NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I don't know if the theory of global warming is simply environmental propaganda being spewed by partisan hacks parading as scientists. It may be, but it may also be a valid assessment. In either case, the US should take several measures to meet the dilemmas of the twenty-first century by increasing its rate of pollution. Below are several proposals.


Cars should have a maximum miles per gallon rating.
All federal sponsorship of "clean" energy initiatives should be abandoned.
Companies that switch to dirty-burning coal is should be rewarded.
There should be a "clean tax" on those who persist in using renewable energy sources.


First of all, let's assume that global warming is a false thesis. In that case, reverting to coal and oil as major fuel sources would save us money, as they are much more efficient that solar or wind power. We also have vast coal reserves that are waiting to be tapped, and the free market is waiting to pounce upon such a lucrative opportunity. Thus, if the scientists are deeply flawed in their outlook, overhauling our energy production system would be an economic boon to us. We would be able to drastically increase our GDP and well-being as a nation.

But what if global warming turns out to be right? Well, our major rival in the global arena is China. If we are to remain competitive against a nation with over a billion people which is adopting capitalist reforms and thus surging ahead in economic growth, we must somehow curb their advances. We know that China will be impacted to a much greater degree than the US by global warming; already, they are feeling the effects of droughts and lack of water. If global warming exists, it would compound the problem. This will wreak havoc upon their economic foundations and allow us to remain ahead of them, because the cost of global warming is predicted to be much greater for China than it is for us.

Therefore, regardless of the viewpoint from which it is considered, global warming must be embrace, be it a real phenomenon or simply liberal clap-trap, as such far-sighted policies will benefit us in the future.

This is by far the most retarded suggestion ever posted on the internet. Everyone who reads it is dumber for having done so. I award you no points, and may every god have mercy on your soul.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread20Failed.gif

Ahh Trolls... Cant live with them, cant kill them.

The only good troll is Shreck.

I think FAG's post managed to make shit of any possible constructive ideas I had.

Ahh Trolls... Cant live with them, cant kill them.

The only good troll is Shreck.

He was an ogre. Ogre are good. Trolls, not so much.

Right, IF global warming exists you think America will really manage to be damaged only "lightly" from its effects? And IF it doesn't exist I would really hate to breath in the crap that would be spewed out without any environmental standards. But I can see that regardless you are either a troll (likely) or a scum of a human being ( a little less likely) for making this suggestion. But I guess if it benefits America then anything would be fine is that it?

Ah, good old realism eh? Doesn't everyone love relative power.

Ahh Trolls... Cant live with them, cant kill them.

The only good troll is Shreck.

Shrek is an ogre, not a troll. Ogres > Trolls.

Right, IF global warming exists you think America will somehow be immune to its effects?

No, but the damages incurred by America would pale in comparison to the hefty price that China must pay. As I previously stated, they are already facing water shortages, a crisis that will be exacerbated should global warming exist and progress.

And IF it doesn't exist I would really hate to breath in the crap that would be spewed out without any environmental standards.

If you so desire, you can purchase one of those air purification systems. However, we should promote systems that are able to send the pollution to other countries via the wind. Additionally, you can wear masks or other devices to protect yourself from the detrimental effects of pollution. Right now, though, US cities are about 4 times less polluted than other urban centers such as Shanghai or Delhi, so we have quite a ways to go. Anyway, after we have left China in the dust, we can go back to less polution-intensive measures.


But I guess if it benefits America then anything would be fine is that it?

Almost anything, yes. God bless the USA: I love it.

He was an ogre. Ogre are good. Trolls, not so much.

It's too bad this isn't D&D. Flames would be the acceptable manner of killing trolls, and they'd WORK.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread20Failed.gif
This is a good image, but maybe you should find a new one? How many times have you posted it today? You're lacking on the imagination front, my friend.

Ahh Trolls... Cant live with them, cant kill them.

The only good troll is Shreck.

Congratulations. You managed to make three glaring mistakes in a post that short.


The fictional character's name is Shrek; you misspelled it.
That very same character is an ogre, not a troll.
I am not a troll, either.

http://www.hotoffthepressonline.com/prodimg/insanity.jpg

No, but the damages incurred by America would pale in comparison to the hefty price that China must pay. As I previously stated, they are already facing water shortages, a crisis that will be exacerbated should global warming exist and progress.



If you so desire, you can purchase one of those air purification systems. However, we should promote systems that are able to send the pollution to other countries via the wind. Additionally, you can wear masks or other devices to protect yourself from the detrimental effects of pollution. Right now, though, US cities are about 4 times less polluted than other urban centers such as Shanghai or Delhi, so we have quite a ways to go. Anyway, after we have left China in the dust, we can go back to less polution-intensive measures.




Almost anything, yes. God bless the USA: I love it.

I'm amused that you think the PRC and the rest of the world is just going to sit there and take it. I hope you enjoy trade embargoes.

I am not a troll, either.

Right right, and you're not MTAE or RC either. We believe you!


http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/300W/images3.deviantart.com/i/2004/111/0/e/Don__t_feed_the_Troll.jpg

Almost anything, yes. God bless the USA: I love it.

It seems though that where you would draw the line is not where anyone with a shred of morals should actually place it. Not to mention that we need China to get all our crap from. Them going into trouble couldn't be good for us nor would they go quietly anyway even if it was. I'd hate to see what would happen should China dump all the U.S. bonds they hold... Regardless I'd like to think just a little for others then just our narrow viewpoint of it being all "me". America isn't the center of the universe no matter what you may think. If we have to sacrifice our SUVs for the good of others then it is certainly something we can handle.

I'm amused that you think the PRC and the rest of the world is just going to sit there and take it. I hope you enjoy trade embargoes.

Many countries are either dependent on our trade, our humanitarian aid, or fear our exceptionally strong military. In either case, they would be loath to instate trade embargoes. The US would be able to thrive economically even without excessive trade.

This is a good image, but maybe you should find a new one? How many times have you posted it today? You're lacking on the imagination front, my friend.

Yeah. I should work on that.

Wait so Global Warming exists it won't affect the USA and China will suffer the most. I'm pretty sure someones not taking into account the increased storm activities in the USA and the severity of such storms. The UK is suffering from lack of rain and so water shortages.

The whole world is going to feel tha affects sooner or later and burying your head in the sand isn't going to stop it.

Not to mention that we need China to get all our crap from.

I value freedom and democracy over cheap plastic gadgets. I will not complacently allow the US to drift into oblivion as China becomes a world power simply because I'm attached to inexpensive goods. That would be morally bankrupt.

If we have to sacrifice our SUVs for the good of others then it is certainly something we can handle.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The US is a shining example of freedom and democracy in the world; we should not sacrifice that because of a little heat.

Right right, and you're not MTAE or RC either. We believe you!


http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/300W/images3.deviantart.com/i/2004/111/0/e/Don__t_feed_the_Troll.jpg

Can you at least make an effort to honestly debating me instead of simply posting mindless spam? It's getting annoying. Just because I don't have a far-left viewpoint does not me a troll make.

I value freedom and democracy over cheap plastic gadgets. I will not complacently allow the US to drift into oblivion as China becomes a world power simply because I'm attached to inexpensive goods. That would be morally bankrupt.



What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The US is a shining example of freedom and democracy in the world; we should not sacrifice that because of a little heat.

Add to that rising sea levels, nations being submerged such as the Netherlands and many coastlines including the USA. Do you also know what follows global warming? A global cooling and do you know what that brings? An ice age and that ice age will affect all of the Northern Hemisphere either turning it into a block of ice or tundra. The only chance would be moving south towards the equator. So your beloved USA as well as every other nation in the North will be royally screwed.

This isn't even funny, it's just stupid.

I value freedom and democracy over cheap plastic gadgets. I will not complacently allow the US to drift into oblivion as China becomes a world power simply because I'm attached to inexpensive goods. That would be morally bankrupt.

Well you could start by stopping our corporations from exporting our jobs to other countries, perhaps then we could go back to manufacturing our own goods?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The US is a shining example of freedom and democracy in the world; we should not sacrifice that because of a little heat.

Freedom and driving a gas guzzling car are not the same. It would be nice as well as what I suggested above if we could get some fuel standards so that we will not be held hostage to oil that makes foreign adventures neccessary to ensure our lifestyles. But I suppose that is too longterm for most people who only want their oil NOW without spending the money and effort to make things better for us all.

You know if you don't reply to a troll he'll eventually go away, or atleast his threads will sink off the front page and we won't have to be offended by his blatant denial of reality.

Don't reply to him thinking you'll get any sensible debate, he's already ignoring all scientific evidence.

I value freedom and democracy over cheap plastic gadgets. I will not complacently allow the US to drift into oblivion as China becomes a world power simply because I'm attached to inexpensive goods. That would be morally bankrupt.
I don't think someone so callous about the lives of a billion people is in any position to think someone morally bankrupt.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The US is a shining example of freedom and democracy in the world; we should not sacrifice that because of a little heat.
Nauseating crap aside, someone clearly doesn't understand climate change. Here's a hint: it's more than just 'a little heat.'

Can you at least make an effort to honestly debating me instead of simply posting mindless spam? It's getting annoying. Just because I don't have a far-left viewpoint does not me a troll make.

Debate what? How you debate insanity? :confused:

You know if you don't reply to a troll he'll eventually go away, or atleast his threads will sink off the front page and we won't have to be offended by his blatant denial of reality.

Don't reply to him thinking you'll get any sensible debate, he's already ignoring all scientific evidence.

I know but I can't help it. I suppose I should just post a "don't feed the troll" pic but stuff like this really gets to me.

Can you at least make an effort to honestly debating me instead of simply posting mindless spam? It's getting annoying. Just because I don't have a far-left viewpoint does not me a troll make.

No, but spewing retarded shit like this does.

Debate what? How you debate insanity? :confused:

Ask him to prove that purple isn't a quantum fruit.

Ask him to prove that purple isn't a quantum fruit.
Can't prove a negative.:p

Well you could start by stopping our corporations from exporting our jobs to other countries, perhaps then we could go back to manufacturing our own goods?

The law of comparative advantage dictates that international trade is beneficial to all participants as is more efficiently allocates resources. This has been a well-established economic fact for hundreds of years. Note that trade does not endanger our national welfare, but allowing an anti-democratic, communist, potential superpower to rise up unchecked does.

I don't think someone so callous about the lives of a billion people is in any position to think someone morally bankrupt.

I value their lives. However, they retain the option of emigrating to the US once they realize that their backwards country is regressing economically because of climate change. Thus, if they choose to remain on a sinking ship, it is their own fault if they die. My object is not to kill the Chinese, but simply wipe out the Chinese state as we know it.

You are right about the ecenomic impacts. But this shit about USA not being badly affected is nonsense, and I guess there is no point giving a shit about europe right?

I value their lives. However, they retain the option of emigrating to the US once they realize that their backwards country is regressing economically because of climate change. Thus, if they choose to remain on a sinking ship, it is their own fault if they die. My object is not to kill the Chinese, but simply wipe out the Chinese state as we know it.

Wait you so want to get rid of a nation that has been around for thousands of years longer than the USA and in my opinion offered more culturally to the world simply because you don't agree with their political and economical standings. If someone said that about the USA you'd be fuming! Tell me do you also support Irans wish to wipe Israel off the map?

I value their lives. However, they retain the option of emigrating to the US once they realize that their backwards country is regressing economically because of climate change.
The US public and politicians would not accept this and you know it. America would be effected by climate change and you know it.

Thus, if they choose to remain on a sinking ship, it is their own fault if they die. My object is not to kill the Chinese, but simply wipe out the Chinese state as we know it.
And with over 1 billion Chinese in the USA, compared to 300 million Americans, one would say the Chinese state would be less destroyed and more transplanted, even if it were morally justifiable to force a billion people to leave their homes.

I guess there is no point giving a shit about europe right?

Unfortunately, there will be some collateral damage, but it will fall within an acceptable range.

I value their lives. However, they retain the option of emigrating to the US once they realize that their backwards country is regressing economically because of climate change. Thus, if they choose to remain on a sinking ship, it is their own fault if they die. My object is not to kill the Chinese, but simply wipe out the Chinese state as we know it.

Erm... Uh... You just broke my brain. I'm not sure I like the feeling.

Wait you so want to get rid of a nation...simply because you don't agree with their political and economical standings.

Yes. Its economic growth poses a danger to the global supremacy of the US; this, in turn, endangers freedom, democracy, and everything we hold dear on an international scale.

Tell me do you also support Irans wish to wipe Israel off the map?

Of course not. Israel is a stable, democratic state in the Middle East which is thriving economically despite the fact that its neighbors are intent upon its destruction. Furthermore, it is an agent in combating terrorists, as opposed to Iran, which actively promotes terrorism as a tool of state policy.

I value their lives. However, they retain the option of emigrating to the US once they realize that their backwards country is regressing economically because of climate change. Thus, if they choose to remain on a sinking ship, it is their own fault if they die. My object is not to kill the Chinese, but simply wipe out the Chinese state as we know it.

And the only way to do this is to cause global warming and ruin the livability of their country? I suppose this will "simply wipe out" the state without harming the people. Right...

Unfortunately, there will be some collateral damage, but it will fall within an acceptable range.

So the destruction of most of europe is an "acceptable range"?

And the only way to do this is to cause global warming and ruin the livability of their country?

Yes. Unilateral sanctions would be ineffective as China has a plethora of unscrupulous trading partners, such as Cuba, Zimbabwe, etc. Military action would be excessively drastic, especially given that China possesses nuclear weapons and a strong army. Global warming seems to be the optimal tool for addressing the problem, especially as it can benefit the US no matter what the reality of global warming is.

Yes. Its economic growth poses a danger to the global supremacy of the US; this, in turn, endangers freedom, democracy, and everything we hold dear on an international scale.



Of course not. Israel is a stable, democratic state in the Middle East which is thriving economically despite the fact that its neighbors are intent upon its destruction. Furthermore, it is an agent in combating terrorists, as opposed to Iran, which actively promotes terrorism as a tool of state policy.

Oh so as long as the US is fine the world can go fuck themselves basically? Well sorry but since I'm in the UK that just doesn't sit well with me and certainly won't sit well with the 5.7 billion people outside of the US. The world is changing so you better get used to the US not being the top dog anymore.

So the destruction of most of europe is an "acceptable range"?

That's what I said, yes.

Can't prove a negative.:p

I know, the idea is to argue with insanity.

The world is changing so you better get used to the US not being the top dog anymore.

Ah, but we can preserve our status as "top dog" (as you put it) if we are willing to accept reforms in our energy infrastructure. It is not a foregone conclusion that China will replace the US as the world's most prominent superpower, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that such a transition does not occur.

That's what I said, yes.

Why do you value US supremacy over europe then?

I know, the idea is to argue with insanity.

Actually, I can prove a negative. For example, you are not a squirrel because a squirrel's intelligence does not parallel yours.

Yes. Unilateral sanctions would be ineffective as China has a plethora of unscrupulous trading partners, such as Cuba, Zimbabwe, etc. Military action would be excessively drastic, especially given that China possesses nuclear weapons and a strong army. Global warming seems to be the optimal tool for addressing the problem, especially as it can benefit the US no matter what the reality of global warming is.

And the United States doesn't trade with unscrupulous countries? That is certainly worth a laugh. And China will only be a problem if we let them be one. We help them out with our trading policies with them. Such scaremongering with a most favored nation. Yeah...

Ah, but we can preserve our status as "top dog" (as you put it) if we are willing to accept reforms in our energy infrastructure. It is not a foregone conclusion that China will replace the US as the world's most prominent superpower, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that such a transition does not occur.

Just remember the world was functioning before the US came into existence and should the US go isolationist, as it seems you would have no problem with the this, the world will continue althoug struggle at first but it would recover quickly. You have very limited knowledge if you believe the world needs the USA to survive.

Why do you value US supremacy over europe then?

I don't consider Europe as a variable in my calculations; it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Additionally, given Europe's economic malaise and its free and democratic society, I do not value US supremacy over it. It is the very anti-thesis of a threat such a China.

At the very least, the switch to renewable sources should be because we're running out of the old stuff.

I for one don't believe global warming exists, same problem turned up in the 70's, look where it went.

And the United States doesn't trade with unscrupulous countries? That is certainly worth a laugh.

Why did you distort my comment in order to register a cheap political point? I was simply outlining why unilateral sanctions would fail miserably; I was not implying what you seemed to infer from my statement.

And China will only be a problem if we let them be one.

Exactly; that's why we must not allow them to become a problem by halting their growth in its tracks.

Why did you distort my comment in order to register a cheap political point? I was simply outlining why unilateral sanctions would fail miserably; I was not implying what you seemed to infer from my statement.

You were trying to prove your argument with the statement that China trades with countries you do not approve of when the United States does exactly the same thing. It is simple hypocrisy and I have no problem pointing that out.

At the very least, the switch to renewable sources should be because we're running out of the old stuff.

We are slowly depleting our oil reserves, but we have massive stockpiles of coal which we could use.

I don't consider Europe as a variable in my calculations; it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Additionally, given Europe's economic malaise and its free and democratic society, I do not value US supremacy over it. It is the very anti-thesis of a threat such a China.

What? That made no sense. How could the destruction of europe be irellavent? You do still admit that you would be willing to sacrifice europe if it's the only thing that could save the US's supremacy right? If so why is this?

Also, if we take things on an extreme cold pragmatical basis like you have, the destruction of europe would have huge effects on the US anyway.

Actually, I can prove a negative. For example, you are not a squirrel because a squirrel's intelligence does not parallel yours.

How did you measure a squirrel's intelligence? Was it one squirrel or did you use a number and compare my intelligence with the squirrel average? If it was one squirrel, how did you choose it? How does it's intelligence compare with that of the squirrel average? If you used a number of squirrels how did you choose them? How did you measure my intelligence? How did you prove that intelligence is the sole factor in determining whether a creature is a squirrel or not? What were your findings? What conclusion did you come to based on them?

I just wanted to say that posts like troll posts like freedoms make me laugh. Just thought I'd comment.

You were trying to prove your argument with the statement that China trades with countries you do not approve of when the United States does exactly the same thing. It is simple hypocrisy and I have no problem pointing that out.

No, I was simply stating that unilateral sanctions will have no effect because certain countries will persist in trading with China despite the threat it poses to the US and the world. I was taking no stance whatsoever on the US engaging in trade with countries you deem "unscrupulous." There was no hypocrisy whatsoever; I didn't even compare the US to China.

No, I was simply stating that unilateral sanctions will have no effect because certain countries will persist in trading with China despite the threat it poses to the US and the world. I was taking no stance whatsoever on the US engaging in trade with countries you deem "unscrupulous." There was no hypocrisy whatsoever; I didn't even compare the US to China.

So? You may not have mentioned the U.S. but the implication was there. Given your belief at the infallibility of the U.S. I'm sure you'd think we wouldn't associate with such "unscrupulous" countries. But we do of course, they have what we need. And we would never sanction China anyway, they provide us with to many goods for us to ever take such measures.

How could the destruction of europe be irellavent?

Life goes on, even without Europe. It's not as if the continent is the center of the universe and the sina que non of existence. In other words, Europe is expendable; although it poses no danger to the US, it may need to be sacrificed in order to combat China, which is a critical peril.


the destruction of europe would have huge effects on the US anyway.

Perhaps, but the rise of China would have much more disastrous consequences; it's simply a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

Life goes on, even without Europe. It's not as if the continent is the center of the universe and the sina que non of existence. In other words, Europe is expendable; although it poses no danger to the US, it may need to be sacrificed in order to combat China, which is a critical peril.


What are you scared of that China might do, so much so that europe is expendable to battle it?

So? You may not have mentioned the U.S. but the implication was there.

I implied nothing. You made fallacious assumptions based upon what you deem to be my political stance; while understandable, this is erroneous. I will readily stipulate that the US sometimes may engage in trade with what some may construe as "unscrupulous" nations.

Given your belief at the infallibility of the U.S.

I don't believe that the US is infallible; just look at the election of Clinton for an example of a horrendous mistake.

And we would never sanction China anyway, they provide us with to many goods for us to ever take such measures.

I was stating how unfeasable such a measure would be; I started off from the premise that we need to curb China's rise to a superpower status and examined measures which could be enacted in order to slam the brakes on such growth. I am not talking about what will be done, but rather the theoretical path that should be followed.

What are you scared of that China might do, so much so that europe is expendable to battle it?

It may spread its insidious doctrine of communism to other nations, as it has already done to Tibet. Soon, the world may be engulfed in a red tide and the last embers of freedom will have been extinguished by a godless onslaught of ultra-leftists.

I was stating how unfeasable such a measure would be; I started off from the premise that we need to curb China's rise to a superpower status and examined measures which could be enacted in order to slam the brakes on such growth. I am not talking about what will be done, but rather the theoretical path that should be followed.
Wouldn't it possibly be a better option to help China in there rise to becoming a superpower. After all, if we helped them, wouldn't that make us good allies, and you'd have nothing to fear from them?

I was stating how unfeasable such a measure would be; I started off from the premise that we need to curb China's rise to a superpower status and examined measures which could be enacted in order to slam the brakes on such growth. I am not talking about what will be done, but rather the theoretical path that should be followed.

Are you willing to pay 20, 30, 40% or more on products and suffer massive unemployment and economic collapse in order to do so? If you want to destroy the American living standard and our economic influence, go ahead with that plan. Trade with China has benefited our country far more than any other trade agreement in our history; the level of bilateral trade is massive and generates growth on both sides.

Ironically, the Chinese did the exact same thing to try and stop the inflow of foreign competition. It led to their stagnation, decay, and ultimate downfall.

Now, I don't know if the theory of global warming is simply environmental propaganda being spewed by partisan hacks parading as scientists. It may be, but it may also be a valid assessment. In either case, the US should take several measures to meet the dilemmas of the twenty-first century by increasing its rate of pollution. Below are several proposals.


Cars should have a maximum miles per gallon rating.
All federal sponsorship of "clean" energy initiatives should be abandoned.
Companies that switch to dirty-burning coal is should be rewarded.
There should be a "clean tax" on those who persist in using renewable energy sources.


First of all, let's assume that global warming is a false thesis. In that case, reverting to coal and oil as major fuel sources would save us money, as they are much more efficient that solar or wind power. We also have vast coal reserves that are waiting to be tapped, and the free market is waiting to pounce upon such a lucrative opportunity. Thus, if the scientists are deeply flawed in their outlook, overhauling our energy production system would be an economic boon to us. We would be able to drastically increase our GDP and well-being as a nation.

But what if global warming turns out to be right? Well, our major rival in the global arena is China. If we are to remain competitive against a nation with over a billion people which is adopting capitalist reforms and thus surging ahead in economic growth, we must somehow curb their advances. We know that China will be impacted to a much greater degree than the US by global warming; already, they are feeling the effects of droughts and lack of water. If global warming exists, it would compound the problem. This will wreak havoc upon their economic foundations and allow us to remain ahead of them, because the cost of global warming is predicted to be much greater for China than it is for us.

Therefore, regardless of the viewpoint from which it is considered, global warming must be embrace, be it a real phenomenon or simply liberal clap-trap, as such far-sighted policies will benefit us in the future.
Congratulations! You have been awarded the prize for dumbest comments on the internet! How do you feel? Will you be booking your trip to Disneyland?

Wouldn't it possibly be a better option to help China in there rise to becoming a superpower. After all, if we helped them, wouldn't that make us good allies, and you'd have nothing to fear from them?
Because clearly we wouldn't be able to go about proclaiming: "USA = #1" and wearing those giant foamy #1 fingers.. I mean, they don't make those that say "We're #2" with a hand that holds up two fingers, now do they?!

Wouldn't it possibly be a better option to help China in there rise to becoming a superpower. After all, if we helped them, wouldn't that make us good allies, and you'd have nothing to fear from them?

Hitler promised that he would stop after he annexed the Sudetenland, but did he? Similarly, China could stab us in the back after it has attained superpower status.

Snip
[/LIST]

First of all, let's assume that global warming is a false thesis. snip

WTF is a false thesis?

It may spread its insidious doctrine of communism to other nations, as it has already done to Tibet. Soon, the world may be engulfed in a red tide and the last embers of freedom will have been extinguished by a godless onslaught of ultra-leftists.

Dear god what a load of goatshit. You're willing to sacrifice europe to protect you from a hugely farfetched and absurd threat from t3h c0mmuni15ts?

It may spread its insidious doctrine of communism to other nations, as it has already done to Tibet. Soon, the world may be engulfed in a red tide and the last embers of freedom will have been extinguished by a godless onslaught of ultra-leftists.

So you support freedom, but not the freedom to be communist?

-snip-

That is, by a wide margin, one of the most illogical things I have ever heard. It is neither based in economic or environmental reality and is beyond a doubt one of the most disastrous sets of policies conceived since Richard Nixon thought price fixing was a good idea in the early 70's.

It actually sounds like the scheming of a fifth-column group to destroy America, not strengthen it.

So you support freedom, but not the freedom to be communist?

Communism is the deprivation of freedom; it only prospers in the absence of democratic elections. The Chinese don't want to live in a totalitarian state, but they have no choice.

Hitler promised that he would stop after he annexed the Sudetenland, but did he? Similarly, China could stab us in the back after it has attained superpower status.

And look what happened to Nazi Germany...

I was going to argue with the OP but in the end it is so retarded it boggles the mind so I am going to use a pic to describe this entire thread

http://files.samhart.net/humor/fail.jpg

Communism is the deprivation of freedom; it only prospers in the absence of democratic elections. The Chinese don't want to live in a totalitarian state, but they have no choice.

They are getting more and more of a choice as they get wealthier. The educated middle class is the origin of democracy; it may take a while, but they are getting there.

Are you willing to pay 20, 30, 40% or more on products and suffer massive unemployment and economic collapse in order to do so?

In the words of JFK, "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Yes, it may be painful to wean ourselves off of trade with China; however, the powerful economic engine of the US will be able to withstand this and prosper once more after a brief recession. Remember: the US was strong even before it was able to trade with China. It can be strong without China once more.

And look what happened to Nazi Germany...

It spread its anti-democratic doctrine of fascism to half of the developed world before it was beaten back by US forces and the militaries of other countries.

F.A.G, do you understand how farfetched the threat is from chinese "communism" is? Do you understand that threat is pretty much none? Do you understand that your policies will only hurt the economy more? Do you understand that billions will die?

In the words of JFK, "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Yes, it may be painful to wean ourselves off of trade with China; however, the powerful economic engine of the US will be able to withstand this and prosper once more after a brief recession. Remember: the US was strong even before it was able to trade with China. It can be strong without China once more.

Brief recession? Try permanent decline and prolonged depression. The US would be an economic wreck with a low standard of living, high inflation, high unemployment, and stagnant growth. Our currency would collapse, foreign investors would bail, and we would be so moribund economically that the Soviet Union of the 1980's would look booming in comparison.

And guess what would happen? Everyone else would still trade with China, they would bounce back and keep growing and we would just sink further and further behind until we are irrelevant. 20% can't push around 80% forever.

It spread its anti-democratic doctrine of fascism to half of the developed world before it was beaten back by US forces and the militaries of other countries.

And all this happened when the US was isolationist and locked in economic depression; if Nazi Germany could do that without our trade, what makes you think China couldn't do the same?

Bilateral trade prevents wars because both sides lose far more from the war than they could ever gain.

F.A.G, do you understand how farfetched the threat is from chinese "communism" is?

I don't "undestand" that the threat is over-blown because it is quite possibly the biggest crisis we are facing in modern times. Even the most basic, cherished liberties which we take for granted could be undermined by the emergence of China as a superpower. This is an existential struggle between the forces of light and freedom and the forces of darkness and communism.

In the words of JFK,

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/jfkawesomegw4.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/loljfkev2.jpg

It may spread its insidious doctrine of communism to other nations, as it has already done to Tibet. Soon, the world may be engulfed in a red tide and the last embers of freedom will have been extinguished by a godless onslaught of ultra-leftists.
http://www.sheena.ca/make-it-stop.jpg

Here's a hint: the Cold War's over. We stopped believing in that twaddle years ago, and for what it's worth, so do the Chinese. Are the Chinese going to try and take over the world, knowing that they would lose their entire export market, get nuked to the point of oblivion and send all those years of economic growth down the shitter; for something they don't believe in? No.

OP and every post by this professional Troll since that

Just as I thought! FreedomAndGlory is in fact Fass. Didn't he say only yesterday he tends to use the retarded arguments of the opposition to make his own point.

So, Fass/FreedomAndGlory, you are Really Really strongly pro-China now..???

I was going to argue with the OP but in the end it is so retarded it boggles the mind so I am going to use a pic to describe this entire thread

http://files.samhart.net/humor/fail.jpg


:fluffle:

Because there are no other reasons not to pollute besides Global Warming...

I don't "undestand" that the threat is over-blown because it is quite possibly the biggest crisis we are facing in modern times.

Why would China want to make the USA communist? They arn't even communist themselves, and they certainly don't believe in this world socialism crap that the USSR believes in.

In the words of JFK, "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Yes, it may be painful to wean ourselves off of trade with China; however, the powerful economic engine of the US will be able to withstand this and prosper once more after a brief recession. Remember: the US was strong even before it was able to trade with China. It can be strong without China once more.


http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/8/8a/Stfualgore.jpg/180px-Stfualgore.jpg

Hitler promised that he would stop after he annexed the Sudetenland, but did he? Similarly, China could stab us in the back after it has attained superpower status.

Not when we have just as many nukes as them, and nowadays news travels fast. We'd know if they'd try 'n nuke us first, and we'd fire back, and no country is stupid enough to attack a country that could wipe them off the globe. And if you say that China's crazy/willing to wipe us off the globe with no regards to themselves them I'm gonna have to slap you.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/8/8a/Stfualgore.jpg/180px-Stfualgore.jpg
Genius!

Brief recession? Try permanent decline and prolonged depression.

Don't be ridiculous. The US would suffer a minor setback as the lack of trade would cause its GDP to plummet; decreased supply would be unable to catch up to constant demand, thus pushing up inflation. However, the market would soon be able to correct itself, and the US would find itself growing again, albeit from a lower point. For example, consider WWII. In, say, 1942, the US's economic growth was spectacular. Yet how could this be? The US was unable to trade with Japan, Germany, and virtually all of continental Europe during that year! This is because the US economy is able to surge forward despite lack of trade. For another example, look at the high tariffs enacted in the late 1800s. Some even surpassed 40%, stifling trade immensely. Yet, surprise, surprise, the economy still slugged ahead, unfazed by this. The same has happened before, and it will happen again, regardless of your "doom and gloom" scenarios.

Now, I don't know if the theory of global warming is simply environmental propaganda being spewed by partisan hacks parading as scientists. It may be, but it may also be a valid assessment. In either case, the US should take several measures to meet the dilemmas of the twenty-first century by increasing its rate of pollution. Below are several proposals.


Cars should have a maximum miles per gallon rating.
All federal sponsorship of "clean" energy initiatives should be abandoned.
Companies that switch to dirty-burning coal is should be rewarded.
There should be a "clean tax" on those who persist in using renewable energy sources.


First of all, let's assume that global warming is a false thesis. In that case, reverting to coal and oil as major fuel sources would save us money, as they are much more efficient that solar or wind power. We also have vast coal reserves that are waiting to be tapped, and the free market is waiting to pounce upon such a lucrative opportunity. Thus, if the scientists are deeply flawed in their outlook, overhauling our energy production system would be an economic boon to us. We would be able to drastically increase our GDP and well-being as a nation.

But what if global warming turns out to be right? Well, our major rival in the global arena is China. If we are to remain competitive against a nation with over a billion people which is adopting capitalist reforms and thus surging ahead in economic growth, we must somehow curb their advances. We know that China will be impacted to a much greater degree than the US by global warming; already, they are feeling the effects of droughts and lack of water. If global warming exists, it would compound the problem. This will wreak havoc upon their economic foundations and allow us to remain ahead of them, because the cost of global warming is predicted to be much greater for China than it is for us.

Therefore, regardless of the viewpoint from which it is considered, global warming must be embrace, be it a real phenomenon or simply liberal clap-trap, as such far-sighted policies will benefit us in the future.

You realize I'm never gonna be able to stop laughing now, don't you?

if Nazi Germany could do that without our trade, what makes you think China couldn't do the same?

That's exactly why I'm not advocating a unilateral trade embargo against China, as it would still be capable of trading with certain unscrupulous nations.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/8/8a/Stfualgore.jpg/180px-Stfualgore.jpg

pwned. pwned, pwned, pwned.

Why would China want to make the USA communist?

They would initially prey on weaker countries, such as Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, etc. Then they would spread their tentacles further west, reaching such susceptible countries as France and Italy. Eventually, the world will be brought within their grasp, allowing them to contaminate it with their filthy, tainted ideology.

That's exactly why I'm not advocating a unilateral trade embargo against China, as it would still be capable of trading with certain unscrupulous nations.

So, you are asking every country on Earth to suffer so that the US can remain dominant? I think most of the world would greatly prefer that there be more than one superpower so that our influence can be countered.

Cars should have a maximum miles per gallon rating.


So this means I can't buy a car that would be cheap to drive? Half of the reason people drive energy efficient cars is because it is cheap, not because it's good for the environment.


All federal sponsorship of "clean" energy initiatives should be abandoned.
Companies that switch to dirty-burning coal is should be rewarded.
There should be a "clean tax" on those who persist in using renewable energy sources.


And all of this pollution will suddenly appear over China instead of the US?


Actually, when you're talking about Global Warming hitting China, keep in mind it is GLOBAL warming, it will hit everywhere, it won't disintegrate China and just pump up the US a couple of degrees. We're all in the same boat.

They would initially prey on weaker countries, such as Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, etc. Then they would spread their tentacles further west, reaching such susceptible countries as France and Italy. Eventually, the world will be brought within their grasp, allowing them to contaminate it with their filthy, tainted ideology.

http://hosted.thegroupofthey.com/cat-high.jpg

They would initially prey on weaker countries, such as Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, etc. Then they would spread their tentacles further west, reaching such susceptible countries as France and Italy. Eventually, the world will be brought within their grasp, allowing them to contaminate it with their filthy, tainted ideology.

China != USSR. They aren't actively spreading Communism. The Russians actually placed spies in the US. Why? Because they could actually beat us. China is wholly dependent on US economic growth at this point. It would be like if the US fucked with the oil supply -- wait . . .

Wait so Global Warming exists it won't affect the USA and China will suffer the most. I'm pretty sure someones not taking into account the increased storm activities in the USA and the severity of such storms. The UK is suffering from lack of rain and so water shortages.

The whole world is going to feel tha affects sooner or later and burying your head in the sand isn't going to stop it.

Also the fact that the gulf stream will stop and so Europe (where most of our allies are) will be covered (ironically) in an ice age. Not to mention that since the entire deep sea current will stop working (both this and the previous will be caused by Greenland melting), turning the ocean below 500 meters into a giant dead zone since oxygen will fail to be circulated and mixed through out it.

You know, when biologists, oceanographers, geologists, even paleontologists and most importantly climatologists can all get together and agree on something (with the exception of a couple of hacks paid by oil companies), I'm going to listen to them a bit more than a partisan troll like FAG.

So, you are asking every country on Earth to suffer so that the US can remain dominant? I think most of the world would greatly prefer that there be more than one superpower so that our influence can be countered.

With friends like China, who needs enemies? China's influence on the world would be unremittingly negative. As I stated numerous times, a wave of communism could wash over the world, submerging us beneath a sea of authoritarianism.

They would initially prey on weaker countries, such as Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, etc. Then they would spread their tentacles further west, reaching such susceptible countries as France and Italy. Eventually, the world will be brought within their grasp, allowing them to contaminate it with their filthy, tainted ideology.

http://web.syr.edu/~rtharper/bullshit.jpg

They would initially prey on weaker countries, such as Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, etc. Then they would spread their tentacles further west, reaching such susceptible countries as France and Italy. Eventually, the world will be brought within their grasp, allowing them to contaminate it with their filthy, tainted ideology.

LOL!

That's exactly why I'm not advocating a unilateral trade embargo against China, as it would still be capable of trading with certain unscrupulous nations.

None of them are anywhere near as unscrupulous as you are suggesting the US should be.

I know you are supposed to attack the opinion, not the person, but anyone who would suggest what you did in the OP is a despicable excuse for a human being.

http://web.syr.edu/~rtharper/bullshit.jpg

Please, attempt to restrain yourself. You posted spam twice in reference to the same post.

Ever heard of the Permo-Triassic extinction?

I don't want to get into a debate about whether or not dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.

With friends like China, who needs enemies? China's influence on the world would be unremittingly negative. As I stated numerous times, a wave of communism could wash over the world, submerging us beneath a sea of authoritarianism.

Which would be short and not all that bad compared to what could happen if global warming/climate change is left unchecked or exacerbated.

Ever heard of the Permo-Triassic extinction?

LOL!

Would you mind explaining to me what is so particularly humorous about that statement?

I think FAG's post managed to make shit of any possible constructive ideas I had.

Wow. That's the acronym for his name?

Poor bastard...

I don't want to get into a debate about whether or not dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.

You're thinking of the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction. That was the big asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.

This was before that, way before that. It was much bigger. And it was not caused by an asteroid (as it took too long and there is not the same kind of evidence for an impact, the details of which I will not confuse you with).


...wait a minute.... did you just imply that you don't believe that dinosaurs existed?

Now, I don't know if the theory of global warming is simply environmental propaganda being spewed by partisan hacks parading as scientists. It may be, but it may also be a valid assessment. In either case, the US should take several measures to meet the dilemmas of the twenty-first century by increasing its rate of pollution. Below are several proposals.


Cars should have a maximum miles per gallon rating.
All federal sponsorship of "clean" energy initiatives should be abandoned.
Companies that switch to dirty-burning coal is should be rewarded.
There should be a "clean tax" on those who persist in using renewable energy sources.


First of all, let's assume that global warming is a false thesis. In that case, reverting to coal and oil as major fuel sources would save us money, as they are much more efficient that solar or wind power. We also have vast coal reserves that are waiting to be tapped, and the free market is waiting to pounce upon such a lucrative opportunity. Thus, if the scientists are deeply flawed in their outlook, overhauling our energy production system would be an economic boon to us. We would be able to drastically increase our GDP and well-being as a nation.

But what if global warming turns out to be right? Well, our major rival in the global arena is China. If we are to remain competitive against a nation with over a billion people which is adopting capitalist reforms and thus surging ahead in economic growth, we must somehow curb their advances. We know that China will be impacted to a much greater degree than the US by global warming; already, they are feeling the effects of droughts and lack of water. If global warming exists, it would compound the problem. This will wreak havoc upon their economic foundations and allow us to remain ahead of them, because the cost of global warming is predicted to be much greater for China than it is for us.

Therefore, regardless of the viewpoint from which it is considered, global warming must be embrace, be it a real phenomenon or simply liberal clap-trap, as such far-sighted policies will benefit us in the future.



BEST


SATIRE


EVER

!!!!!

:D

Would you mind explaining to me what is so particularly humorous about that statement?

The sure paranoid schizophrenic feel of it was enough to get me to giggle

So with China and most of Asia gone and then Europe toast as "within an acceptable range," where are we going to protect freedom and democracy? South America will be long gone, they depend on the places you've mentioned as these targets for global warming. Africa will be destroyed also, it's already in pretty bad shape and if Europe and Asia get cooked they will too. Australia's already one of the most arid places on earth, so there's no chance they'll survive this. In fact, there will be no one left besides the US, which will eventually shrivel up because of Global Warming and economic recession.

I know you are supposed to attack the opinion, not the person, but anyone who would suggest what you did in the OP is a despicable excuse for a human being.

Anyone who loves freedom enough to fight for it and have people die for it should be lauded, not scathingly berated. On the other hand, cowards who are prepared to surrender at the first whiff of trouble rather than stand up for the ideals in which the believe are despicable excuses for human beings. The price of freedom is constant vigilance; to preserve our way of life, sacrifices must be made. I can only hope that brave people will make the correct choice instead of bowing to communist pressure.

BEST


SATIRE


EVER

!!!!!

:D

Given FAG's record, I think he might be serious.

Would you mind explaining to me what is so particularly humorous about that statement?

Maybe because it's ridiculous and completely independent of anything approaching reality?

China's barely communist, they don't have the ability to project shit, and a decent troll would have said they'd influence Spain first, not Italy.
I mean shit, you go after a country run by a Christian Social Democrat when there's another one run by a self-declared socialist right there in the neighborhood?

Anyone who loves freedom enough to fight for it and have people die for it should be lauded, not scathingly berated. On the other hand, cowards who are prepared to surrender at the first whiff of trouble rather than stand up for the ideals in which the believe are despicable excuses for human beings. The price of freedom is constant vigilance;

So far, I can feel the iron(y) in the air.

to preserve our way of life, sacrifices must be made. I can only hope that brave people will make the correct choice instead of powing to communist pressure.

And here's the standard justifications used to finish it off. So predictable...

1) The "to preserve our way of life, sacrifices must be made" line

2) Calling anyone who isn't you a communist, despite them not resembling that at all.

Would you mind explaining to me what is so particularly humorous about that statement?

You seem to be assuming that China will take an aggressive imperialistic approach much like Hitler in the pre-nuclear age. First of all, it's ridiculous, and the Chinese government isn't dumb. Second of all, I don't think China is going to infect Europe with their ideas. Russia wasn't able to get Western Europe and they were way more powerful and influential than China.

Calling anyone who isn't you a communist, despite them not resembling that at all.

Actually, I was referring to China as communist; it is avowedly so, given that it is exclusively run by the Communist party.

Anyone who loves freedom enough to fight for it and have people die for it should be lauded, not scathingly berated. On the other hand, cowards who are prepared to surrender at the first whiff of trouble rather than stand up for the ideals in which the believe are despicable excuses for human beings. The price of freedom is constant vigilance; to preserve our way of life, sacrifices must be made. I can only hope that brave people will make the correct choice instead of powing to communist pressure.

My question is are you ready to sacrifice yourself too or just everyone else believing that it will somehow save your butt? Not that your hairbrained plan would save anyone.

Actually, I was referring to China as communist; it is avowedly so, given that it is exclusively run by the Communist party.

Don't you remember "It does not matter if a cat is black or white; if it catches mice, it is a good cat"? They did away with communism long ago. The old MEMBERS of the Party own everything, but the Party itself is long gone.

Anyone who loves freedom enough to fight for it and have people die for it should be lauded, not scathingly berated. On the other hand, cowards who are prepared to surrender at the first whiff of trouble rather than stand up for the ideals in which the believe are despicable excuses for human beings. The price of freedom is constant vigilance; to preserve our way of life, sacrifices must be made. I can only hope that brave people will make the correct choice instead of powing to communist pressure.

You must be insane. What the fuck does global warming have to do with freedom, communism or whatever? What about the freedom of the people of the Netherlands not to have their country flooded? What about the freedom of the people of the British isles and Northern Europe not to suddenly be overtaken by a new mini ice age as the gulf stream stops?

Are you on crack?

You seem to be assuming that China will take an aggressive imperialistic approach much like Hitler in the pre-nuclear age.

Did you ever look at a map of China prior to the second world war? It was less than half its size now. Historically, China has taken an imperialist stance; there is no indication that it will cease spreading its vile rhetoric any time soon.

You seem to be assuming that China will take an aggressive imperialistic approach much like Hitler in the pre-nuclear age. First of all, it's ridiculous, and the Chinese government isn't dumb. Second of all, I don't think China is going to infect Europe with their ideas. Russia wasn't able to get Western Europe and they were way more powerful and influential than China.
No, no. Don't you see. The Russians DID almost get Western Europe. After all, they're all LIBERAL and SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!!!1!!!121!@!@@. All that's left is for China to finish the job.:eek:

Did you ever look at a map of China prior to the second world war? It was less than half its size now. Historically, China has taken an imperialist stance; there is no indication that it will cease spreading its vile rhetoric any time soon.

China grew due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. If the good old USSR was still around, China would still be small.

Did you ever look at a map of China prior to the second world war? It was less than half its size now. Historically, China has taken an imperialist stance; there is no indication that it will cease spreading its vile rhetoric any time soon.

What rhetoric? Since Mao died, China has not had a consistent ideological position.

Historically, China has taken an imperialist stance

Everyone has been historically imperial. And?

You must be insane. What the fuck does global warming have to do with freedom, communism or whatever? What about the freedom of the people of the Netherlands not to have their country flooded? What about the freedom of the people of the British isles and Northern Europe not to suddenly be overtaken by a new mini ice age as the gulf stream stops?

Are you on crack?

Drastic measures are sometimes necessary should we wish to safeguard freedom for future generations. Europe will suffer some damages duie to global warming, as certain coastlines will be submerged in water and other regions will become less habitable and the soil more arid. However, it will not be as catastrophic as you depict it; an ice age is hundreds of years away, and, if it occurs, would counter-act the effects of global warming. And instead of pessimistically assessing the possible costs, you should consider the rewards. Your children will mature in a world not dominated by a heinous, totalitarian ideology; they will not be burdened by the treachery of communism. They will have the power to see their country resist the insidious leftist influence coming from China. Freedom will be perpetuated and authoritarianism will shrivel as the force of righteousness will prevail. Is that not worth fighting for? Is that not worth dying for?

They would initially prey on weaker countries, such as Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, etc. Then they would spread their tentacles further west, reaching such susceptible countries as France and Italy. Eventually, the world will be brought within their grasp, allowing them to contaminate it with their filthy, tainted ideology.

That is complete rubbish. Again, China's communist party, not even being communist do not believe in world socialism. They do not feel they need to spread their ecenomic ideas around the globe, and they certainly won't be able to (remember global warming would have crippled their economy also), america would most likely still be going strong since investors tend to trust their companies more due to it being a more stable country. China would just be too weak to spread communism into the west, and they would not want to either.

My question is are you ready to sacrifice yourself too or just everyone else believing that it will somehow save your butt? Not that your hairbrained plan would save anyone.

From what I can tell, his position is basically that of callous selfishness that he then dresses up with references to freedom and communism that are in this case irrelevant.

Even if his principles are real, they are not worth screwing over all of humanity, not to mention hundreds of thousands of other species, for thousands of years to come.

There are so many potential effects of global warming that this shit really is asinine. Where are the "free" people (meaning, the few who are still alive) going to get their food from? Weather patterns will be completely changed. Much of the country relies on annual snow pack for it's water. With the temperature going up, that disappears. That's just one example. Additionally, hurricanes of horrible strength will be wreaking havoc in the southeast like never before. FAG is probably the most ignorant, irresponsible poster (who isn't a parody) I've ever seen. I keep hoping that he is just an elaborate parody, but it doesn't seem so.

Now, I don't know if the theory of global warming is simply environmental propaganda being spewed by partisan hacks parading as scientists. It may be, but it may also be a valid assessment. In either case, the US should take several measures to meet the dilemmas of the twenty-first century by increasing its rate of pollution. Below are several proposals.


Cars should have a maximum miles per gallon rating.
All federal sponsorship of "clean" energy initiatives should be abandoned.
Companies that switch to dirty-burning coal is should be rewarded.
There should be a "clean tax" on those who persist in using renewable energy sources.


First of all, let's assume that global warming is a false thesis. In that case, reverting to coal and oil as major fuel sources would save us money, as they are much more efficient that solar or wind power. We also have vast coal reserves that are waiting to be tapped, and the free market is waiting to pounce upon such a lucrative opportunity. Thus, if the scientists are deeply flawed in their outlook, overhauling our energy production system would be an economic boon to us. We would be able to drastically increase our GDP and well-being as a nation.

But what if global warming turns out to be right? Well, our major rival in the global arena is China. If we are to remain competitive against a nation with over a billion people which is adopting capitalist reforms and thus surging ahead in economic growth, we must somehow curb their advances. We know that China will be impacted to a much greater degree than the US by global warming; already, they are feeling the effects of droughts and lack of water. If global warming exists, it would compound the problem. This will wreak havoc upon their economic foundations and allow us to remain ahead of them, because the cost of global warming is predicted to be much greater for China than it is for us.

Therefore, regardless of the viewpoint from which it is considered, global warming must be embrace, be it a real phenomenon or simply liberal clap-trap, as such far-sighted policies will benefit us in the future.

That's dumbest, most retarded idea I've ever heard

That's dumbest, most retarded idea I've ever heard

QFT

Drastic measures are sometimes necessary should we wish to safeguard freedom for future generations.
You wish to flood certain areas of the world, cause an ice age, and cause starvation for millions of people, in the name of freedom? What, you mean that good ol' USA brand of freedom that you're pushing through in Iraq? I'll pass thanks.
Europe will suffer some damages duie to global warming, as certain coastlines will be submerged in water and other regions will become less habitable and the soil more arid.
And how many millions of people live in Europe? Since when is it your decision to change their lives dramatically in the name of you're retarded idea of freedom?
However, it will not be as catastrophic as you depict it;
I beg to differ.
an ice age is hundreds of years away,
Source.
and, if it occurs, would counter-act the effects of global warming.
At the cost of the Northern Hemisphere.
And instead of pessimistically assessing the possible costs, you should consider the rewards.
I'm not seeing many rewards to floods and ice ages, personally. Just me?
Your children will mature in a world not dominated by a heinous, totalitarian ideology; they will not be burdened by the treachery of communism.
I'm already maturing in a world of treacherous and backstabbing capitalism, so I'm sure it won't be much different.
They will have the power to see their country resist the insidious leftist influence coming from China.
What about the insidious capitalist influence from the USA? Is that ok? Is the death in Iraq ok? Is the situation in the Middle East ok? I don't think so, and the USA is at least involved, if not directly, with a lot of those situations.
Freedom will be perpetuated and authoritarianism will shrivel as the force of righteousness will prevail.
BUT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE. What's wrong with you?
Is that not worth fighting for?
No.
Is that not worth dying for?
NO.

Drastic measures are sometimes necessary should we wish to safeguard freedom for future generations. Europe will suffer some damages duie to global warming

Like being frozen

as certain coastlines will be submerged in water

like the Eastern Seaboard and the Netherlands... and most of the Pacific Islands

and other regions will become less habitable and the soil more arid.

North Africa, for one.

However, it will not be as catastrophic as you depict it; an ice age is hundreds of years away, and, if it occurs, would counter-act the effects of global warming.

Tell that to the hurricanes and the Wall Street that's already underwater.

And instead of pessimistically

Read: realistically Also red: using science

assessing the possible

Read: extremely likely

costs, you should consider the rewards. Your children will mature in a world not dominated by a heinous, totalitarian ideology

Well, true... there would be no more "Conservatives"

they will not be burdened by the treachery of communism.

Rather, they will hopefully live in the universal brotherhood half the ideology stands for.

They will have the power to see their country resist the insidious leftist

Umm... From 1960, are we?

influence coming from China. Freedom will be perpetuated and authoritarianism will shrivel as civilization as we know it will collapse.

Is that not worth fighting for? Is that not worth dying for?

Hmm... One the one hand, there is natural disaster, famine, and high rates of death and doom... On the other hand, no more hateful people to spew ignorant shit like this. ...No. There are other ways. Ones that don't involve screwing 90% of people over.

No, but the damages incurred by America would pale in comparison to the hefty price that China must pay. As I previously stated, they are already facing water shortages, a crisis that will be exacerbated should global warming exist and progress.



If you so desire, you can purchase one of those air purification systems. However, we should promote systems that are able to send the pollution to other countries via the wind. Additionally, you can wear masks or other devices to protect yourself from the detrimental effects of pollution. Right now, though, US cities are about 4 times less polluted than other urban centers such as Shanghai or Delhi, so we have quite a ways to go. Anyway, after we have left China in the dust, we can go back to less polution-intensive measures.


What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The US is a shining example of freedom and democracy in the world; we should not sacrifice that because of a little heat.

Polluting and incuring the suffering of the entire world to ensure the collapse of a rival nation and ensure your standing as #1? Tell me how the fuck that is a 'shining example of freedom and democracy'




Almost anything, yes. God bless the USA: I love it.

... You know... statements like the above is what makes nearly every other country in the world hate America. You really really give your country a bad name. You give NATIONALISM a bad name with comments like that!

"It doens't matter how much we're hurt as long as we topple last"? If it wasn't so frightening, it would almost be funny. Eventually there will be another global power shift, you realize. But if you're content to live in your little issolated bubble and ignore history as well as current events, you go right ahead and scratch your warped view of the future into your bedroom wall.

http://www.mninter.net/~richard/Please%20do%20not%20feed%20the%20trolls.jpg

http://www.myoldtruck.com/gallery/files/1/2/9/jeez_not_this_shit_again.jpg

Don't even start me on this.

http://www.mninter.net/~richard/Please%20do%20not%20feed%20the%20trolls.jpg

http://www.myoldtruck.com/gallery/files/1/2/9/jeez_not_this_shit_again.jpg

Don't even start me on this.

10 pages in? You're a bit late :p

Now, I don't know if the theory of global warming is simply environmental propaganda being spewed by partisan hacks parading as scientists. It may be, but it may also be a valid assessment. In either case, the US should take several measures to meet the dilemmas of the twenty-first century by increasing its rate of pollution. Below are several proposals.


Cars should have a maximum miles per gallon rating.
All federal sponsorship of "clean" energy initiatives should be abandoned.
Companies that switch to dirty-burning coal is should be rewarded.
There should be a "clean tax" on those who persist in using renewable energy sources.


First of all, let's assume that global warming is a false thesis. In that case, reverting to coal and oil as major fuel sources would save us money, as they are much more efficient that solar or wind power. We also have vast coal reserves that are waiting to be tapped, and the free market is waiting to pounce upon such a lucrative opportunity. Thus, if the scientists are deeply flawed in their outlook, overhauling our energy production system would be an economic boon to us. We would be able to drastically increase our GDP and well-being as a nation.

But what if global warming turns out to be right? Well, our major rival in the global arena is China. If we are to remain competitive against a nation with over a billion people which is adopting capitalist reforms and thus surging ahead in economic growth, we must somehow curb their advances. We know that China will be impacted to a much greater degree than the US by global warming; already, they are feeling the effects of droughts and lack of water. If global warming exists, it would compound the problem. This will wreak havoc upon their economic foundations and allow us to remain ahead of them, because the cost of global warming is predicted to be much greater for China than it is for us.

Therefore, regardless of the viewpoint from which it is considered, global warming must be embrace, be it a real phenomenon or simply liberal clap-trap, as such far-sighted policies will benefit us in the future.

Mark my words: I will remind you of this in thirty years when the Himalayan glaciers disappear, causing a drought in South East Asia, the failure of the world rice crop and the deaths of two billion people.

I don't consider Europe as a variable in my calculations; it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Utter nonsense. The US imported 127 billion dollars worth of goods from Europe this year alone. Now, maybe you hate trade; only from such an ignorant and frankly, anti-capitalist viewpoint could you say it's "irrelevant."

the cost of global warming is predicted to be much greater for China than it is for us.

Nice weaseling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words). Why don't you show me who predicts this, in what sense, and why.

Your entire argument is shite, of course, but that's to be expected from a troll. Let's see if you can even pretend to debate.

10 pages in? You're a bit late :p

Finding those pics can take time...

Now, I don't know if the theory of global warming is simply environmental propaganda being spewed by partisan hacks parading as scientists.

There is no real debate in the scientific community about whether global warming is real. The "scientists" you see claiming it's a hoax are not taken seriously by anyone except oil company shills and similar people who don't want global warming to be true.

First of all, let's assume that global warming is a false thesis.

I agree. Real science is for nerds.


But what if global warming turns out to be right? Well, our major rival in the global arena is China. If we are to remain competitive against a nation with over a billion people which is adopting capitalist reforms and thus surging ahead in economic growth, we must somehow curb their advances. We know that China will be impacted to a much greater degree than the US by global warming; already, they are feeling the effects of droughts and lack of water. If global warming exists, it would compound the problem. This will wreak havoc upon their economic foundations and allow us to remain ahead of them, because the cost of global warming is predicted to be much greater for China than it is for us.

Are you serious advocating the destruction of the environment just because it will make us a bit more money then China?

10 pages in? You're a bit late :p

Better late than never.
Finding those pics can take time...
It took me only a minute to find them. I've been offline for a couple days.

Are you serious advocating the destruction of the environment just because it will make us a bit more money then China?

Of course! China is justy like Nazi Germany only worse, because it's communist! [/sarcasm]

Can I just say that this Troll is really starting to grow on me? Sure, his ideas are totally preposterous, but the calmness and deliberation with which he manages to get this forum riled up earns his puppetmaster a great deal of respect in my books.

Keep up the... good? Work? :confused:

"It doens't matter how much we're hurt as long as we topple last"? If it wasn't so frightening, it would almost be funny. Eventually there will be another global power shift, you realize. But if you're content to live in your little issolated bubble and ignore history as well as current events, you go right ahead and scratch your warped view of the future into your bedroom wall.

In the past, global power shifts occurred because strong nations were unable to indirectly project influence upon emerging competitors except by military means. However, that era has come and gone. We now have a much more refined tool at our disposal; economic sabatoge. It can be employed to great effect in order to preserve our status as sole superpower, and, consequently, freedom and democracy.

We have reached a juncture where it is important to rank our priorities. Do we care about our way of life or are we too squeamish to take the necessary actions in order to maintain it? Do we value liberty or will we meekly accept totalitarianism? I believe that we must ensure that our indispensible ideals, such as freedom and democracy, are passed on to our progeny. In order to make certain of this, tough decisions must be made. Yes, perhaps millions of people must die, but what they died for will live on, that which people like Washington fought for: freedom!

Excellent exercise in woeful stupidity. Nice one.

In the past, global power shifts occurred because strong nations were unable to indirectly project influence upon emerging competitors except by military means.
Completely and utterly wrong.

What about ancient China ffs, the strongest empire... well... ever, other than the British empire.
However, that era has come and gone. We now have a much more refined tool at our disposal; economic sabatoge.
Economic sabotage has always been there. It's just been too expensive, as per nowadays.

Compared to the price of flying B52s over your foes' cities and carpet bombing them, economic sabotage is too expensive and takes far, far too long.
It can be employed to great effect in order to preserve our status as sole superpower, and, consequently, freedom and democracy.
Ah, but when a state becomes desperate from being on the receiving end of such things, they lose their freedom and democracy and become a haggard version of their former selves, see Zimbabwe.

And hence - freedom and democracy is lost.
We have reached a juncture where it is important to rank our priorities.
This should always, always happen.
Do we care about our way of life or are we too squeamish to take the necessary actions in order to maintain it?
If you really cared about your way of life then why would you move backwards?

That's inherently stupid.
Do we value liberty or will we meekly accept totalitarianism?
We value liberty. Everyone does. But we need liberty around the globe, which won't happen if people are forced into rash acts.
I believe that we must ensure that our indispensible ideals, such as freedom and democracy, are passed on to our progeny. In order to make certain of this, tough decisions must be made.
Prepare for miscarriages on an unseen level if you take your policies into account - babies die with vast amounts of pollution around, you know. There won't be that many progeny left.
Yes, perhaps millions of people must die, but what they died for will live on
American idiocy?
that which people like Washington fought for: freedom!
Err the status quo, at the expense of clusterfucking your own country?

Nice one.

Congratulations. You managed to make three glaring mistakes in a post that short.


The fictional character's name is Shrek; you misspelled it.
That very same character is an ogre, not a troll.
I am not a troll, either.


Who the fuck said I was talking about Shrek you ignorant fool? I´m talking about Shreck THE TROLL if you dont know him.

Here he is: http://i9.tinypic.com/4mx4k8z.jpg

Now, reduce yourself to your ignorance and learn about Shreck the Troll, who is a troll and is much cooler than Shrek the Ogre (who sucks).

Also, you made three glaring mistakes in your post that is a short as your dick:

- You didnt knew about Shreck.
- You messed up with me.
- If you´re not a troll, you´re just a stupid and very bad comedian.

Now, I don't know if the theory of global warming is simply environmental propaganda being spewed by partisan hacks parading as scientists. It may be, but it may also be a valid assessment. In either case, the US should take several measures to meet the dilemmas of the twenty-first century by increasing its rate of pollution. Below are several proposals.


Cars should have a maximum miles per gallon rating.
All federal sponsorship of "clean" energy initiatives should be abandoned.
Companies that switch to dirty-burning coal is should be rewarded.
There should be a "clean tax" on those who persist in using renewable energy sources.


First of all, let's assume that global warming is a false thesis. In that case, reverting to coal and oil as major fuel sources would save us money, as they are much more efficient that solar or wind power. We also have vast coal reserves that are waiting to be tapped, and the free market is waiting to pounce upon such a lucrative opportunity. Thus, if the scientists are deeply flawed in their outlook, overhauling our energy production system would be an economic boon to us. We would be able to drastically increase our GDP and well-being as a nation.

But what if global warming turns out to be right? Well, our major rival in the global arena is China. If we are to remain competitive against a nation with over a billion people which is adopting capitalist reforms and thus surging ahead in economic growth, we must somehow curb their advances. We know that China will be impacted to a much greater degree than the US by global warming; already, they are feeling the effects of droughts and lack of water. If global warming exists, it would compound the problem. This will wreak havoc upon their economic foundations and allow us to remain ahead of them, because the cost of global warming is predicted to be much greater for China than it is for us.

Therefore, regardless of the viewpoint from which it is considered, global warming must be embrace, be it a real phenomenon or simply liberal clap-trap, as such far-sighted policies will benefit us in the future.
There's only one thing that you'll get out of this:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/TrollScroll.jpg

And yes, my signature has again shown to be 100% true...

Isn't it a commonly accepted (among scientists) fact that global warming is happening? Thats what my teacher says. My teacher said the controversy was over whats causing it, humans or other things.

Is he correct?

I'm not even going to bother debating the likes of you Freedumb

We know you don't support any of that, unless your some white supremist we know you don't support the death of a billion people. Not even the worst of the republican party can wish that.

We know the only reason you post this stuff is because you're a whiny little attention whore who couldn't get a date if you paid someone so you spend your nights alone trying to make your pathetic self feel better by pissing off others.

Checkmate

Isn't it a commonly accepted (among scientists) fact that global warming is happening? Thats what my teacher says. My teacher said the controversy was over whats causing it, humans or other things.

Is he correct?

Within the scientific community (you know, the people whose jobs are to study such things), that is no longer a controversy either. The "controversy" is mainly generated by politicians and corporations.

There is no real debate in the scientific community about whether global warming is real. The "scientists" you see claiming it's a hoax are not taken seriously by anyone except oil company shills and similar people who don't want global warming to be true.
Which oil corporations exactly? Because most of them have adapted this to their advantage - alternative energy sources and "clean energy" are now extremely profitable.

Isn't it a commonly accepted (among scientists) fact that global warming is happening? Thats what my teacher says. My teacher said the controversy was over whats causing it, humans or other things.

Is he correct?
He is. Even GWB has admitted that Global Climate Change not only occurs, but that humans are contributing to it.
(He did so during the G8 summit.)

Now, I don't know if the theory of global warming is simply environmental propaganda being spewed by partisan hacks parading as scientists. It may be, but it may also be a valid assessment. In either case, the US should take several measures to meet the dilemmas of the twenty-first century by increasing its rate of pollution. Below are several proposals.


Cars should have a maximum miles per gallon rating.
All federal sponsorship of "clean" energy initiatives should be abandoned.
Companies that switch to dirty-burning coal is should be rewarded.
There should be a "clean tax" on those who persist in using renewable energy sources.


First of all, let's assume that global warming is a false thesis. In that case, reverting to coal and oil as major fuel sources would save us money, as they are much more efficient that solar or wind power. We also have vast coal reserves that are waiting to be tapped, and the free market is waiting to pounce upon such a lucrative opportunity. Thus, if the scientists are deeply flawed in their outlook, overhauling our energy production system would be an economic boon to us. We would be able to drastically increase our GDP and well-being as a nation.

But what if global warming turns out to be right? Well, our major rival in the global arena is China. If we are to remain competitive against a nation with over a billion people which is adopting capitalist reforms and thus surging ahead in economic growth, we must somehow curb their advances. We know that China will be impacted to a much greater degree than the US by global warming; already, they are feeling the effects of droughts and lack of water. If global warming exists, it would compound the problem. This will wreak havoc upon their economic foundations and allow us to remain ahead of them, because the cost of global warming is predicted to be much greater for China than it is for us.

Therefore, regardless of the viewpoint from which it is considered, global warming must be embrace, be it a real phenomenon or simply liberal clap-trap, as such far-sighted policies will benefit us in the future.

this is the most rediculous and poorly disguised trolling i have seen in a long time. either that or you are entirely brainless.

I'm not even going to bother debating the likes of you Freedumb

We know you don't support any of that, unless your some white supremist we know you don't support the death of a billion people. Not even the worst of the republican party can wish that.

We know the only reason you post this stuff is because you're a whiny little attention whore who couldn't get a date if you paid someone so you spend your nights alone trying to make your pathetic self feel better by pissing off others.

Checkmate

I am hereby nominating TLA for winning every non-won FAG thread that has been, is, and/or will be made for this post, which I shall call "Freedumb"

Now, I don't know if the theory of global warming is simply environmental propaganda being spewed by partisan hacks parading as scientists.

Theory.

This thread is made of fail.

Why the fuck can't you people wrap your heads around the FACT of global warming/climate change?

Why the fuck can't you people wrap your heads around the FACT of global warming/climate change?

This is someone who believes that increasing American dependence on imported fossil fuels and backstabbing China is a good idea...the answer is pretty clear to me.

But then again, yes, it is a "theory", just like gravity or any other scientific idea.

This is someone who believes that increasing American dependence on imported fossil fuels and backstabbing China is a good idea...the answer is pretty clear to me.

But then again, yes, it is a "theory", just like gravity or any other scientific idea.

Intelligent falling!

I am not a good troll, either. I am a failure troll.

Fixed

Lol, blaming China for global warming, nice one, thank goodness we have the neocon all purpose evil-guy to dump the problems of the world on, never mind China is still developing industrially while the US and the West have been pumping out Co2 for decades.

Also freedom, climate change is scientific consensus. You have just proven yourself as MTAE.

You have just proven yourself as MTAE.
It's more the style that did it. This is along the same lines of (though not as good as) the argument that Mark Foley (R-Kiddy Diddler) was more of a civil rights hero than Rosa Parks. That was a work of troll art.

The way I see it, it's a good sight easier to deal with global warming, whether it exists or not, now than risk being wrong in the long run. And seeing as cutting emissions has a double-effect of improving air quality and the public health, there's extra incentive to do it. If we're wrong, we're wrong, but you can't simply replace Ozone if it turns out global warming isn't just a cyclical thing that we're at a high point of at present.

Which oil corporations exactly? Because most of them have adapted this to their advantage - alternative energy sources and "clean energy" are now extremely profitable.

Not Exxon, and not most of the U.S. ones. Big surprise there.

Now FAG you need to know something. All of Asia and all of us in Europe are not going to suffer a fucking Ice Age just so the USA can beat China at something. As I said before the USA isn't going to be top dog for much longer and what you're suggesting would be economic suicide for the USA. Go isolationist while China can pick yp the trade with over 200 countries. Your just someone who would rather kill their nation from the inside.

If any people like you get into power in the USA expect the same responses that Ahmadinejad gets.

Please, attempt to restrain yourself. You posted spam twice in reference to the same post.
I only work with what you give me.

I am hereby nominating TLA for winning every non-won FAG thread that has been, is, and/or will be made for this post, which I shall call "Freedumb"

Are you trying to say all any of us should have done was made that kind of post and saved ourselves a lot of effort? :(

Now, I don't know if the theory of global warming is simply environmental propaganda being spewed by partisan hacks parading as scientists. It may be, but it may also be a valid assessment. In either case, the US should take several measures to meet the dilemmas of the twenty-first century by increasing its rate of pollution. Below are several proposals.


Cars should have a maximum miles per gallon rating.
All federal sponsorship of "clean" energy initiatives should be abandoned.
Companies that switch to dirty-burning coal is should be rewarded.
There should be a "clean tax" on those who persist in using renewable energy sources.


First of all, let's assume that global warming is a false thesis. In that case, reverting to coal and oil as major fuel sources would save us money, as they are much more efficient that solar or wind power. We also have vast coal reserves that are waiting to be tapped, and the free market is waiting to pounce upon such a lucrative opportunity. Thus, if the scientists are deeply flawed in their outlook, overhauling our energy production system would be an economic boon to us. We would be able to drastically increase our GDP and well-being as a nation.

But what if global warming turns out to be right? Well, our major rival in the global arena is China. If we are to remain competitive against a nation with over a billion people which is adopting capitalist reforms and thus surging ahead in economic growth, we must somehow curb their advances. We know that China will be impacted to a much greater degree than the US by global warming; already, they are feeling the effects of droughts and lack of water. If global warming exists, it would compound the problem. This will wreak havoc upon their economic foundations and allow us to remain ahead of them, because the cost of global warming is predicted to be much greater for China than it is for us.

Therefore, regardless of the viewpoint from which it is considered, global warming must be embrace, be it a real phenomenon or simply liberal clap-trap, as such far-sighted policies will benefit us in the future.

We all know you're a troll.

But just for the sake of argument.. this idea is akin to the humans in the Matrix that decided to fight the robots by BLOCKING OUT THE FREAKING SUN.

You realize that doing irreversible and dire harm to the planet will affect *us* too, don't you?

Are you trying to say all any of us should have done was made that kind of post and saved ourselves a lot of effort? :(

You know, this had finally slid back to page three, so I have to ask. WHY THE HELL DID YOU FEEL THE NEED TO BUMP IT BACK TO THE FRONT?

You know he's trolling, I know he's trolling. So why the hell did you bring it back up where he can get attention again?

You know, this had finally slid back to page three, so I have to ask. WHY THE HELL DID YOU FEEL THE NEED TO BUMP IT BACK TO THE FRONT?

You know he's trolling, I know he's trolling. So why the hell did you bring it back up where he can get attention again?

Perhaps I just like gaping at a trainwreck? :p


Actually I didn't even notice the time of the last post, I look at all my subscribed threads and respond to ones I am still interested in. Where it was didn't even enter in my mind. I'll do my part to let it die here though, for you.

I read the first two sentences and thought 'has FAG actually acknowledged the opposite side of an argument? :eek:'

Three seconds later I saw my optimism was stupid, of course.

Not Exxon, and not most of the U.S. ones. Big surprise there.
Could you substantiate this then?

Not Exxon, and not most of the U.S. ones. Big surprise there.

That's mostly because Exxon's oil reserves are still growing compared to other companies; they can still make a lot of money off of production and can still increase the amount they produce to make even more money as the other integrated oils start to see production decline. There's no incentive to invest in alternative energy significantly because their position in fossil fuels is strong enough to last them for at least another 25-30 years.

However, the anti-global warming stuff is pretty idiotic; I'd rather them not waste their money on funding skeptics of dubious credentials and either invest that money in the company or refund it is a dividend instead.

I am hereby nominating TLA for winning every non-won FAG thread that has been, is, and/or will be made for this post, which I shall call "Freedumb" Thank you Thank you, I couldn't have done it without the little people.

I suggest that from now his witty new nickname will forever be Freedumb.

I suggest everyone use it.

Thank you Thank you, I couldn't have done it without the little people.

I suggest that from now his witty new nickname will forever be Freedumb.

I suggest everyone use it.

I'm all for it.

I think that FAG has now deemed us all inferior to him and has stopped posting on this thread... stupid trolls.... *grumbles in an angry manner*

But just for the sake of argument.. this idea is akin to the humans in the Matrix that decided to fight the robots...

For the sake of argument, you're comparing my proposal to a fictional movie in which humans combat homicidal robots? You must be joking, correct?

You realize that doing irreversible and dire harm to the planet will affect *us* too, don't you?

First of all, the harm is by no means "irreversible" as history has proved countless times. Second of all, I acknowledged that we, too, will be affected; however, our plight will be much less severe than that of China, and thus we would be able to maintain an economic and military advantage over them, allowing freedom to prosper.

We know the only reason you post this stuff is because you're a whiny little attention whore who couldn't get a date if you paid someone so you spend your nights alone trying to make your pathetic self feel better by pissing off others.

Checkmate

Although I am, at best, an amateur psychologist, I will endeavor to determine what caused you to post that statement. There are several possibilities.

a) You seek validation from other posters in order to boost your notion of self-worth; thus, you pick on an "easy" target (a person with whom most other posters disagree) to bear the brunt of a well-crafted ad hominen attack which is sure to satiate the "blood-lust" of such posters.
b) You are jealous of my superior debating ability, and this envy manifests itself as you fulminate harshly against my preferred policies.
c) You simply enjoy denouncing other people as it makes you feel that you are above them, thus feeding your ego.
d) You were in an irate state and took your anger out on me as one might punch a pillow when enraged, despite a lack of any personal animosity.
e) And there are certainly many other possibilities not listed above.

Second of all, I acknowledged that we, too, will be affected; however, our plight will be much less severe than that of China, and thus we would be able to maintain an economic and military advantage over them, allowing freedom to prosper.

Even if climate change worked as it does in your fairy pixie world, it would only be freedom (to live in not-famine, for one) for 5% rather than 20% of people.

Even if climate change worked as it does in your fairy pixie world, it would only be freedom (to live in not-famine, for one) for 5% rather than 20% of people.

Even if the rest of the world was weakened severely by global warming, that would simply mean that the US would be able to spread freedom to the rest of the world without significant totalitarian resistance. Consequently, the entire world would be blessed with democracy.

Even if the rest of the world was weakened severely by global warming, that would simply mean that the US would be able to spread freedom to the rest of the world without significant totalitarian resistance. Consequently, the entire world would be blessed with democracy.

If by 'totalitarian' you mean 'local', 'blessed' you mean 'forced to deal with', and by 'democracy' you mean 'corrupt republic', then I think you've got it!

Even if the rest of the world was weakened severely by global warming, that would simply mean that the US would be able to spread freedom to the rest of the world without significant totalitarian resistance. Consequently, the entire world would be blessed with democracy.
Oh come on. Climate change won't stop the stockpiled nuclear weapons and delivery systems China has now, and will continue to have, even if your fantasy comes correct and China is a barren wasteland along with the USA.

Oh come on. Climate change won't stop the stockpiled nuclear weapons and delivery systems China has now, and will continue to have, even if your fantasy comes correct and China is a barren wasteland along with the USA.

True, but it will lose the capacity to exert influence on a global scale (as it currently can). Its entire infrastructure will be severly crippled because of a persistent recession, turning the populace against the maleficent power structure. Its military capacity will also suffer; perhaps, eventually, it will dissolve as did the USSR, as anti-communist movements sprout up throughout the nation. With support from the US, such splinter groups will be able to wrench the poor nation from the control of the horrendous Communist leadership. If such an outcome does indeed occur, freedom will spread throughout the world.

Also the fact that the gulf stream will stop and so Europe (where most of our allies are) will be covered (ironically) in an ice age. Not to mention that since the entire deep sea current will stop working (both this and the previous will be caused by Greenland melting), turning the ocean below 500 meters into a giant dead zone since oxygen will fail to be circulated and mixed through out it.

You know, when biologists, oceanographers, geologists, even paleontologists and most importantly climatologists can all get together and agree on something (with the exception of a couple of hacks paid by oil companies), I'm going to listen to them a bit more than a partisan troll like FAG.

Completely false... If you are going to make a point please make sure that you make an informed/well educated point...

True, but it will lose the capacity to exert influence on a global scale (as it currently can).
No it wouldn't. Climate change doesn't have 'doesn't effect America' written into the small print. What happens to China will happen to America.

Its entire infrastructure will be severly crippled because of a persistent recession, turning the populace against the maleficent power structure.
Or, more likely, the CCP whip up nationalism, and blame the west for climate change, and stay in power. You can't guarantee that the Chinese people would rise up against their government as a result of the effect of global warming. I wouldn't bet the lives of billions of people on something that is definitely going to happen, let alone something as tenuous and unlikely as that.

Its military capacity will also suffer;
Even if that were to happen, the Chinese government would put all their power into maintaining their nuclear capability, and their military. And remember, if China is put into recession and can't support their military, the USA wouldn't be able to either.

perhaps, eventually, it will dissolve as did the USSR,
Perhaps is a bit of an understatement. China isn't like the USSR, in the sense that there is, in China, one specific ethnic group (Han Chinese) who live there, and would want to stay in one nation, as opposed to the different nationalities and republics of the USSR.

as anti-communist movement sprout up throughout the nation.
And the Chinese government will do what they do now. Crush them. You son't have to be rich or prosperous to be a tyrant.

With support from the US, such splinter groups will be able to wrench the poor nation from the control of the horrendous Communist leadership.
And would the USA be capable of doing so? You can't guarantee it.

If such an outcome does indeed occur, freeodm will spread throughout the world.
At the cost of billions of lives, even if it were to work, which it wouldn't. You'd probably kill more people than China does now. Forgive me if I pass on that offer.

Even if the rest of the world was weakened severely by global warming, that would simply mean that the US would be able to spread freedom to the rest of the world without significant totalitarian resistance. Consequently, the entire world would be blessed with democracy.

You fail badly as a troll.
Listen. You seriously think democracy and you're good ol' American value and apple pies is more important than the welfare of 2 billion people?
Why can you not see that you're messed up idea of defeating totalitarianism and "spreading freedom" (as the USA seems to be so horrifically bad at) will cost the lives of 2 billion people?

I'm sorry, but no one can be that shallow or short-sighted.

No it wouldn't. Climate change doesn't have 'doesn't effect America' written into the small print. What happens to China will happen to America.

Actually, if you've read the literature on the topic, you would know that China will be affected by global warming to a much greater degree than the US. As I previously stated, they already face dire water shortages, a crisis that global warming will exacerbate.

Or, more likely, the CCP whip up nationalism, and blame the west for climate change, and stay in power. You can't guarantee that the Chinese people would rise up against their government as a result of the effect of global warming. I wouldn't bet the lives of billions of people on something that is definitely going to happen, let alone something as tenuous and unlikely as that.

A prerequisite of nationalism is a love among the people for their country; this is unlikely to be the case if the country employs stringent, totalitarian policies that go against the public welfare and if the state is unable to provide even the most basic of necessities (such as water) for the populace. The Chinese people would definitely air their grievances one way or another; although a violent revolution may not occur for some time, it will slowly brew, fermenting until the time is ripe to rise up and reclaim China as a land where freedom reigns.

Even if that were to happen, the Chinese government would put all their power into maintaining their nuclear capability, and their military.

Yes, but that would be woefully insufficient. The US is already pumping much more money into its military than China is; additionally, a nuclear deterrent is no guarantee of holding on to power, as was demonstrated by the collapse of the USSR.

And remember, if China is put into recession and can't support their military, the USA wouldn't be able to either.

No, no, no. Again, global warming (if the scientists are correct, of course) will not affect all regions of the world equally. For example, Saharan Africa will be especially hard hit as the desert will slowly creep further south and more land will become arid. However, Ethiopia will see no change in rainfall and Madagascar may even benefit from more precipitation. Similarly, the US will be more or less impervious to global warming while China's difficulties will be almost insuperable.

And the Chinese government will do what they do now. Crush them. You son't have to be rich or prosperous to be a tyrant.

No, but your military must be strong enough to resist a determined revolution aided by American weaponry. An economically devastated China will be unable to resist such an assault.

Completely false... If you are going to make a point please make sure that you make an informed/well educated point...

We can see the puppet strings.

You seriously think democracy and you're good ol' American value and apple pies is more important than the welfare of 2 billion people?

First of all, I vehemently dispute the figure you cited (2 billion people). Second of all, I do not believe that apple pie is worth dying over. Third of all, freedom is so very essential to the welfare of humankind that sometimes people must be sacrificed so that it may be preserved. Those who sacrifice freedom to gain security [from global warming] deserve neither and shall lose both (~Ben Franklin).

First of all, I vehemently dispute the figure you cited (2 billion people). Second of all, I do not believe that apple pie is worth dying over. Third of all, freedom is so very essential to the welfare of humankind that sometimes people must be sacrificed so that it may be preserved. Those who sacrifice freedom to gain security [from islamic extremeism] deserve neither and shall lose both (~Ben Franklin).

edited for accuracy MTAE

First of all, I vehemently dispute the figure you cited (2 billion people). Second of all, I do not believe that apple pie is worth dying over. Third of all, freedom is so very essential to the welfare of humankind that sometimes people must be sacrificed so that it may be preserved. Those who sacrifice freedom to gain security [from global warming] deserve neither and shall lose both (~Ben Franklin).

Why? Through starvation, flooding and other effects of global warming it's completely possible that a third of the world's population would die.

I know, I was joking, in order to prove a point about you're retarded idea of democracy. I like to call it "American politics," personally.

No, freedom is not as completely necessary as you think. Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter in freedom, but I'm not about to sacrifice the very planet we're living on, plus a large chunk of it's population, for my personal opinion.

Oh, and you took Ben Franklin's quote completely out of context, as global warming was not a significant problem at the time. Nice going.

Oh, and you took Ben Franklin's quote completely out of context, as global warming was not a significant problem at the time. Nice going.

Neither was terrorism, but that doesn't stop many liberals from using that quote in order to justify their opposition to the measures the Bush administration has taken to combat Islamic extremism.

Neither was terrorism, but that doesn't stop many liberals from using that quote in order to justify their opposition to the measures the Bush administration has taken to combat Islamic extremism.

Yes terrorism was an issue. It could be argued that to the British authorities the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. You lose again MTAE

Neither was terrorism, but that doesn't stop many liberals from using that quote in order to justify their opposition to the measures the Bush administration has taken to combat Islamic extremism.

For starters, terrorism and global warming are two completely different things. So you're comparison fails. And the measures GWB has taken are completely ridiculous and authoritarian.
Also, you've completely failed to answer the rest of my post. You lose, and fail.

Yes terrorism was an issue. It could be argued that to the British authorities the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. You lose again MTAE

No, that was an example of civil disobedience. Nobody in their right mind would call that terrorism.

No, that was an example of civil disobedience. Nobody in their right mind would call that terrorism.

Nobody in their right mind would disagree with a lot of the solid evidence about global warming, but it seems you are.

No, that was an example of civil disobedience. Nobody in their right mind would call that terrorism.

Armed insurrection against a ruling elite is terrorism, therefore the entire american revolution was terrorism. You fail again. Want to go for strike 3?

Nobody in their right mind would disagree with a lot of the solid evidence about global warming, but it seems you are.

Laughably, that's what the scientists said about global cooling a few decades ago.

Armed insurrection against a ruling elite is terrorism, therefore the entire american revolution was terrorism. You fail again. Want to go for strike 3?

I thought he was on strike 384?

Laughably, that's what the scientists said about global cooling a few decades ago.

Wait, I thought global warming was happening? And that it was going to wipe out communism, and spread freedom and American values?
So now you're denying the existence of global warming?

Armed insurrection against a ruling elite is terrorism, therefore the entire american revolution was terrorism. You fail again. Want to go for strike 3?

The Boston tea party was not an armed insurrection. Furthermore, few people consider such a revolution to be "terrorism" unless it specifically targets civilians. In any case, regardless of the semantics games you wish to play, Islamic extremism and 9/11 cannot be compared with the American Revolution and the Boston tea party.

Actually, if you've read the literature on the topic, you would know that China will be affected by global warming to a much greater degree than the US. As I previously stated, they already face dire water shortages, a crisis that global warming will exacerbate.
I repeat. If any disaster is enough to cause an entire country to collapse, its effects would not be contained to national borders, even if it effects one country less than another. The US economy would not go on cheerfully with the loss of China and the effects that climate change has on the US economy, even if the effect is less severe than in Asia.

A prerequisite of nationalism is a love among the people for their country; this is unlikely to be the case if the country employs stringent, totalitarian policies that go against the public welfare and if the state is unable to provide even the most basic of necessities (such as water) for the populace. The Chinese people would definitely air their grievances one way or another; although a violent revolution may not occur for some time, it will slowly brew, fermenting until the time is ripe to rise up and reclaim China as a land where freedom reigns.
Can you guarantee that? No: especially if the Chinese propaganda machine blames countries in the west for causing water shortages in the first place. Which would be a perfect starting point for a nationalistic propaganda campaign.

Yes, but that would be woefully insufficient. The US is already pumping much more money into its military than China is; additionally, a nuclear deterrent is no guarantee of holding on to power, as was demonstrated by the collapse of the USSR.
You saying Russia doesn't have power?

No, no, no. Again, global warming (if the scientists are correct, of course) will not affect all regions of the world equally. For example, Saharan Africa will be especially hard hit as the desert will slowly creep further south and more land will become arid. However, Ethiopia will see no change in rainfall and Madagascar may even benefit from more precipitation. Similarly, the US will be more or less impervious to global warming while China's difficulties will be almost insuperable.
If it falls hard enough to cause China to collapse, you can bet it would fall hard on the USA. Less =/= none at all. Just because climate change may effect China more than America, it doesn't mean that there will be no effect in America.

And even then, even if the USA is so invincible as you claim, America would still suffer the economic effects.

No, but your military must be strong enough to resist a determined revolution aided by American weaponry. An economically devastated China will be unable to resist such an assault.
If China is economically devastated to that degree, I doubt that they would allow their military to stagnate to the point that America could start a revolution against them, and that America would want to do so, when America would have to sort out its own problems. I doubt the US government would be well placed to start an idealistic killing rampage in China when it has to put up with its own droughts, shortages and extremes, even if less so than China.

The means doesn't justify the ends. The ends is hard enough to justify as it is. And the chances of the means actually reaching the ends is so minuscule, it's hardly worth bothering with. It won't work, and even if it did, it is evil on a level not seen before in human history. Killing billions out of pure ideology, which, MTAE, is exactly what you're doing, is completely vile.

So now you're denying the existence of global warming?

Did you even read the first two sentences in my original post? I'm done debating with you; you fail.

The Boston tea party was not an armed insurrection. Furthermore, few people consider such a revolution to be "terrorism" unless it specifically targets civilians. In any case, regardless of the semantics games you wish to play, Islamic extremism and 9/11 cannot be compared with the American Revolution and the Boston tea party.

Yes they can. Similarities include a foreign occupation, economic hegemony and religious differences. Its not semantic its facts MTAE.

Did you even read the first two sentences in my original post? I'm done debating with you; you fail.

Hey thats my catchphrase for talking to you!!:p

Did you even read the first two sentences in my original post? I'm done debating with you; you fail.

Yes, I did read the first post. I've read several afterwards.
The point you've been trying (and failing) to get across is that global warming is going to wipe out China, and the USA can remain economically and militarily strong. Admittedly at the cost of a lot of the northern hemisphere, but that's no big deal, eh?
You've been switching two completely different arguments throughout the entire thread, and you're failing at it, badly. You weren't even debating with me, you were throwing bullshit in my face about the absolute necessity of freedom at the cost of millions of people. I'm finished with you.

I'm finished with you.

Ha-ha! :)

"You can't fire me: I quit!"

Ha-ha! :)

"You can't fire me: I quit!"

Good. You havn't proved a thing and have generally failed all round. See you next time round.

Ha-ha! :)

"You can't fire me: I quit!"

How old are, you? 6? 7? Drop me a line when you grow up a bit, then I'll think about debating with you again.

How old are, you? 6? 7? Drop me a line when you grow up a bit, then I'll think about debating with you again.

You seem to have the puerile desire to "get the last word in." Despite claiming that you were "finished with me," you nonetheless decided to add in one more ad hominem attack while you were at it. This is clearly a sign of immaturity, as I am afraid to point out.

FAG you faggot I hope all the Chinese slap you with their penises for being an idiot.

Good day sir.

FAG you faggot I hope all the Chinese slap you with their penises for being an idiot.

Good day sir.

Knock it off.

You seem to have the puerile desire to "get the last word in." Despite claiming that you were "finished with me," you nonetheless decided to add in one more ad hominem attack while you were at it. This is clearly a sign of immaturity, as I am afraid to point out.

Says the one who sneaks one in right afterwards lol

I guess FAG is too busy trolling to back up (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12758723&postcount=141) or support his own trolling arguments.

I guess FAG is too busy trolling to back up (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12758723&postcount=141) or support his own trolling arguments.

Silly, backing up your arguments is for commies and liberals. Real Men(TM) just claim they're doing for Freedom(TM) and the Good Old U.S of A(TM).

We can see the puppet strings.

Whatever, there is absolutely zero evidence showing a shutdown in the gulf stream causing glaciation in Europe. Heres an idea, find a map, look at where the UK is, follow that line of latitude across the ocean and into Canada. This is a more accurate representation of what temperatures might be if circulation slowed. It would be cooler but by no means and ice age.

If you use the last glacial maximum as a potential analogue as to how ocean circulation may occur (LGM blocked by ice, today would be blocked by freshwater) the gulf stream still on occasion reaches the Norwegian Sea and deep water is still convecting off the coast of the UK (so heat exchange would still be occurring across much of Europe). As for the ocean going anoxic, also false. The deep ocean has ventilated it self on glacial to interglacial time scales and a fresh water pulse may slow circulation in the North Atlantic but this can be compensated from the Souther Ocean... Try googling Bi-Polar Seasaw and Wallace Broecker.

Knock it off.

Smoke 'em.

If all of what the OP said actually happens.. I want to move to the Moon or something. Or maybe Mars, if it really does have global warming and pollution, at least it isn't the results of human idiocy.

Global warming or no, pollution is not good.

Now, I don't know if the disavowal of the "theory" of global warming is simply more of the same excremental corporate propaganda being spewed by the soulless, emotionally-crippled consumerites who feel entitled to get something for nothing at the expense of everyone living today (and those still yet to come) parading as decent, sensible human beings. It may be, but it may also be a valid assessment.

And we all know how likely that is, don't we kids?

Although I am, at best, an amateur psychologist, I will endeavor to determine what caused you to post that statement. There are several possibilities. I spend much of my time reading psychology, as well as doing a college course in it. We'll see who's better.


a) You seek validation from other posters in order to boost your notion of self-worth; False I could care less of the others. It's nice when it's noticed but the point was to tell them that it's not worth debating such ideas with you.

thus, you pick on an "easy" target (a person with whom most other posters disagree) Actually I disagree, I'm just smart enough to know not to try and change the unchangable.

to bear the brunt of a well-crafted ad hominen attack which is sure to satiate the "blood-lust" of such posters. Part-truth, I intended to end this illusion of a debate and convince everyone that it isn't worth their time.

b) You are jealous of my superior debating ability, and this envy manifests itself as you fulminate harshly against my preferred policies.
False, Your only 'ability' is the fact that you are unmoved or unreacting to any other point of view, a sterotypical Ferrous Cranus (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm). The only way to defeat the likes of you is to not debate you in the topic.


c) You simply enjoy denouncing other people as it makes you feel that you are above them, thus feeding your ego.
False, No I'm already above you. Heck Occeandrive is above you, and I hate him as well.

Sorry You bore me Freedumb.

Smoke 'em.

ahhh, another MTAE clone!
http://contanatura.net/arquivo/Clone%20army.jpg

Uh... I think we can stop posting here, FAG got to fed up and went to his troll-hole to ponder the next Troll post he'll be making. On a related note, I'm now taking bets on what FAG's gonna post about next. Could it be about those crazy treasonous liberals? Could it be about how the US should invade Europe
or China? There's lots of different things it could be!

Uh... I think we can stop posting here, FAG got to fed up and went to his troll-hole to ponder the next Troll post he'll be making. On a related note, I'm now taking bets on what FAG's gonna post about next. Could it be about those crazy treasonous liberals? Could it be about how the US should invade Europe
or China? There's lots of different things it could be!

Possible topics:
Invade France,
How to ruin the Euro so everyone goes back to the dollar
killing more Brown people,
Liberals Cause Cancer
Commies
Execute\Imprision Gays
Why it's good to blow up Abortion Clinics
*Insert topic no one would really support*

I bet the MTAE troll clones are some kind of macro program that Myrth spawns like NPCs when NSG starts getting boring.

I'm now taking bets on what FAG's gonna post about next. Could it be about those crazy treasonous liberals? Could it be about how the US should invade Europe
or China? There's lots of different things it could be!

Put me down for, "Pave the Stupid Rain Forests Already" and, "Screw the Moon and to Hell with the National Debt, let's Drill our way to the Earth's Core".

Put me down for, "Pave the Stupid Rain Forests Already" and, "Screw the Moon and to Hell with the National Debt, let's Drill our way to the Earth's Core".

Or "PC GONE CRAZY: Innocent White school children beaten by blacks and Hispanics while liberal teachers do nothing!"

I thought he was on strike 384?

Strike 519 and counting *looks at post count*.

Possible topics:
Invade France,

We need their Beret industry!

How to ruin the Euro so everyone goes back to the dollar

The New Zealand dollar ;) .

killing more Brown people,

Reversal: Loving more brown people. Now that would be a very good thing

Liberals Cause Cancer

*looks out for EM radiation or some fast atoms*

Commies

Don't forget the 'Terrirists'

Execute\Imprision Gays

We can just give them to Fass.

Why it's good to blow up Abortion Clinics

That are past their use by date so a new building can be constructed on that land.

*Insert topic no one would really support*

Soleichunn should be Monarch of the World(tm)!

Even if the rest of the world was weakened severely by global warming, that would simply mean that the US would be able to spread freedom to the rest of the world without significant totalitarian resistance. Consequently, the entire world would be blessed with democracy.

Except for the fact that the US is going to be falling on its ass, too. There will be massive water shortages, and therefore massive food shortages (read: widespread famine) as well as millions of people displaced as their homes go under, almost ever major port will have to be entirely rebuilt (hard to do when everybody is starving, dying of thirst or a refugee or a combination thereof) as sea levels rise. The US won't be in a position to spread anything anywhere.

Completely false... If you are going to make a point please make sure that you make an informed/well educated point...

So you know more than oceanographers about the deep ocean current? Riiiiiiight... I'm sure...

So you know more than oceanographers about the deep ocean current? Riiiiiiight... I'm sure...

I am a paleoceanorgrapher. I study deep water circulation in the North Atlantic for a living.

I am a paleoceanorgrapher. I study deep water circulation in the North Atlantic for a living.

I believe you! It's the internet, so I know you can't lie!

I believe you! It's the internet, so I know you can't lie!

Thats fine, I don't have to prove myself to anyone. The point is don't spread garbage to prove a point about climate change when its completely wrong. If anyone would take 2 seconds to actually look up what I posted you will find that It leads you to a person (who incidentally developed the idea of thermohaline circulation in the ocean) who is an ardent supporter of global warming, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and knows what he is talking about. Don't trust me, I am just a random dude on the internet but maybe someone should fact check what I am suggesting others to look up.....