize, and given only one bathroom break all day, remember I warned you about that. Libertarians are anti-union, anti-regulation, anti-worker protection rights, anti-social safety net, pro-employer (based on social darwinist thinking, which makes it okay because the stronger party deserves to do it, and it's 'wrong to inhibit the successful'). Everything the libertarians want, has been tried before, and it was a horrible time to be a non-millionaire. If you were rich, it was a good time, but for 99.5% of Americans, it was functionally feudalism.

I know what I believed when I was a libertarian too.

Small government, and more liberty. That's what you believe. That the government that governs least, governs best. Right? You believe that the federal government should function with the least amount of money possible, and let the states and local municipalities handle things, right?

I know. I used to be a libertarian. The problem is. You and I do not benefit from that. Only billionaires benefit from that. That is why I became an independent. There is a reason the Koch Brothers advocate for this.

For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare.

EXACTLY!

--"Lowering taxes" to make things more comfortable for billionaires.

--"Slashing regulation:" what "regulation" are they talking about? Environmental, worker's rights, child labor, minimum wage and anything that restricts big business in any way at the expense of the people. This is what i mean by classical liberalism re-packaged. This is EXACTLY how things were in the 19th century. There is a reason those regulations were put in place in the first place: people learned a lesson from history.

-- and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare.

Exactly. This has never worked well in history. Look at the great depression when Hoover was President using these principles. Soup and no jobs. That's why I'm not a libertarian. The Libertarian Party counts on people like us to forget history.

You basically just repeated what I said, but in more supportive language. It isn't that "libertarians believe we should end child labor laws and ruin the environment." I know you do not think those are a good thing. However, we know what the end result of these classical liberal economic policies is, and it's how things were in the mid-late 19th century, which is not a good life for me or you, so I do not advocate for it. There's a reason those regulations are in place on big business. Big business will not do things out of benevolence, and history has prove that. It takes me back to what I said earlier is the Libertarian Party counts on people like us to forget history. There's nothing new. It is the same policies that existed during the Guilded Age, and those who could be as rich as Rockafeller, would like that again.

LOL, you can not speak for Liberals?..... YOU ARE ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No I am not. I just base my how I vote on facts, history, and what works. If the "conservatives" can come up with an idea that would actually work, I would vote for "conservatives." I've told you this before: I DO NOT BELONG TO A PARTY AND I HATE THE FALSE-DICHOTOMY THIS COUNTRY HAS. I think taking a "side" makes one throw their brain away, and lets someone else do the thinking.

How nice of you not to address the total hypocrisy of Liberals who do the very things you judge Conservatives for.

"Liberals" have their problems too, but that is not the group I am talking about in this particular instance.

Why am I wasting my time with people who deny the simple truth of hypocritical Liberals.

Why debate at all? The whole point to debating is to use facts and logic to change other people's minds, or at least spread ideas. I've often asked myself, "why do I waste my time with people who have zero education and believe whatever they are told by 'conservative' pundits," but it is because I also feel that everyone can be reasoned with, and everyone can understand facts, so I keep trying to reason with you, and try to debate with you. It seems as though you are ACTUALLY doing what you accuse "colleges" of doing. Think about that for a while. You will not allow facts to confuse you.

They all talk about diversity, open mindedness, free speech UNTIL that very speech & open mindedness allows the opposing message to be disseminated to the population.

"They" is almost never a good point of reference. Moreover, I've told you that this doesn't happen. So, why are you still talking about it? If anything, there is a concerted effort by "conservatives" to spread misinformation and propaganda on campuses, but then again, between the two of us, I am the one who has actually gone to college.

The vast majority of our free press today has a Liberal slant & they 100% do control what you hear, just as some colleges are censoring Conservative opinions, just as the IRS censors Conservative groups.... and you say you can't speak for Liberals?

This claim is false, and I cannot speak for "liberals" because I am not a "liberal." I am an independent who is capable of independent thought.

Funny how you can judge conservatives & have no problem speaking against them.

Naturally. If I hear something that is not true, I feel compelled to speak out against it. It has nothing to do with it begin "conservative." It has to do with it not being true. I have lots of things I say about "liberals" too, when it is not true. I am interested in the truth, not partisan politics. That may confuse you, and I am sorry for that.

You are the hypocrite I speak of.

Argumentum ad Hominem. Let me ask you this: when was the last time I used an argumentum ad hominem on you? I seem to be able to hold a debate with you, even when you use ad hominem fallacies on me.

You totally waste my time!

Is it because I am bringing the truth to the discussion and the truth does not follow the "conservative" narrative? You're silencing dissent and silencing other ideas-- exactly what you say "colleges" are doing despite of having never actually been on a campus, when I have.

Who knows more about what happens on college campuses? The one who actually currently attends college and has a degree? Or the guy who has never been to one, and believes what Glen Beck (who also has no education) tells him? It is like when people who have never served in the military, tell me what I did in the military. The concept is absurd.

They are not "liberal" institutions. They are learning institutions, where you learn facts and how to find the answers yourself. There are not "two sides" to astronomy, or "two sides" to writing or "two sides" to history. Just because science has shown that global warming is happening doesn't mean science is a liberal conspiracy. It means that "conservatives" should adopt facts into their platform to stay relevant. Fact is fact. If facts do not support the "conservative" agenda, that doesn't make colleges "liberal," it makes "conservativism" based on false principles that are not true or have never worked.

What level of education do you have? To make such a claim, you must have lots of first hand experience on University Campuses? Where did you go to school? University of Phoenix?

They support human rights unless you're a worker and you want to unionize. When was the last time Libertarians supported unions or higher wages, or workers benefits? They don't. They support the corporations "liberty" to pay as little as they want and frame workers rights and benefits as a "choice."

Really, it is leftist parties that support human rights. Libertarians just support the liberty of the wealthy. Leftists tend to have a much better track record with civil rights, civil liberties, and human rights. Libertarians, on the other hand (looking back to when they were called Classical Liberals), brought us things like the 18 hour work day, racism, the six day work week, child labor, environmental disasters, and the "liberty" of corporations to hire armed thugs to beat or kill anyone who spoke out in their own interest.

Sitara, please do not think I think this about you specifically. I just used to be a Libertarian, and I am trying to show you what caused me to leave it. It isn't a movement for people like us or the working people of the US, but it is sold to us in a very convincing way.

No I'm not. There is a reason you see more former Republicans (and not very many, if any, Democrats) moving to be Libertarians like I did when I was younger. The end result, though, is the same. It's just that the Libertarian movement has re-packaged Reaganomics as something new and exiting, with the promise of weed and guns (except corporations also have "liberty" to take those things from you, so what's the point?).

This "Libertarian" movement is not a new idea. It is Reaganomics all over again (and that has never worked in history). It is the same Classical Liberalism that was prevalent in the 19th century; that's why the Koch Borthers love it so much. It is a philosophy whose end result is the same as the "conservative."

The thing is, "conservatives" have become irrelevant by espousing absurd things like: science denial, religious theocratic ideals, proven-false economic philosophies, and so on. "Conservative" think tanks know that they have to repackage the Republican Party in order to stay relevant after my father's generation is no longer voting in any appreciable numbers. So this "Libertarian" craze, is just trying to make being a Republican "hip" again. Instead of being racist elitist bigots who deny science, they are now "in favor of liberty (of corporations)," and want to "legalize weed and gay marriage (but don't mind if a corporation does not hire you for having THC in your system, or because you're gay, because "free market" means the corporations, who hold the cards, have the "liberty" to hire whoever they want)." They even claim to want to pull us out of the constant war we've been in for 60 years (but only for money reasons, not because Americans die needlessly).

It is very clever how this was done. They tell people like us that we get freedom, and then the only people who benefit are the ultra wealthy. History has shown repeatedly that when there is no functioning government, or a weak government, localized governance takes place (is that not the Libertarian aim? I know it is. I used to be one). When localized governance takes place, it's really the next runner-up that takes charge. Big money has a lot of sway over small municipalities (they will threaten to leave and "take all these jobs" if the mayor does not comply with their wishes; that has happened repeatedly in history when there was no centralized power in the region). So, the end result of "Libertarianism," is corporate feudalism in pretty packaging. That is the aim. It is sold to you and I as individual liberty, but we do not benefit from it (if at all) NEARLY as much as the Koch brothers do.

You said maybe these are colleges with high populations of certain groups of people? HELLO?

What group of people is behind this conspiracy theory you've cooked up? Which minority group are you going to say is behind a conspiracy to take over the banks and the government to destroy the one true nation of superior people? Wait. I think I've heard this before. I just can't remember where...

Does it matter? That is the entire point. I thought Colleges were suppose to encourage diverse thought and differing opinions on issues, not censor the other side. Colleges are suppose to make students THINK and question what those in power want them to believe! You did not know this?

That is exactly what colleges are, and if you'd ever set foot on a campus, you'd know that. They are places where you learn facts, you learn to find the answers yourself, and you learn to question those in power with the tools you gain; that is why "conservatives" (the ones that support the existing aristocracy and power structure), do not like higher education. "Conservatives" do not like people knowing the true nature of the world, and they do not like people knowing how to find the answers themselves. They want people to do like you do: believe what they are told, and never question. Education prevents that from happening.

As always, Liberals want one thought, one collective, no diversity other than those who agree.

I can't speak for "liberals," but I know "conservatives" do not like different ideas. That is what makes them "conservative." New ideas that question the power structure scare the aristocracy, so they have the pundits you listen to and never question tell you new ideas are something bad. That is why Glen Beck hates higher education; he wants you to hate it, and knows you won't question because you do not have a formal education.

DID I SAY ALL COLLEGES WERE DISCRIMINATING? Come back to Earth now & try addressing my point.

You implied that when you said "our colleges" in your diatribe.

There are Colleges today censoring Conservative speakers just as the IRS censored Conservative groups!

This would be a wonderful time for your to produce evidence from an unbiased, credible source. Just because you said it, does not mean I should believe it. Right now this sounds like conjecture.

Only arrogant people like yourself believe you have all the answers. Only you would be so adamant about Global warming being fact!

No, lol. Not only me. all scientists world wide, and people with an education also believe it is happening because the evidence is overwhelming.

fact! If Al Gore told you the Earth was flat, you would be the flat earther.

Al Gore has never spoken to me in my life. However, I've been shown repeatedly by scientists, that te earth is warming, and any study written by a reputable scientist would show you the same thing. Stop being manipulated by politicians.

Did you know our planet has not warmed for 18 years now?

Actually, that is patently false. Go look at NASA's website, look at the facts and come back and tell me that again. If you think you know more about science than NASA, YOU are the arrogant one, because you seem to have no education.

But of course you know everything, everything the Liberal media wants you to know.

No. I just know the facts and have an education.

Try thinking for once in your life and understanding that big money environmentalists want you to buy into their agendas and change our laws. IT'S ALL POLITICS!

That would be fine if it were only these "big money environmentalists" talking, but it's scientists from all over the world. Our Republican/Democrat false dichotomy only exists inside the borders of our country. How does that explain, say, scientists from INDIA seeing the same sea level rise, glacial melt and rising AGT? Science is not a liberal conspiracy.

I understand you are still an ignorant young person who has not lived life and think you have all the answers, but let me educate you a little. If you get out in the world & get a nice middle class job, & start paying the extremely high taxes & healthcare costs to subsidize the irresponsble, you will become a Republican. Unless of course you truly are a Liberal ideolog. They never learn.

I am a 32 year old man, who served in two wars on your behalf, has worked in the construction trades, has FAA licenses to work on aircraft, and has a higher level of education than you do. I have done more in my life than you will ever do. I've saved men's lives, I've flown in dangerous weather conditions in Iraq to get the mission done. Don't you dare take that kind of attitude with me, sir. People like you have no right to act superior to people like me. So, get back on topic, or keep being a chickenshit and avoid what I say like you've been doing. I used to be a polarized "conservative" just like you. I understand how you think, I just reject it because it is mostly not based on facts, and I've learned that from my life experience.

So, if you were wrong in your conjecture about me (and you were), what else are you wrong about? Ask yourself that.

Minarchist because it empowers the wealthy and corporations over the people of the country. Just enough government to protect corporate property and just enough government to enable commerce, but not enough to regulate corporations, protect workers rights, or care for veterans, disabled or unemployed people. They want government as long as it acts in the interest of the aristocracy, but not enough that it hinders the aristocracy in any way. In other words: limit the power of the people, empower corporations.

Think of how much government we had in the 19th century; that's about how much libertarians want. Now think of how horrible the 19th century was for everyone except wealthy landowners and corrupt robber barons. It doesn't sound like something I'd like to revisit, but that's just me.

Theft requires intent. Being born into a country does not carry any intent on the part of the person born, and these 'fruits of civilization' are forced upon people regardless of whether or not they want them. Forcing an unwanted product or service on someone and demanding payment is fraud; this is well established in case law, as this tactic was previously employed by numerous companies, most notably magazines.

Then I refer you back to my "then move some place that doesn't offer the product" rebuttal. No one is forcing anyone to live in civilization. Don't say, "it's impossible to move anywhere else." My friend Pawel, came to the free world by jumping over the Berlin Wall. He didn't know anyone on the other side. People are free, and as such, can do what they want. No one is forcing anyone to stay anywhere.

I actually lend more conservative on the whole than liberal, but I'm pretty used to people assuming they know everything about my political stance from a single comment AND getting it wrong, so I'll let it slide.

I don't think you know what classical liberal means. If you did, you'd realize that you are one. Ronald Reagan was a classical liberal. Adam Smith was a classical liberal. Liberal is misused in the United States, and we use "libertarian" in its place. Liberals (in light of the actual meaning) believe in "free" unregulated markets, they believe in global trade, and they believe in the smallest government possible. Liberals believe that the market can solve everything despite that it has not in history. Since you're probably American and do not know what liberal actually means, I'll let that slide.

You receive an unsolicited magazine in the mail. along with a bill for your subscription. You call and tell them that you do not want the subscription, and do not wish to pay for it. They refuse to cancel your subscription or accept the return of the received issue, and again demand payment. When you again refuse, they threaten to report you to the policy. How is this theft on YOUR part?

That isn't what taxation is though. Taxation is the dues you pay to live in civilization and enjoy the fruits of it. There are definitely perks to living in civilization, but no one is forcing you to live in it and enjoy the fruits of it. You can always leave, if you do not like it. Since you're using the internet, I'll assume you probably like civilization. You were born into civilization, so in that respect, you had no choice, but upon reaching legal adulthood (the part where you had to started paying taxes), you could move to subsaharan Africa. Stop acting like a victim. No one who lives in horrible 3rd world places like Somalia feel bad for you. I'm guessing you've never traveled outside the US, so I'll let that slide.

Nit-pick: Taxes are not dues paid to civilizations- they're funding provided to the government, which may have had little to do with establishing the civilization in question.

You're trying to play semantics. Taxes are dues you pay to live in civilization. The government provides civilization to the people in return for dues paid to it. Without government: there are no fire departments, no highways, no bridges, no FAA, no FDA, no police, no military, no public education, and you would have a very primitive world. Since the dawn of civilization (ancient Mesopotamia), people have paid taxes.

Let me put it like this: if you think taxation does not fund civilization, what does? Civilization is not free.

To be comparable to armed robbery, it need only be similar; taking money against the individuals will under threat of force is sufficiently close for a comparison.

Well, soldiers shaking people down under the threat of immediate death is not armed robbery because it is done within the confines of the law, and if not it's something different entirely. So it IS similar, and not exactly the same. You don't get charged with armed robbery unless you've committed the crime.

Pointless nitpick. It is generally referred to as the American Revolution or the Revolutionary War.

Not a nitpick, it was me passing along knowledge to you from studying history professionally.

I am against despotism, but I am not against taxation. How many times do I need to explain my position before you get it?

I get it. Don't be a dick.

The intent of the revolution was largely immaterial here. The fact was that they refused to pay certain taxes, and that was met with lethal force. The reason why doesn't really matter.

It absolutely matters, but maybe that's because I study history for a living.

It doesn't need to actually involve a gun being held to someone's head to be comparable to armed robbery.

It absolutely does. When was the last time a mugger gave you years to give them all the money in your wallet because they are providing services to you for the sake of providing them and only threatened you if you tried to fight them and refused to pay? The government is not a thief. It derives its just powers from the consent of the governed (that's you). Thieves do not derive power from you, and they do not provide anything to you. You do not vote for thieves. You do not have a say in what the thief does. Governments and dues are governments and dues; criminals and theft are criminals and theft. That's why taxation is nothing like armed robbery.

Of course- except for the crumbling infrastructure portion, which is only somewhat accurate.O

When was the last time you traveled to China?

In order to be over-generalizing, I would have to be generalizing. I'm not. Let me spell it out for you again: my position is that 'taxation can be comparable to armed robbery under certain circumstances.'

What is the point of making that case, unless you're going to use the classical liberal argument of "taxation is theft," which you keep doing with your magazine subscription thing.

Why do you feel someone SHOULD be subjected to such? Why should anyone necessarily be bound by laws that were created before they were born, that they never got a vote on?

There is something called a "Social Contract" that the citizen has with their government. It is one of the enlightenment principles that western-style governments are founded on. You pay taxes, the government provides services. That social contract is mentioned all over our founding documents, and most every single other western country's founding documents. If you want to learn more about it, read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, and the Two Treatises on Government by John Locke. There are also a bunch of other enlightenment thinkers that understood it. If you read what they said, it makes a lot of sense. These were not stupid, irresponsible people. It's unfortunate that most people have never read these works by the time they become voters, because they explain a lot about western-style government, and political philosophy. It comes down to, as Jefferson wrote in the DOI, "Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." That is social contract. You can move, and you can rebel, but as long as you: vote, go to jury duty, pay your dues, protest, are politically involved, or interface with the government in any way (like driving on a road, or being protected by the military), you are entering into the social contract. Please read those works. It will make much more sense.

The burden of proof is on me for this claim, but that burden is satisfied, my position proven true, and the opposite proven false, by presenting a single case where taxation could be comparable to robbery. I have already done this.

I never argued that it might be something like armed robbery in an extreme case that never happens in the developed world. The platoon of soldiers shaking people down under threat of immediate death would be the example where I agreed with you.

My argument was rather that refusing to pay taxes will, in most jurisdications, result in criminal charges and jail time- and further, that even in nations without the death penalty, attempting to evade a prison sentence and/or break out of jail will liekly get you shot.

That is because enjoying the fruits of civilization and not paying for it, is basically stealing from your fellow American (or, since we're not talking about the US, your fellow Englishman, or whatever). Theft is a crime.

Since I suspect you're a classical liberal, let me put it this way:

You walk into a liquor store. You pick up a bottle of beer, and drink it. The owner asks you if you plan on paying for it, and you say: "no, I shouldn't have to pay for it. You should just provide it to me." Then you pick up another bottle of beer, and drink it. Now lets say he asks you to pay for it again (this is your tax collection agency letter asking you to pay your back taxes). This time you say, "I shouldn't have to pay for it because you also sell Jack Daniels and I don't like that booze." This time he walks over to you and says, "if you do not pay, I will report you to the police" (this is where the tax collection agency is pressing charges). You raise your gun to the store owner and say, "I won't let you rob me," and he shoots you. How is that "armed robbery" on HIS part?

Until the world becomes communist, we will need to pay for things, since things still cost money. Taxes are dues paid to civilization, just like that $12 you're supposed to give the store owner for the 6 pack of (hopefully) good craft beer you were drinking. Does that make sense? It is not wrong for the store owner to ask you to pay for the beer you drank. Taxation is not armed robbery. I think you're saying that a platoon of armed soldiers shaking people down for all their money is armed robbery, and I would agree with that, but that's armed robbery, not taxation.

Historically speaking, taxes have been resisted and people killed for it numerous times throughout Europe. In modern day China, people have been executed for refusing to pay the ~200k yen tax required of those who have a second child.

So, are you against despotism? Or are you against taxation? I would agree that despotism is bad.

And lets not forget that the refusal of colonists to pay taxes sparked military action on the part of the crown, leading to the American Revolutionary War.

Thank you for bringing this up, history is what I do for a living!

The Colonists in North American did not have a revolution, they had a War for Independence, first of all.

Second of all, the slogan of the independence movement (which was mostly wealthy land-owning slavers, and less than 1/3 of the population at the time) was "no taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION." It was NOT "no taxation." They wanted representation in Parliament, if they were going to pay taxes (which the taxes they were paying at the time were almost nothing, the lowest in the Empire. Yet these colonies were some of the richest parts of the British Empire. The British Empire sent troops across the pond TWICE to defend those colonies, and were now in debt because of it, and needed to recoup the money. It was a no-brainer to ask the people they went in debt over to pay into the system they benefitted from).

If the American Independence Movement were really against taxation, then President Washington, early in his Presidency, would not have nationalized the militia to literally gun-down tax rebels in theWhiskey Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion).

I am not talking about the US specifically, and death needn't be either guaranteed or immediate for it to be comparable to armed robbery.

I can't imagine a robber saying, "you have one year to produce money in your wallet for me to take for the services I provide you, or I'll put you in jail, and if you threaten my life, I'll shoot you."

Furthermore, forcing people at gunpoint to pay taxes would not be comparable to armed robbery. It would in fact be armed robbery.

Holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to pay taxes, doesn't happen in the developed world. This is hyperbolic. Again, you benefit from taxation, probably more than you pay in. I know I do.

First and foremost: You don't seem to understand the value of a hypothetical scenario. The main reason I'm using it, in this instance, is an attempt to examine an issue from an objective standpoint.

An objective standpoint on something that isn't happening in the developed world. You're painting all civilization dues with ONLY the brush you would paint a despotic system with. That is an over-generalization fallacy.

My stance was rather that "Taxation can be considered armed robbery under certain circumstances." Even if those circumstances do not exist now (even though they do, as can be noted with China), that stance is valid simply because those circumstances have existed, and it's certainly possible that similar circumstances could arise again.

It COULD happen, and it might happen in some parts of the world, but that does not mean all taxation is 100% armed robbery. I think you just said that though. My question is, why are you so adamant about defending a hyperbolic, hypothetical situation that doesn't affect us? The argument you're using is normally used to justify absurd, irresponsible tax cuts, not to discuss something that "happened somewhere else, and might happen some other place." So, you can see, I'm sure, why I was so confused.

I've alread addressed the 'developed country' bit. Also: China is not a third world country; it is still considered a 'developing' country, but not third world.

I would argue that Communist China is just a third world toilet with more money than DR Congo. It has a crumbling infrastructure, a despotic government, and political prisons.

I don't contest this line of thinking- but I don't think its fundamentally wrong for those who make a point not to partake in any of society's benefits (beyond what they are legally forced to) to object to paying all of the associated taxes- I don't think being excused from taxation entirely is reasonable, but certainly some middleground could be found for those who truly wish to be as isolated and self-sufficient as possible.

Under the nation-state geopolitical system, unfortunately, if you live within the borders of a nation, you are subject to its rules, and you should be. There is always moving away to some place with not functioning government.

I'm picking up what you're putting down. I think you're saying that tax collection is bad ONLY IF you employ armed thugs and zero time to ask the tax payer to produce the dues owed to the civilization. I would agree with that. It's a good thing we live in the developed world, or the USA even!

This is just part of the "conservative" war against an educated populace, and is false in my first hand experience.

I attend a State University in California where I study history full time, and I have for over a year now, and am a Senior about to begin post undergrad studies.

-At my University, there is a "College Republicans" club, which almost always has a table any given day. There is no "College Democrat" club.

-At my University, every single day, there is a table outside the University Union for a Christian Church handing out Bibles, and denying science (i.e., denying the fact that the earth is warming, and denying evolution specifically). The only "liberal" (or fact-based/science-based) alternative are the science classes that teach science; there are no scientists tabling anywhere near them.

-At my University, we had a speaker whose entire point to his speech was how bad Che Guevara was.

-At my University, there have been people with loud speakers trying to scare us about a "liberal" takeover of the Federal Government (funny, because the political center of American Politics has shifted so far to the right, we're practically back to where we were in the 19th century).

According to most "conservative" pundits, California is a bastion of "liberalism," where, if there were going to be "conservatives" not allowed on campus, it would begin at a California State University, however, as I have shown you through first hand experience, that is patently false.

If anything, there is a consorted effort by "conservative" groups to spread propaganda and misinformation on University Campuses to confuse the students.

A 10 percent flat tax helps the rich dodge taxes for good. The concept of a progressive tax rate has been around since Ancient Athens. In Ancient Athens, there was this idea that "there can be no success without Athens." In other words, the Ancient Athenians knew that if they did not have Athens in the first place (the agora, the government protecting property, the infrastructure to do business and regulate markets), everyone would be too concerned with keeping a fire going to stay warm, and hunting for food to become wealthy (and that's true). Therefore, the ones that benefit the most from that society, should pay more into it than the people who benefit very little from that society. It is in the interest of the rich to perpetuate civilization. Without it, they aren't going to be rich for long because there are more working poor people than there are of them, and the French Revolution happens again.

A 10 percent flat tax taxes the destitute more, and dramatically lowers taxes on the incredibly rich. History has shown that lowering taxes on the rich DOES NOT improve the economy or create jobs, so we already know it will not benefit us or society. So, why should we be on board with that? Often times these obscenely rich people were born into their class and have never had to work a day in their lives.

Under the Eisenhower Administration, the one-percent were taxed to the tune of 90%. Today they are taxed (my uncle is a tax attorney to the wealthy), at anywhere between 15-25 percent (we're talking about people who have more money than God, and have benefitted from society more than anyone else). Under Clinton, it was 30 percent. So, taxes on the people most able to pay them, have been steadily going down, and those low tax rates we have today have loop holes; many of those billionaires are still dodging taxes by hiding money in offshore accounts.

The tax rate on the working poor can be high, and you could pay half of your income in taxes if: a) you owe back taxes, b) you owe back child support, or c) you have had your wages attached for some reason be it creditor or fines; most of those can be attributed to poor money management on the part of the individual, and we are all responsible for our own actions (see? I told you I used to be a Republican).

Spending has dropped on programs that allow for social mobility, like pell grants and higher education, along with programs for the disabled, mentally ill, and destitute. So, our $17 trillion deficit is not because spending has gone up (look at spending in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, and 60s compared to now), it is because those who benefit the most from our society are trying to get something for free. These are all facts you can find from non-partisan, credible, unbiased sources.

I am arguing that, under certain circumstances, taxation can be rather akin to armed robbery.

It seems like you tried to make an argument earlier that stated something like, "if I do not pay my taxes, the government (the US government) will come by and kill me immediately."

Okay, so what circumstances? What country are we talking about? In the entire modern developed world there is no place that I know of that forces people at gunpoint to pay their dues.

If it helps, please revisit my post under the assumption that the government and taxation scheme in question is coming from a despotic tyrant in some third world country, and separate your emotional patriotism from the mix.

If we're talking about a made-up place, why are you basing your seeming political philosophy on some place that probably doesn't exist?

If you still believe that taxation is never, in any way comparable to armed robbery- even under those conditions- please respond to this post and I will continue discussion with you accordingly.

It isn't functionally anything like armed robbery in any developed country. There might be a third world country where it is, but that is moot point. We do not live there. It seems as though you are trying to make an argument AGAINST taxation of any kind because there could be a country out there, somewhere, where taxation is forced at gunpoint (that is incredibly inefficient at the national level). If there IS a country out there where it is run like that, I choose not to live there, and you should too. So, yes, it is POSSIBLE that there MIGHT be a country out there like that, but it won't last long, because you would need to have a platoon-sized element of professional soldiers that goes around shaking people down all day; that is not cost effective; that government will not last long simply in terms of math.

I am open to discussion, but I will not respond to your argument in its current antagonistic and unwarrantedly condescending form. If you'll drop the attitude a moment, clear your head, and revisit this under the premise that we are not speaking of the US, I will discuss further.

I'm not meaning to be condescending. I apologize if I come across that way. You must realize that there are actually uneducated people out there who think "tax" is a four-letter word (often wrapped in the American Flag), and that our government can function without it in its current form. Essentially, those people (apparently not you), think they can benefit from society and not have to pay for it. I'm assuming you understand how incredibly irresponsible and reactionary that is. Those people exist, and they are all over the place. Thank you for clarifying that you are not one of those people.

I used to be a Republican, then I became a Libertarian. I would have stayed a libertarian if the party platform were focused solely on the freedom of individual citizens. Unfortunately, it is more focused on the liberty of corporate non-human entities, and deregulating markets (something history has repeatedly shown to not work well for most people) which can and do harm the liberties of the individual. Corporations are political machines in their own rights. So, to me, it doesn't make sense to limit the power of the government in the name of freedom, and then NOT limit the power of corporate entities because both can be a threat to the freedom of individuals; more often than not it is corporations that usurp liberty. I would argue that the seediest parts of our political system stem from how much power corporations and corporate lobbyists have over our elected officials: that is corruption. You cannot fix that by burning it down. You have to empower the citizens, and you cannot empower citizens when corporations become the new feudal lords.

Neither. I do not need some political machine to do

my thinking for me. I can think for myself.