Did I hear that Hillary Clinton pledged that the US (and other "rich nations" but we know what that means) would give third world countries $100B a year for global warming issues???? So its not enough to redistribute wealth in our own country - we need to redistribute it globally? What a fucking idiot administration we have.
I can't wait till November 2010 the seat losses are gonna make 1994 look small!
There is a label for this and it is Socialism - that's not me using scarewords that's the truth.
I heard that was what the meeting in Copenhagen was all about. Obama was to sign a treaty on global warming that would require the US to give a lot of money to other "lesser" countries as some sort of "compensation" for us polluting the planet. Other leaders would do the same in their countries. There was a guy from the UK I think talking about this meeting posted somewhere here at Conquer Club. But I don't remember what the thread title was..... "Obama set to.... (something or other)".
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
rockfist wrote:Did I hear that Hillary Clinton pledged that the US (and other "rich nations" but we know what that means) would give third world countries $100B a year for global warming issues???? So its not enough to redistribute wealth in our own country - we need to redistribute it globally? What a fucking idiot administration we have.
I can't wait till November 2010 the seat losses are gonna make 1994 look small!
There is a label for this and it is Socialism - that's not me using scarewords that's the truth.
If we accept global warming is a problem which quite a few people do. Than we need to help less developed nations develop in cleaner means, otherwise we get a whole new dirty economy.
Asto your label of "socialism" I don't think you know what it means. There is a difrence between government aid and investment and government ownership of the means of production.
jay_a2j wrote:I heard that was what the meeting in Copenhagen was all about. Obama was to sign a treaty on global warming that would require the US to give a lot of money to other "lesser" countries as some sort of "compensation" for us polluting the planet. Other leaders would do the same in their countries. There was a guy from the UK I think talking about this meeting posted somewhere here at Conquer Club. But I don't remember what the thread title was..... "Obama set to.... (something or other)".
Well I couldn't find the thread but I found the video....
radiojake wrote:$100 Billion - it's a lot of money...
I bet it doesn't equal the amount the US has made from the backs of third world labour and resources over the last 80 years...
Karma bitches..
This is actually completely irrelevant. This isn't about righting the "wrongs" of the capitalist system it is about ensuring clean development in the developing world. You might argue we have a responsibility since we used dirty technology to reach our current level, but even that is somewhat irrelevant.
The developing world will develop, they want sugar and spice and everything nice as much as we do. We can't stop that (nor should we) what we can do is help them develop in a cleaner way than we did and minimize the impact their economic emergence will cause.
radiojake wrote:$100 Billion - it's a lot of money...
I bet it doesn't equal the amount the US has made from the backs of third world labour and resources over the last 80 years...
Karma bitches..
This is actually completely irrelevant. This isn't about righting the "wrongs" of the capitalist system it is about ensuring clean development in the developing world. You might argue we have a responsibility since we used dirty technology to reach our current level, but even that is somewhat irrelevant.
The developing world will develop, they want sugar and spice and everything nice as much as we do. We can't stop that (nor should we) what we can do is help them develop in a cleaner way than we did and minimize the impact their economic emergence will cause.
radiojake wrote:$100 Billion - it's a lot of money...
I bet it doesn't equal the amount the US has made from the backs of third world labour and resources over the last 80 years...
Karma bitches..
This is actually completely irrelevant. This isn't about righting the "wrongs" of the capitalist system it is about ensuring clean development in the developing world. You might argue we have a responsibility since we used dirty technology to reach our current level, but even that is somewhat irrelevant.
The developing world will develop, they want sugar and spice and everything nice as much as we do. We can't stop that (nor should we) what we can do is help them develop in a cleaner way than we did and minimize the impact their economic emergence will cause.
More rhetoric from mind controlled sheeple.
Please explain what "clean development" is.
Clean development. Take coal plants for example. You can save a bit more money by not engaging in health or safety standards that many 1st world countries use. It's worse for the environment, but it saves money, which is something many countries who would receive this $100bn don't have. This money would go to things that they couldn't typically afford or have easy access too; it would help make their development cleaner.
The fact is we could slow man made global warming to 1/10th of its current pace (if you believe it exists), within a year or two if we were super serious about doing it and create more jobs and wealth for our economy. We just aren't serious enough to employ the means it would take to do it.
I don't think this $100B has a snowball's chance in hell of making it into the budget and pledging it now will make it more difficult for it to be in the budget because its more ammo for conservatives heading into 2010 mid terms.
rockfist wrote:
There is a label for this and it is Socialism - that's not me using scarewords that's the truth.
Baron Von PWN wrote:
Asto your label of "socialism" I don't think you know what it means.
Rockfist is a true idiot when using the original definition of the word.
You are taking the means of production (money) from private citizens and giving it to foreign governments (communities). The label fits, but its an unattractive label so its better to call me names than admit the truth - ha
rockfist wrote:
You are taking the means of production (money) from private citizens and giving it to foreign governments (communities). The label fits, but its an unattractive label so its better to call me names than admit the truth - ha
rockfist wrote:
You are taking the means of production (money) from private citizens and giving it to foreign governments (communities). The label fits, but its an unattractive label so its better to call me names than admit the truth - ha
rockfist wrote:
There is a label for this and it is Socialism - that's not me using scarewords that's the truth.
Baron Von PWN wrote:
Asto your label of "socialism" I don't think you know what it means.
Rockfist is a true idiot when using the original definition of the word.
You are taking the means of production (money) from private citizens and giving it to foreign governments (communities). The label fits, but its an unattractive label so its better to call me names than admit the truth - ha
hmm yeah, your wrong. Taxation is not socialism, neither is foreing aid.
rockfist wrote:
You are taking the means of production (money) from private citizens and giving it to foreign governments (communities). The label fits, but its an unattractive label so its better to call me names than admit the truth - ha
That was a joke right?
You're not going to answer his post?
Baron did it for me, but really, does a statement like that actually deserve an honest intellectual response?
rockfist wrote:
You are taking the means of production (money) from private citizens and giving it to foreign governments (communities). The label fits, but its an unattractive label so its better to call me names than admit the truth - ha
A child or a person completely self-centered who has no knowledge of basic political concepts.. roughly the definition of "idiot" - the almost two and a half millenia old greek/athenian word.
I guess the american republican party and gw bush were socialists.. They did exactly what you are describing.
2dimes wrote:We need to quit complaining about this sort of thing and find out what countries to set up our solar panel power companies in.
If you disregard the aesthetic consequences then this isn´t really a problem since humans occupy a tiny tiny tiny part of the earth´s surface.
For the long term I would personally prefer investing in carbon nanotube space elevators making it economically viable to use the more efficiant method of having them outside of the earths atmosphere.
Titanic wrote:Well just put the solar panels in non-habitable environments, ie deserts.
Perfect, oh wait. The resistance in the transmission lines will cause too much voltage drop and you'll need to move closer to the panels to get enough power from them. Electricity doesn't like to travel more than around 600 miles.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
That was a joke right?
