Google Mail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
alt.global-warming
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Global dimming and ice age predictions after WW2 contradict global warming theory
Options
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
   Messages 51 - 51 of 51 - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals) < Older 
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Follow-up To:
Add Cc | Add Follow-up to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers that you hear
 
Rich  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 22 Aug 2008, 16:01
Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism.trotsky, uk.politics.environment, alt.global-warming, sci.environment, talk.politics.mideast
From: Rich <some...@someplace.not>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:01:44 -0700
Local: Fri 22 Aug 2008 16:01
Subject: Re: Global dimming and ice age predictions after WW2 contradict global warming theory
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Steve Wallis wrote:
> On 21 Aug, 22:49, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>       No, where you really differ is in advertising socialism, most
>> people favor viable alternate energy and energy efficient devices,

> People might not favour renewable forms of energy

There is no such thing as renewable energy. Violates the laws of
thermogodamics don't you know.

> if they have to pay more for it.

What makes you think they'll get a choice?

> And politicians sceptical of global warming (or perhaps
> because they are funded by fossil fuel companies)

Unlike science, which is funded by politicians.

> might not prioritise investment into such forms of energy,

They ain't forms of energy though.

> preferring to continue the
> divide-and-rule agenda, trying to get working and middle class people
> to blame each other for environmental problems...

The comminists here blame everybody, well, except for the Chinese,
Indians, and most of the rest of the world.

>> but only a percent or so of the US population even considers socialism
>> as acceptable.

> I've heard that most people in the USA associate the word "socialism"
> with the Stalinist states that collapsed in the USSR and Eastern
> Europe. Very few leftists advocate that form of society any more.

Did they advocate it during the Stalinist days? Probably not. So what?

> If
> you ask people do they want freedom or socialism, most people would
> say "freedom". I would say both.

And it would never be a choice you are offered.

>>       What would happen in a socialist state if you were to try
>> advertising freedom with such fervor?

> It really depends on what form of "socialist" state you live under.
> Trotskyists argue for hierarchies of committees based on workplaces,
> with only the working class in control of society,

No, workers are slaves of the state. The communist elite are the
deciders.

> and a "workers'
> militia" to try to ensure the continuation of that form of society.

Force is a common element in both capitalism and communism.

> Perhaps participating in discussions of socialism that could undermine
> David Walters' Trotskyist agenda is behind his objection to
> crossposting to alt.politics.socialism.trotsky...

Incomplete sentence.

> But do you really have "freedom" when the choice is between two very
> similar capitalist political parties,

Yes, what you don't have is choice, or you have Hobsen's choice.

> an extremely undemocratic
> electoral system, electoral fraud that kept Gore and Kerry out of
> power (see my group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/us-electoral-fraud)
> and big business control of the media?

Since no presidential election in the US has ever been elected by
the popular vote, I'm not even sure this is a valid issue. I also
think we were screwed either way. Gore is an internationalist, he'd
do everything to destroy America as a sovereign nation as possible,
same as Clinton did. Anyone wanna bet we'd be at war in Iraq with
Gore also? Maybe under a different pretext, maybe not.

> With the horrendous economic problems of the worldwide capitalist
> economic system (massive food and fuel price increases, collapsing
> house prices, companies going bust as a result of the credit crunch),
> more people can be won to socialist economic policies.

These are not problems with capitalism per se, but with the government's
putting industry in charge of things. The problem is the unlawful
abdication of power and responsibility.

> I advocate more moderate socialist policies than Trotskyism, which are
> winning mass support in Latin America. Arguing that socialism means
> you can't return to capitalist "freedom" (i.e. the freedom to exploit
> workers)

Communism exploits people, that's why it calls them workers, that
is their role.

> and the alleged unpopularity of socialism is contradicted by
> the recent referendum in Bolivia, won with over 67% of the vote by Evo
> Morales, who has nationalised energy, mining and telecommunications
> companies.

Why don't you move to Bolivia?

Cheers,

Rich


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages < Older 
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google