yes it may or it may not.


actions speak louder than words in my book. substance over form. maybe you haven't been paying attention. scams are going on constantly all around all over the world.

I like to think I'm not a push over. I call it as I see it. I see a scam so far.

Not torpedoing anybody. You know it cuts both ways. Throwing money on a global scale decade after decade down the global warming hole and the hole turns out to be a rat hole, then that would be a tragedy and crime against humanity. The science needs to be nailed down. The re-allocation of resources, based on prudent sound judgement. Not warm fuzzy feeling.

yes. qft, I agree. props to you too.

Which is this? Propaganda that says it's fine to carry on burning fossil fuel? Or propaganda that says we should avoid destroying our environment?

If I say that I'm using my common sense to interpret the findings of the scientific community to suggest to me that climate change is affected by humanity, then I'm close-minded?

How am I any more close-minded than the guy who says, "Well, it's the government, so I don't trust it"?

you're being a socialist and he's being right?

i have ideas from right wing and left wing both so i dont fall for that

media want people arguing lefts right, divide and conquer

it doesnt matter global warming is man made or not, contaminating is wrong independently of that

There has been a lot of talk in this thread about propaganda, but that video out of anything else discussed comes closest in intent to being real propaganda. Your Michael Moore comparison is a good one. The producer of the Global Warming film, Martin Durkin, has form in producing right-wing equivalents to Moore's efforts.

Against Nature (1997) - criticised the environmental movement for being a threat to personal freedom and for crippling economic development.

The Rise and Fall of GM (2000) - arguing in favour of genetic modification, met with complaints. A joint letter signed by a number of scientists from the Third World was issued in protest of Durkin's claims in this documentary. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a scientist featured on the programme, later said of her participation in the programme: "I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position."

Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story (2010) - makes a case for lower taxes, a smaller public sector and a free-market economy.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (original working title "Apocalypse my Arse") (yes, really...) is more of the same. Professor Carl Wunsch who appeared on the programme has since repudiated it, describing it as 'as close to propaganda as anything since World War II'.

An official judgement by the British media regulator Ofcom found that the programme "did not fulfill obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues". It upheld complaints by Sir David King, stating that his views were misrepresented, and Carl Wunsch, on the points that he had been misled as to its intent, and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme's position on climate change.

+1

you mean it's baseless propaganda?

can't be. it's from the political right, and they're called the right because they're always right. i call socialist defamation and expect a lawsuit to follow.

Whatever action is taken needs to be balanced and based on fact.

In many fields decisions have to be taken based on the weight of available evidence at that time. Because of the unavoidable time delays in remedying climate damage, delaying until effects are more easily visible may make the situation unrecoverable.

There is a precautionary principle here.

I would suggest it would be more of a 'crime against humanity' to take no action and possibly wait too late than to take measured and balanced action now.

-----------------------------------------

This also raises the issue of what constitutes enough evidence: there has been a concerted effort from the right to deny, distort, and sow doubt in the whole climate field. The tactics (delay, distortion, funding of alternate voices and 'evidence') are similar to those used decades ago by the tobacco companies to counter the emerging (scientific) evidence about the harmfulness of smoking. Part of the strategy is to delay the time when the public will accept that the scientific evidence is unequivocal and overwhelming and that action needs to be taken.

The end goal is the same in both cases - preservation of profit margins.

That is the real crime in all this.

So now profits are evil. Your true colors revealed. It is obvious you and me will never agree. Maybe this will make you "feel" better. It looks like the world is on verge of global recession. GDPs all over the world are declining. People are dying every day. Freedoms are being taken away daily. All this goes to your socialist agenda of less profit to the "capitalists" and more haphazard wealth transfers. The new normal, the new world order. So you want to do more? Here in California we just had a primary to put another tax on cigarettes on top of all the others that already exist to balance the state budget. The votes are still being counted and as of today, it is losing. I suggest to you the people who voted against it like myself are for the most part, non-smokers. We just don't like government trampling all over peoples freedoms and doing the money grab. I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now the effects of smoking, just as they know the dangers of riding motorcycle without a helmet, just as they know about not wearing a seat belt, not wearing sunscreen, not getting enough exercise or too much exercise, vitamin C...etc., etc., etc. There's a role for government. It should not be to be the babysitter. But that is what it has become, to give the "scientists" some "jobs" to justify the waste of tax dollars we throw at these so called "problems". But I'm sure you would disagree. The so called "scientific community" would never try to scam us or try to profit, would they? Really, you live in a box. It's another nice day here in CA. I think I'll go outside.

no, what's evil is the preservation of profit margins over everything else.

the use of "so called "scientific community"" just smacks of someone who either doesn't understand it or disagrees with it's findings just disparaging it out of sheer ignorance.

the government's role of babysitter comes into play when it has to pay for people who don't wear motorbike helmets or who don't wear seatbelts, both of which are offences subject to fines here. smokers pay up front in the form of taxes on tobacco, and we generally just die rather than get left in need of lengthy and expensive car.

MD_Titus' remark is accurate. I never said profits are evil. Businesses need to make a profit. It's the elevation of profit over the public good that I'm uneasy with.

Your California cigarette tax is a good example. There are similar measures here in the UK on both cigarettes and alcohol. Personally I'm not sure that I agree with the concept of using taxes to try to change people's behaviour (even when it might be in their best interests). There was talk a while back about increasing taxes on aircraft flights in order to 'encourage' people into taking 'greener' forms of transport. I can't agree with that idea at all.

From what I hear about the California situation, the measure was originally proposed by the Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Foundation who say it would raise more than $750m for cancer research and stop 220,000 children from taking up smoking.

I also read that tobacco companies Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds have bankrolled the $47.7m campaign to oppose the measures - more than triple the yes campaign.

So, nothing about protecting profit margins there then...

You're right that we aren't going to agree - even, apparently, on whether I'm a socialist or not. My take on that one is that I'm probably better placed to judge. But, maybe you're using a different definition to mine.

I could care less how much RJ Reynolds bankrolled. It's their money and their business interest they are protecting. If I was an investor in their company, I would expect that.

On the other hand, the members of the scientific community (e.g., Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Foundation) of course, play themselves as the "good guys". When it's really about their job security via taxes on the cigarettes, the very thing they are against. Total hypocrisy. We don't need to keep researching this thing. We have known for decades smoking = not good for you. It is a waste of money, time and talent.

The latest, don't take antacid pills because they will give you a heart attack after decades of telling us that it prevents osteoarthritis and is a good source of calcium in the diet. Just brilliant, these guys. Anything to keep the money flowing. Like we are all eating antacid pills like candy or something when it says right on the label 2 pills equals 750 mg. They assume we don't know how to read. It is truly sad what a bunch of idiots we have become from socialist indoctrination. Scam after scam.

As far as paying for someone else mistakes, yea I'm against it. You build your own boat. If you take risk, you need to get some insurance before you take part. Simple. If you smoke, your problem. Shoot yourself if you can't deal with the consequences.

fyi:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...012%29#Details

That's just deranged in my opinion. Could say a lot more but what's the point?

Maybe time to stop now in this thread. It's not going anywhere.

(And I've missed 2 goals already in the Ireland V Croatia game.)

I gave you the link. It tell exactly where the money goes. Go ahead. Stay in denial. Okay, I'm out.

you're great.

in the first instance 1.they're researching about cancer. lung cancer can and does develop in people who have not smoked. if cancer was cured then all these scientists would be able to channel their ability and knowledge elsewhere. not one single scientist worthy of the title would like to stay employed if it were the choice between unemployment and tens of thousands of people dying annually from the disease at the centre of their research. this research is expensive. it is not publicly funded to the degree it needs to be, hence the dozens of cancer research charities. if they increase taxes on cigarettes it has the dual effect of discouraging through expense, and making the cancer research paid for by smokers... then fine by me. as with the law, that's the penalty to do what you want - are you willing to pay it?

to say that they have a vested interest in not curing cancer or researching how to treat it is actually more offensive than telling atheists to kill themselves.

Use of revenue
Revenue raised by the initiative would have been spent as follows, according to the California Legislative Analyst's Office:
Approximately $75 million annually would have maintained existing tobacco tax revenue streams. The objective here was to avoid negatively impacting other revenue streams from other cigarette taxes such as from Proposition 99 (1988) and Proposition 10 (1998).
60% (approximately $468 million annually) would have gone to research of cancer and tobacco-related disease "for the purpose of grants and loans to support research into the prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments and potential cures of lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobacco related diseases, including but not limited to coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive lung disease".
15% (approximately $117 million annually) would have gone to facilities and capital equipment for research "for the purposes of grants and loans to provide facilities, including but not limited to those building, building leases and capital equipment as my be found necessary and appropriate by the Committee, to further biomedical ,epidemiological, behavioral, health services, and other research whose primary focus is to identify and refine promising prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments, rehabilitation and potential cures of lung cancer an other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobacco related diseases".
20% (approximately $156 million annually) would go to tobacco prevention and cessation to the state’s existing tobacco control program. These funds would be divided between the California Department of Public Health (80%) and the California Department of Education (20%) for their existing programs to prevent and reduce the use of tobacco.
3% (approximately $ 23 million annually) would have gone to tobacco law enforcement "to support law enforcement efforts to reduce cigarette smuggling, tobacco tax evasion, and counterfeit tobacco products, to reduce illegal sales of tobacco products to minors, and to enforce legal settlement provisions and conduct law enforcement training and technical assistance activities for tobacco related statues".
No more than 2% (approximately $16 million annually) would have gone to administration, including the collection, auditing, and distribution of revenue.

how is any of that bad?

2. this is how science works. they keep on testing things, and when they find out something that only becomes clear after decades-long research by hundreds of teams throws up enough data for a really good meta-analysis... they make it public, and they are more than happy to change their advice if the evidence supports it, if the results are statistically significant, if there are no flaws in their method. that's when you find stuff like this out. also, are antacid a generic or trademarked tablet?

in this case you blame a socialist scam, when in fact you're most likely looking at a corporate-based lack of depth to the research or non-reporting of it. if they aren't looking for a link to heart attacks then they won't find it.

a drug company team is different to a cancer research, or any research, team that is not directly linked with a product.



kendo, that's his tactic. fail to win with either logic or rhetoric, instead infuriate with "wait what?"

It's bad because people that choose to smoke already know of the risk by now. They have been very aware for a very long time. Common sense tells you when you stand in a smoky room and you start coughing and your eyes water, not good. Don't need a researcher to tell me that. And yes, lung cancer comes in many forms from many causes. So, special tax on the painters? The coal miners? The wind? This is California doing the double dip because the state is pro liberal/socialist and by nature they are completely fiscally irresponsible and they saw this as an easy way to steal some more money and pander to the dimwits that live here, to make up for declines in the other cigs tax revenue streams. The part you didn't post.

per wiki
"Approximately $75 million annually would have maintained existing tobacco tax revenue streams. The objective here was to avoid negatively impacting other revenue streams from other cigarette taxes such as from Proposition 99 (1988 ) and Proposition 10 (1998 ). "

See, already taxed many times over. So, how much of the part you posted would have gone to fund the wild BBQs parties and pretty interns on short term contracts I wonder?


hum dee dum. Go back and google the marlboro man. that was a long time ago. they have been stretching this thing all that time. get a clue.:rolleyes: The antacid thing, just another $50 light-bulb scheme.

Research is fine, but it should be subject to rules of cost/benefit. Not guise for money grab to fix irresponsible state spending. wait, what???

hahaha, serves me right for telling jokes about my career :) To clarify, the pretty STUDENTs are unpaid. The BBQ parties are not very wild, outside working hours, and rely upon steaks and beer paid for out of modest scientist salaries :)

But actually you make a good point. I often wonder in Australia, what would happen if we just stopped research? Some research seems to show diminishing returns. We (scientists) have to convince society that we are worth funding, so health gets a big proportion. My society (and hence govt) kind of accidently then puts a perverse incentive on what we do. We must do something that is totally groundbreaking, but has a very high chance of success (which is a paradox). The successful high level scientists (not me :)) must generate grant proposals that SOUND groundbreaking but are ACTUALLY rather incremental. To their credit, there is then the possibility to do groundbreaking, risky work on the "down low" on equipments already paid for to do kind of boring stuff. At one point I knew of two researchers running cold fusion in their spare time after it was majorly discredited. I never heard anything new so it musn't have gone anywhere.

Some health research has gone down this path imo. But society likes to have the tools to respond to big problems when they arrive, and a competent scientist group is a pretty good one, even with the BBQ situation. For example, it is not well known that an antibiotic crisis is relatively likely in the near future. This is due to unregulated capitalism...the ubiquitous pointless unregulated use of front line antibiotics in Asia and the ability to use antibiotics to get 0.1%s of extra profit margin from livestock growth for food production.

When a healthy young member of your family dies in a US city hospital getting a minor wound dressed (from antibiotic resistant bacteria), and many other families are having the same experience, the scientist currently fattening rats and knocking them on the head to study diabetes has a rather useful set of skills.

camber

Lol. So your still reading this garbage? :grin:;)

Your point about the antibiotic, good. There's another one on the horizon you probably know about.

http://naturalsociety.com/sunscreen-...out-sunscreen/

So who should make these rules? Obviously not governments, because they just use the results to make policy which robs the man in the street, so who else?


The only way to really arrive at the "truth" in the scientific arena is to fund blue sky (sorry Titus) research, where it's the idea that's important, not who's right or wrong, or who stands to gain/lose from the findings.

I would say it boils down to the capitalists way verses the socialists way. I tend to think blue sky is fallacy because even the researchers have a self interest...(e.g., reputations, egos, salaries,...etc). The politics enter into it no matter what. Take example, NASA. Funded by tax dollars, contracts out to private sector, enages in space exploration and outreach to muslims. One president say we are going to the moon again, the other says we are going to mars or whatever:-P

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...feel-good.html

In reality, it's a muddling through to get the real answers. Just look at "physics", aristotle to present day. Even back in aristotle days there was politics in getting to the truth on gravity.

I would also say this w/cost benefit...the timing of when and what to do w/ research matters a lot. Needs/economies of the people are constantly changing. In the good times, it makes sense to pursue the less urgent risks. So, in usa, we do this by voting every few years to fine tune the agenda of the research, changes in public funding. Also, people are certainly free to fund whatever they want whenever they want with private dollars.

it's not about finding out that smoking is dangerous, it's about TREATING THE DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. palliative care, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, lost working hours, hospital care... these things are all a massive drain on the health system so paying for the increased cost through taxation of the people who cause the increased expenditure is, basically, pretty fair. non-smokers are not contributing to the care of those who put themselves at risk. that some non-smokers also contract these diseases through no fault of their own and will benefit from advances in treatment or prevention is not a bad thing. how can you fail to make this simple connection? the state also explicitly lays out how they will spend this increased revenue, and that it will almost entirely go towards research for smoking - and in a small part non-smoking - related diseases and smoking cessation. put a burden on the health system by your activity, be it driving without a seatbelt and paralysing yourself or engaging in a demonstrably risky habit, and it seems fair that you contribute to the cost through taxation. as less people smoke the income from lower taxes is reduced, but the costs do not appreciably decrease in providing cancer care units.

house!

please don't use the telegraph as a source for anything, it's up there with the daily heil as being biased to the point of irrelevant. to paraphrase, put that paper down and never open it again.

"physics", interesting use of quotation marks there. is physics a scam? do you get the scientific methodology at all, or are you just bringing a load of pre-conceived notions about "science" to the party and refusing to actually learn anything?

nasa is a highly politicised agency and always has been, in that it was originally conceived for the dick waving contest the USA and USSR were engaging in. it continues to be a tool for politicians, ala bush and obama saying they are going to do big and exciting things with it.

Then just ban smoking. Stop using it as gravy train to make your living and then put a halo on yourself as god's gift to man. I didn't even mention the federal taxes that are already on cigs. They (the "researchers" or whatever you want to call that crowd) had the option to put out a proposition to simply ban smoking. They didn't do that because they are hypocrites. Instead they partnered up with the state to do a money grab. Apparently, it is not going to pass.

the story was widely reported in various news vehicles. I just happened to link to that one as fyi. the story refers to originally reported in al jahzeera article.


read the first couple chapters of the book "understanding physics" by issac asminov. iirc, somewhere in there he poses the question w/ falling bodies - why was it no one simply crumpled the piece of paper when it was dropped? yes, I get it. that's why I brought it up. understanding physics, different relative to age of aristotle, different relative to age of galileo, different relative to age of einstein...etc.

exactly my point. you can't take the self-interest/political out of it, imo. "blue sky" is fallacy, imo. the politics get in eventually, not matter the original intent.

to ban it is to remove the choice. surely you're all for freedom of choice? it's not about people using it as a gravy train, it's about recognising people's right to freedom of choice, freedom to smoke, whilst mitigating it's harmful effects. i would imagine that a vote to ban smoking altogether would be beaten back all the more comprehensively than a vote to increase tax on tobacco.

please stop misusing quotation marks though, it makes you look silly. as does saying that reading the first couple of chapters of a single book means you understand scientific methodology. it's not different relative to the age, it's a progression and evolution of understanding through cumulative knowledge and experience. it's not "muddling through", it's producing theory and models based on evidence, testing them and refining them or throwing them out altogether if they are unproven. "muddling through" makes it sound like it's made up on the fly.

you are right that you cannot take self-interest/politics out of it altogether, but to say that those are the main motivators in all scientific endeavour is a gross error.

Well, we will just have to disagree about their real motivations. I stand by my opinion. If the government and researchers of smoking really wanted to solve the problem, they would stop trying to provide a get out of jail card to the smokers. Instead, they choose to enable and feed off them with promise of get out of jail card. That is hypocrisy and scam. If they really wanted it to stop, they would refuse to treat smokers and/or seek to ban it. Simply require a law to have the smokers sign a waiver from cost of their health cares related to smoking. Then they bear all the costs of their choice and the non-smokers don't have to share it. Very simple. But then you have bunch of idle researchers with nothing to do and we can't have that. Nor can we have the government lose a revenue stream.:rolleyes:

Okay, i'm out of this thread. I grow tired trying to explain that 2+2=4 and titus jump in to tell me that '+' means to add.:rolleyes:

Your anti-tax hysteria has got the better of you. Are you really saying that you would prefer it if the government issued a blanket ban on smoking? That in your opinion it would be better than raising taxes on cigarettes?

That's a pretty draconian response, don't you think.

I can imagine the hypocritical whinging that would ensue (from people like you) if the government even for a moment hinted at introducing such a measure....yet more evidence to feed your 'new world order' paranoia?

we wouldn't. these are highly intelligent people, do you think they would sit on their hands and do nothing?

as for teh government lose a revenue steam, that legislation you posted where they specify where the money will go... did you ignore the figures?

Dont believe in Man made global warming, and am leaving as big of a footprint as I can ;)

How big of a footprint do you think this house makes compared to yours?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...86.html#s91253

I bet you there are a couple of poor flight simmers reading this that could possibly find a room to use. Why does this man (whoever this is) need all this? Isn't this excessive?

This is obviously a 1 percenter.

Eat the rich.

I'm good with it, as long as you also tax motorcycle riders for the drain on society for trauma care, also those with other physically dangerous hobbies, those who don't exercise and of course those who do because of sports related injuries and you would want to institute a gay tax for the past if not present costs associated with HIV infection.

Wait a minute, now shouldn't the person being treated be the one to pay for his care, via the cost of his health insurance over the years? Why is it the states responsibility (read yours and mine) to take care of these people? Its really not.

My grandfather in law had a wonderfully simple way of describing the only obligations of the federal government: Protect the country and deliver the mail.
I think we should probably get towards cutting everything that doesn't fit into those two areas, and leave the rest to the people and what they wish to do via their state legislatures. You sacrifice too much by letting one central government decide for so many people. Smaller govt=better representation. I believe there were some really great fellows who had a similar idea back in the late 1700's.
I mean why is there this big push to just give all power to the state. Seriously the last people we should be granting MORE power to.

We had a similar ballot proposition that just failed here in California, proposition 29.
The state, in their grand wisdom, wanted to set up so many programs and their associated bureaucracies with this additional cigarette tax (and not for the state of california. Funds would have been spent in other states and countries) that a mere 20% of the funds received would have actually gone into any type of research.
Ya, lets give these types more power and money. Its bound to turn out well.

The whole NASA thing you have going there is just incomprehensible. Were a species that needs to expand and explore, and that's what they do.

Seriously?!?

This is a new one to me, coming to a flight sim forum to debate the merits, or otherwise, of global warming; and as usual anyone who takes an objective stance is a Nazi or a Communist.

Left and Right do not need to dominate your thinking of politics or your ability to question something. It is right that both sides are examined and a consensus is reached. However that does not appear to be the objective of the original post.

Climate change...is it natural, is it being accelerated by humans? I do not know, obviously there are a range of theories. Some are being pushed by lobby groups on behalf of groups with a vested interest in fossil fuel production and say that it is not happening. Some have no vested interest and say it is not happening, however I am more inclined to be sceptical of the ones with the vested interest, for obvious reasons.

On the other side, the only people who really have a vested interest in an alternative to fossil fuels are those that produce systems for renewable energy. That is not the majority of people who were originally advocating this idea. Governments are running with this idea...does this make it bad or wrong, or a conspiracy to deny you or me our supposed rights? No.

What is wrong in a country being able to secure it's own energy without the threat from another of a hike in prices, eg OPEC in the 1970's, or Russia controlling the flow of gas to the Ukraine and Europe. It is right that a country should be able to provide it's own energy using the means available, some of these means DO pollute one way or another, whether it is CO2 or contaminating an area with nuclear waste etc. Even some renewables, it can be argued, can cause a form of pollution - some people hate the sight of wind farms for example - it's not emitting anything but some people think they're ugly and spoil the landscape.

So what is wrong with governments pushing for their own countries to secrure their energy security? There is an initial outlay. One way or another it will have to be paid for, whether by a state introduced tax or through increased bills so the company introducing the new forms of energy does not hit it's profit margins. I would rather it was done by the government as in some areas I trust them more than a private company. A private company is not run with public interest in mind it is run for the benfit of its share holders. The share holders of a government are essentially the public so it stands to reason that the interests of the government are to satisfy it's shareholders...

I personally do not agree with everything that comes from the 'eco-mentalists' (to quote Jeremy Clarkson). I do not see that an electric car is better than a petrol car. The idea seems flawed as it's range is poor, and it charges from a source that is powered by fossil fuels...so how does it reduce pollution? I would however argue that the hydrogen fuel cell has the potential to be better than both an electric car and a petrol/diesel car. However it has drawbacks. The production process uses a lot of energy...a way needs to be found to do this efficiently and on a huge scale to make it a feasible source of energy. Who should pay for this? Why shouldn't government subsidise it? What is the difference in government subsidy and private investment...one way or another you, as a consumer, will pay in the end. However the government can later sell the technology and make the money back for the public. A private corporation has already taken your money, made a profit, created new technology and then sold the product making more money...they benefit more and you are still out of pocket!

As for the financial crisis...that can be explained by the human condition of greed. How anyone can justify some of the huge wealth when you can look around, not just the world but their own countries and see desperate poverty. I'm talking the US, the UK as well as other parts of Europe. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the gap is widening.

As a Police Officer in the UK I have seen some of the absolute poverty and it is shocking and kept quite well hidden. The conditions some people live in are horrendous. Maybe they caused some of it themselves, but not all of it. There has always been rich and poor and a capitalist system needs these distinctions to be able to work.

Seeing these conditions leaves you in a dilemma. State welfare is one of their life lines. Take it away what happens? Will these people just curl up and die? Can a moral nation allow that to happen? Or will these people fight for their lives? Will they turn to crime (more so than already) to stay alive and try to live up to the ideals of society of having more more more? Which is cheaper? State benefits for the poor or paying the high costs of fighting crime and compensation for those who have lost as a result through theft, damage, injury and loss.

Neither can be justified, and as with the debate on climate change the whole thing is an experiment. There will be different methods tried all over the place and will come to different conclusions to suit each societies needs. Left or Right, private or government, it doesn't matter so long as the process is agreed upon implemented and done with the good of everyone in mind, not just the few at the top.

Good post OD.

-----------------

Personally speaking, I have had enough of trying to deal with the pure idiocy expressed by several people (Atag_doc, MadBlaster) on this forum in the various political threads that have appeared recently.

They are like people who demand the right to believe the sky is coloured green with orange polka dots, who when challenged by any evidence-based reasoning that it may actually be blue, retreat into a fantasy land of conspiracy and denial, and accuse you of infringing their freedom of speech.

Last night's posts took the biscuit (e.g. "Today both Republicans and Democrats have been co-opted by Progressives" and "In Europe Right and Left are Socialist." Atag_doc). How do you even begin to reason with that? I have concluded that it's not possible. I understand now why Andy lost it and got banned. It is very difficult to deal with such narrowly disguised arrogance and closed mindedness.

So, guys, stay in your familiar, right-wing comfort zone. Keep believing that the entire world beyond a narrow, right-wing, Fox News-fed grouping is a socialist conspiracy whose only goal is to find ever more novel ways of increasing your taxes.

I won't be posting replies to any of your nonsense any more.

road tax and petrol tax could be seen as the sources for that revenue stream. plus motorcyclists fulfil an important role as organ donors. a "fat tax" on high fat content food items has been proposed and would see some measure of popularity, especially considering the costs associated with long term obesity, diabetes etc.

a tax on homosexuality because of HIV? i will presume you are making sport with that one.

so now we're moving on to state provision of healthcare versus private healthcare? health insurance that goes to a company whose interest is their profit margin, rather than a state collected tax whose interest is (one would hope) the health of it's population.

concur on needing to expand and explore, however the whole space race thing was a dick waving contest with the soviets. this conflict did indeed drive progress though, and the desire to expand and explore has lasted longer than the dick waving.


OD, good post - stop being so reasonable and measured. it's so unfashionable.

kendo - yep

That is the reason why I did not bother to participate here anymore. Too much brick wall to bash the head against, only leaves you with headaches.

I apologise, I will ensure I flame posts from now on ;)

Been a while, but I used to be on Ubi-Forums a lot and see stuff like this and just find it tiresome. I think some people just seem to lack objectivity when they come on to the internet. Forums are meant for discussion, participants in discussions can have different views...if they don't it's a bit pointless having a discussion! I do wonder whether the same people on here would have the same approach in person.

Anyway...

Just a thought from me :)

OD - you are, of course, correct.

But 54 pages of this stuff has seen me reach my own personal limits of reasonableness.

I've finally decided to resort to the Ignore List to preserve my sanity.

Apologies if my last post was a bit OTT.

Now, I'm off to focus on the footie...

Guys the point I tried to post in earlier discussions was the fact that neither side is right. You have people that are inherently left or right. These people are the ones that get their panties in a twist. When one person accuses Fox news of being right and that it is in essence evil then you have outed that person as being a leftist. The point being Fox and CNN in America are both propaganda channels that are designed to take your thinking away and have you always accusing the problems of the country/world on the other side. Have a brain and think for yourself. If everyone could actually think for themselves and not be programmed to think other than what is being bombarded on the channel they watch then the whole world would be a better place. Europeans I have found in many ways do not understand Americans. We have two sides in our country. One of people who are inherently Socialists. They think the government should take care of everyone and dictate what they should do. Now they will tell you that's not the case however they will argue for this all the time. Then you have the Right that does not want government in anything however as they preach this they are dealing with companies that benefit from the military industrial complex. Then there are people that see things in the middle of the two. They realize that the government takes care of many things already and that being 100% supposedly Free Market and self regulated has led us to where our financial situation is. However there are only two parties in American politics. Both have collectively voted for and caused all the problems. In America both sides try to brainwash the people to associate one side with either the complete left or complete right. Too many younger people are influenced by this and seem to attack or get extremely angry at anyone that does not have their view/ or the view of their party. This is called divide and conquer. Everyone here realize that no one is 100% right. That does not exist in real life. We all need to work together to make the world a better place for the future. Truly listen to each others opinions. From there you will be able to break out of the brainwashed ideas you have been fed. You will grow your mind and become the person you are meant to be. Not what the news channel tells you. We are all alike anywhere in the world. It is external factors telling you otherwise.

Peace everyone...

Whats even more funny is most if not all of them are not scientists!!!!

Well I received this today, oh joy the idiots will now regulate us even more, based on bad science again

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3.../idiotnews.jpg

I am not exactly sure what this implies. Every Nation only works upon the basis that their population, at least to a certain degree, are on one page. You have a failed state if opinions diverge to such a degree that people can't get together anymore. You have to teach your youth "something". That is not brainwashing, that is education.

The mere fact that you speak of "propaganda" channels points in this direction.

Furthermore, science is science. Politics naturally also plays a role in science, but in the US, there is no science anymore. It was replaced by "opinions".

Now I studied US history quite a bit, mostsly for the reason that it was a role model for my younger self. And though you may call CNN propaganda, FOX News, when it appeared, immidiatly fell out in this regard as a news channel on one level with some of the cheapest tabloids out there. A cheap tabloid that managed to transform a once highly respectful party into a bunch of out of their minds lunatics.

Also, Fox News is a fairly new news channel, insofar one could argue that it is them trying to topple the "old" USA. That at least is the impression coming over to other places.

Or let's put it another way...roughly since FOX news appeared, the US has seen a constant decline in wealth, respect and reputation throughout the world. I doubt that is a coincidence. That ridicolous labeling of everything being socialist and communist is just the tip of the iceberg. We lived here right next to real communism, and what Fox labels as such does not even come close to that.

If Fox News has it's way, then you end up in a society more akin to Latin america and Greece, where elites do not even have to dodge taxes anymore because they want to get rid of them alltogether. The funny thing is, unlike any other country, that the blue collars actually support that.

It is a devious game that plays on the hope of the common man to get rich one day himself. (which basically is impossible anyways

The best place to get news from is the "enemy", watch your own countries news then watch Russia Today or Aljezera... Then make up your own mind :)

Exactly. Watch the enemies news. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. You don't have to watch anything international to see enemy news though you have it right in your own backyard. Every place has it.

No. Private insurance is simply pooling of risk by a group that has a common interest to minimize it. You don't understand competitive market theory, obviously. No one is forcing you to buy it and bump up those evil profit margins. Health insurance could be as competitive as auto insurance, if allowed. But I guess you would rather sponge. Get your low income exemption. Have others foot the bill for your gluttony and ignoramus lifestyle. Eating your food stamp twinkies and cupcakes all day. Then when your day of diabetes approaches, you expect the other guy to pay for it. Mandating that I buy into the government program or go to jail. How truly pathetic.

enemy, eh?

What does this have to do with climate change?? And I thought personal attacks were against the forum rules?

it is another example of socialist wealth transfer scheme and damage to individual freedom. we await the supreme court decision this obummer-summer.

let the twinkies and cupcakes speak for themselves. "You/your" in this context is a language device, obviously. i don't know titan personally, just what he espouses.

Seriously?

I'm trying not to get too drawn it but this is quite an outrageous attack on some peoples beliefs, and the systems employed by some nations.

Everyone in the UK pays National Insurance. This is meant to provide you with a state pension, welfare if you lose your job (unless out of choice and providing you are looking for work) and access to healthcare when you need it and not if you can afford it.

What you are "espousing" is letting the poorer sections of society die because they can not afford health insurance. True you do not have to buy it but if you don't how are you meant to afford health care if you get cancer, or a life threatening disease? This is not an issue in the UK. If you want to get private health care that is up to you but EVERYONE has access to the National Health Service. How is this a bad thing?

This world is not just for the rich...I believe your own constitution states all men are created equal...just seems from your posts that some are more equal than others.

Plus...as one of the above posts said...what's this got to do with gloabl warming?

fyi, we already have medicare and medicaid wealth transfer scheme in usa for long time. obummer care is an attempt to make us more euro style/socialized, so what I am espousing is that you don't put me in jail because I don't want to pay the lazy fat asses down the street health care because they are too fricken lazy to get a job. many "progressives" are milking the system for all it is worth, often living a glutton lifestyle. when we work in the usa, we pay into the system. its called fica taxes at the national level. those fica revenues go to social security and medicare schemes. a return of those revenues is not guaranteed to the payor. it is by definition a wealth redistribution/transfer.

sure, all men are created equal, but that doesn't imply a free ride. Also, you euros seem to view money as being rich. sure that is true, but some of us in usa view freedom as being rich and more important than money. the money follows from the freedom. it is a byproduct of your work. it should generally not be confiscated to support the deadbeat, lazy, unproductive, irresponsible. Yes, it is taxed to support the general welfare/public good as per the constitution (e.g., national defense, roads, etc.). but "guaranteed" healthcare for everyone is not part of that public good. i hate to break it to you, we aren't supposed to live forever. life isn't always fair. the dingo took the baby.;)

He is what us educated refer to as an ignorant redneck!!

so, the entire population?

also none of this applies to me, so i cite "personal attack" as per forum rules. take your trolling away from this thread.


or even letting those who haven't got the right health insurance get shoddy treatment. i recall someone from ubi and the situation with his 18 year old daughter. instead of expensive curative treatment the doctors were just going to go for a hysterectomy, on an 18 year old girl, simply because of them not having the "right" cover. worked every day of his adult life, had what he thought was a good policy only to discover the company found a loophole to avoid paying out.

private healthcare, when it's actually the level of care and not queue-jumping or comfort that you pay for, is dangerous on a societal level. calling national healthcare "wealth distribution" is disingenuous to say the least. i always wonder if people would change their tune should they find themselves bust out of luck, poverty-stricken and reliant on this "wealth distribution."

Because it stops you trying. This is the core of the right wing credo. (**** me, but here I go...) In the UK during the 80's we had a right-wing government which systematically destroyed public services. Their idea was that if the NHS and state education were bad enough, then people would look elsewhere. In order to do this, people needed to earn more money - ie work harder. Plus the economy would be boosted by people paying for said healthcare and education.

it always make me wonder when citizens of the US speak against "aid the poor" politics using the reason that it waste money.

they never mention military spénding (i know im generalizing and generalizing its bad logic),
that really intrigues me, becouse after all its not for the money. if it was they would go 1st for the military $$$$

fyi federal budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

note: 19% defense, 20% social security, 23% medicare/medicaid

The state and local governments also have significant budget dollars going to social welfare programs (e.g., unemployment insurance). Also, all the various charitable organizations (e.g., churches)

Really, being poor in usa is probably quite different than your expectations. Many "poor" in usa have good roof over there heads, food source, modern day appliances...etc. For the homeless, there are shelters and the cities usually accommodate their needs in some fashion. No one is starving to death here. There's actually a whole industry of professional panhandlers that pull scam and make a lot of money by playing the homeless sympathy card. They dress up in crappy clothes with a sign and stand by the freeway everyday and get tax-free monies that they don't report to the IRS. Some make thousands of dollars!

Now ask yourself, that 20% going to defense spending. Do you really think it is just going to defend the USA? Who is getting a free ride on that?

There is a difference between news and commentary. When you watch Sean Hannity you know you are going to get a conservative viewpoint. He states upfront that he is a conservative Republican.

Contrast that with Dan Rather, who always claimed to be objective, but was always anything but.

There is a reason why Fox news came to be and why they have much greater success than any other cable new channel. They serve a market that was apparently under served.

I'm sure this will start an argument from those who deny that the vast majority of all other American media is slanted left and those who arrogantly state "The truth has a liberal bias."

Here is one of your own who admits what is obvious to so many.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/168466360...ylist_id=86856

Watch the video before you claim "It came from Fox, has to be a lie."

MSNBC is at least the liberal equivalent of Fox, and I see more liberal guests on Fox than I ever see conservatives on MSNBC.

The bold part is the crux of the problem. News are not there to please market desires. If they start doing that, then they also will have to adjust their reporting to the likings of their viewers. That is in direct conflict with any kind of objectivity. That also is what tabloids do. Not saying CNN is better, but for sure more in line with western values outside this radical capitalism. I also noticed a tendency in the US to get rid of things altogether instead of fixing them, and ppl a) not thinking in terms of society anymore, but only "me". b) ppl not thinking long term anymore (future generations), but only "now".

This thread, by all means, is living proof of that development.

The US once was more grown up then this. And a more successful country back then.

Biased, if not corrupt network news directly led to "designer news." It makes little difference if it comes from a desire to please a market or from prejudices seeping out even subconsciously.

It's not even so much the fairness of the journalism, but what is given the most coverage and what is given less. Much is driven by what equals good ratings, but ideology also plays a very significant role.

There is no answer for this.

We are bombarded by so much conflicting information, the "truth" we choose to believe is that which conforms best to our own opinions.

Agreed here. But then it comes back down to cohersion of society. If everybody just choses to believe what he wants, without an agreement on at least some principles, a society won't work long. It may have worked back in the days when ppl and communications were more primitive and less interconnected, today it is potentially destructive.

What makes this even more of a concern is the global influence of the US; which has direct conseqences to the rest of the world.

What do think was the purpose of the ten commandments?

Look at todays economies and the rule they have over politics and tell me what relevence these commandments have nowadays.

Would you prefer the politics rule the economies?
(it's a dual system, they will always influence each other)

Back to your question: if fail to see any relevance of the 10c to todays politics/economies.*
Wait...maybe...

Something you should remind the French of. :grin:



*: Dante on the other hand is a direct hit.

I vote for polititians. I do not vote for heads of hedge funds or banks.
And do not say the F word, there may be children reading this forum ; )

That’s not totally true. To show why I need to get a bit philosophical as it raises the issue of how we decide what constitutes truth or reality. There are two broad classes of question that we are faced with:

The first can be answered by direct observation. In simple cases of this class, such as whether a particular table in front of us has four legs, the answer is a matter of straight verifiable observation - anyone with the necessary visual sense should agree on the answer (and people who don't agree are usually labelled delusional). A more realistically newsworthy example of the same thing would be an earthquake in Japan. This type of 'truth' then can be viewed as 'objective', easily verifiable and NOT dependent on your prior opinion (unless you want to admit to being delusional!)

(There is a more complex variant of this where the observations may require specialised apparatus (eg microscopes) or specialised training/education to be able to discern the facts, but again, anyone with the training and access to the required instruments should be able to agree.)

Then there are questions that are tightly bound up with people's value systems. In these cases simple observational answers are usually not available. Examples of these questions are: is abortion justified?,
was the decision to invade Iraq correct?,
what should be the responsibilities of the state?
In questions like these disagreements are common.

Any competent (honest) news organization should have no difficulty in reporting the first class above. With the second class if they are to give a fair and balanced representation they will need to tread more carefully. In fact, a good way of distinguishing between ‘news’ and ‘propaganda’ is by seeing how diligently a news organization attempts to tread this fair and balanced path.

And here is the problem. The Reagan administration in 1987 effectively abolished the requirement for television news to attempt to provide balanced and fair coverage (I believe the argument was that it infringes freedom of speech and property rights - i.e. wealthy media owners should be able to have their organizations say what they damn well want). This opened the door for the current situation in American news broadcasting where the news channels, having abandoned the need for impartiality, have become ever more partisan in their presentations. It also increases the tendency to chase market share which can lead to sacrificing accuracy of coverage in order to pander to your perceived demographic (i.e. twist the facts so as to keep your viewers)

As Bewolf said, this has generally bad effects on a democracy. For the people to be able to make good judgements they must first be given accurate information. In the UK there is still a requirement for TV news to be impartial. I would suggest that for healthy democracy keeping the media bias-free is important. For this some regulation is needed.

-------

The above also takes us back to climate change where the argument can be viewed as about being whether it is a Class 1 observable fact (most scientists) or a Class 2 opinion (liberals V conservatives)?

Political vs financial elite - one care for the cash, the other for a short note in the book of history. Both usually break their word. Same crooks.

We're having a hard time in Switzerland keeping our politicians on a short leash - now, you live in Germany...lol.

To summarise the above:

In the UK TV media organisations are required to fairly report both Class 1 and Class 2 above.

In the USA currently Class 2 reporting has moved from balanced news into propaganda-driven presentations. Arguably (?) some of the Class 1 items may be being distorted and skewed too, as this necessitates accurate reporting of the 'other side's' position without distortion, spin or value judgement.

Once Class 1 'facts' are routinely distorted we are into Goebbels territory and it is time to be worried. :)

Same in Switzerland, this rule will be also supported as long as they stay on their socialist track...

Like the other guy said; free speech, free will - you only have to share mine.:evil:

With the difference that you can vote the latter out of power or join a party yourself without any preconditions. I chose the short note in the book of history anytime over care for cash, thanks. At least the note on history has some flexibility in how to achieve that.

Besides, the current political system in Germany these days works quite fine and is not as bound to populism as other countries are.

One of the basic rights of stockholders at the ASM is...?


True, doesn't matter which party you vote for, the result is always the same.

What// We only spend like 800 BILLION a year. Dont all countries spend that much.....:-)

Are you saying that the Swiss mainstream media have a socialist bias?

The BBC has been getting attacked for some time now from the Conservative right for supposed bias. Interestingly Labour have also had a bash at them at times. My opinion - if you're annoying both sides you're probably doing ok.

As I argued above - once you get past the verifiable factual stuff (earthquakes in japan, numbers dead in a car crash) and move into the Class 2 stuff it's arguable that there are only opinions anyway. In this territory even if you try hard to be impartial it is likely that someone will be annoyed.

It's also likely that the further out you are from the centre on either left or right, the more you are likely to perceive the attempt at balanced, centre-line coverage to be biased.

Which explains why those with more hard-line positions are the ones getting most annoyed...

And the only way to become a stockholder is....?

Pretty much because german voters hardly leave them a choice. Too much common ground.

+1

The problem with most radicals is that they do not recognize themselves as radicals.

The above statement is biased as it ascribes motives based on opinion, but the press as advocate began a long time prior to 1987.

It wasn't Walter Cronkite's place to declare the Vietnam war unwinnable in 1968.

History now tells us that the Tet offensive was a rather large military defeat, rendering the Viet Cong southern insurgency, combat ineffective. What militarily could have been a turning point for victory became politically, a turning point for failure.

Few would now disagree that the venture was a huge mistake from the beginning, but Cronkite had a huge amount of influence on the public and wasn't really qualified to make such a statement.

The press can and does agree on tables that have 4 legs, but the majority of "news" is more subjective.

The Reagan administration ending the requirement for balanced coverage is verifiable fact. The argument quoted is the reason given for implementing the change. "wealthy media owners should be able to have their organizations say what they damn well want" is my opinion of what it in effect meant.

Press advocacy did begin long ago. The question is whether it is necessarily a good thing and whether removing an obligation for balance is going to make the situation better or worse.

On Cronkite - true, in that by my argument he was crossing the boundary. I would say that in his particular case it was very much presented as a 'comment' piece. Such was his authority that it carried a lot of influence (too much). I would say that the direction of travel in the intervening years has been such that the situation has got much worse now though.

Also, does 'history show' what you say it shows? Note that the question about that moment in the Vietnam war is definitely a Class 2 one - it's not absolute indisputable fact in the same (simple) way that number of legs on a chair is - i.e. people could disagree with your interpretation.

Most of the 'interesting' stuff is anyway :)

The tables thing was just an easy example - main point was a lot of stuff is not just down to one's personal opinion which was where you seemed to be in your post.

Also, it can be difficult to know where exactly fact ends and opinion begins - and if your news media is distorting the situation from the very beginning it can be impossible.

----edit: rewritten for clarity and to expand some points

The very beginning would be the indoctrination that begins when one attends public school in USA. The teachers are all unionized. In other words, most hold liberal point of view. Only way to escape is to seek alternative view points. Fox News is one alternative. Private/Home schooling, another. For teachers unions, it is all about getting as much money as possible out of the taxpayer. Much of this money is re-allocated to administrators instead of teachers. Most people can discern who, what, where, when and why. They can still be scammed, but over time some get it figured out and some don't. If you come out of public school system and never look at opposing view, you will be exploited. Exhibit A, "rock the vote", "hope and change". All those youths jumping on the Obummer bandwagon now very sad and unemployed. Similar situation happened with Carter then swing to Reagan. Probably will happen again.

@ beowolf
if right/left are 50/50, that is not a nation in stagnation. that is a "moderate" view of utopia! Or call it a political equilibrium. But it is rare to have it last very long. There are always forces in play.

Indeed.

Frankly, I'm embarassed as an American to have someone who thinks like this representing our country. Not all Americans are this ignorant or racist.

You either get good teachers, those are well paid. Or you get bad teachers, which are badly paid. AFAIK, teachers in the US public schools are rather badly paid. [/QUOTE]

Not if they block each other in government to a degree that nothing can be done anymore. Democracy and a working society is all about compromise and the willingness to take a step back from your own convictions.

Frankly, I'm embarrassed to see a fellow American somehow find racism in that post.

Ridiculous.

Open your eyes!

Please point it out, cuz I'm missing it. Or maybe you are trolling? Or maybe you voted for Obummer simply because he is black? Did you forget all the "its Bushes Fault" crap already?

"Open your eyes"...nice reply. Why dont you explain where the racism in that post is instead of the lame open your eyes response. I'd really love to hear this one.

That's not racism at all. Google Bull Conner or Robert Byrd. There is wide bipartisan agreement that they were definitely.

Couldn't disagree with you more. Money has nothing to do with teaching ability. It may have something to do with getting the teachers to motivate the kids, but that isn't teaching ability. There are dumb teachers and smart teachers. There are dumb teachers that can motivate and smart teachers that can not motivate and the reverse of that. It's about instilling ambition in the kid to want to learn. Once you do that, they will learn because they want to. Frankly, the whole usa public school system needs an overhaul to reflect the changes in technology (i.e., internet and computers). There is no reason much of this couldn't be done from home school. Save a lot of money.


Sure compromise to a point. But not at the expense of your principles. Just because USA isn't doing what you want. It's not doing what I want either, but at least I live here. My vote gets ignored all the time because I live in Kalifornia.

I have family members with your same idiology who are racist, hippocrits etc, if I didnt know better I would think you are them!!

If it makes you feel better, I have nephews, my sister's kids, african american. :rolleyes:

Saul Alinsky: Rules for Radicals
Calling someone racist: It’s the Progressive ‘get out of logic free’ card.

Saul Alinsky rules for Radicals says to demonize the opposition, call them racists.

Don't be angry with the poster Saul wrote the book. These are his words.

And that proves nothing about you. You think climate change is false despite scientific evidence yet you probably think jesus and god were/are real despite the lack of evidence am I correct??

And you sir think he's racist because you have embarrassing family members

This is getting very personal. Cool it down please.

LOL. Well, I guess it didn't make you feel better. I gave it a shot! :-P

as far as "yet you probably...", obvious trolling.

Please be kind enough to point it out for us ignorant rednecks.

By the way Mr Educated, you misspelled hypocrites and embarrassed.

Are you sure? Perhaps you are not using the USA English dictionary for spell check. Mine missed it!!

Oh I found it.

hippocrits

That's hippo critters.

http://www.floristone.com/layout/hip-tort-2.jpg

Protect our planet!

The squiggly red line underneath should give it away.

He gets a pass for embarassed, just missed an r there.

But hey, I could be wrong. I'm not so highly educated.

no - it's a fact. :(

you know the true origin of the word hypocrit comes from the hipocratic sweraing doctors do?

i concluded so a friend who works in a hospital concluded so both independently

Sorry if I misspell. I'm a chemist not an english teacher and I rarely proof read posts here. MadBlaster answer the question below.

"And that proves nothing about you. You think climate change is false despite scientific evidence yet you probably think jesus and god were/are real despite the lack of evidence am I correct??"