Got out of the way of Florence, but....

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Got out of the way of Florence, but....

 

I am inland about 190 miles inland in a very sturdy hotel. But my house which I just bought 4 months ago, may get flattened as it is ony 2 miles inalnd. 

 

I also have a couple friends whom have jobs at a nursing home, whom have stayed behind. I am worried about them. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 Brian37 wrote:Taxes are

 

Brian37 wrote:
Taxes are not robbery.
  Why was slavery so bad? It was forcing a man to work to take care of another man and his children. How are taxes on wages that don't benefit the payer in proportionate amount not slavery? When goverment takes in money, it needs to be a voluntary transaction where the payer receives an equivelent benefit. Not the mafia/gang shakedown of collecting money just because you are in their hood and you got a dollar in your pocket.  
Brian37 wrote:
 For the same reason you pay for a school with taxes even if you don't have a kid. You do that because the more educated a society is the more stable it is. 
  All these benefits encourage people to have kids they can't afford because someone else is paying the bill. It encourages illegal aliens to move to that area for all the benefits someone else worked to create. If you are too dumb to understand the concept of moral hazard, there is no point in debating you. You are someone that should never vote. What is the end game of public education and libraries? Does society ever advance enough that anyone that has children can afford to educate them on their own? No. It is just like our perpetual wars, there is never an end. Perpetually the hardworking an educated pay for lazy and uneducated people to have as many kids as they please. A never ending stream of children that depend on taxpayers. This is how society advances???????  I left the country rather than pay all the fucking taxes. I'm not a fucking worker ant that is going to pay for all the welfare queens. The leftist propaganda has castrated you, that is why you are content to be a complete cuckold.  
Brian37 wrote:
Privatizing everything only creates centralized wealth. 
  You're a fool that has fallen for the marketing scam of 'public servants'. Then why is Washington becoming the most expensive city in USA? Same with all the state Capitals. That is where iscentalized wealth. In USSR all wealth flowed into Moscow. Getting rid of capitalism isn't getting rid of greedy people, they just get jobs in government. What isn't privatized already? Our 'public servants' go on strike against the goverment proving they are really private interests. Public official quit if they like a job in the private sector because they never really were 'public servants'. The only debate is to have monopolies or open the market up to competition.  
Vastet wrote:
Do you seriously think Walmart would build a road and a store instead of just building a store on a pre-existing road if given a choice? 
  The problem we have now is that gas tax funds have been raided to pay for welfare programs that keep politicians in power. Electric vehicles are not paying any taxes except registration. It is likely judges will order bankrupt government pensions for 'public servants' be paid, leaving the government no choice but to raid highway funds. The goverment will have no choice but to let private capitalists build and maintain toll roads. After the welfare state collapses, Walmart and Amazon may have no choice but to maintain and build the roads they use. 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
 There's a lot of problems

 There's a lot of problems with your government and tax system. That does not mean that government and taxes themselves are the problem. They aren't. America's problem is that it spends so much taxes on the military that they can't afford to spend taxes on social programs or other things taxes are supposed to be for. Start electing politicians who want to reduce the American footprint on the planet and you'll find a windfall of taxes for social security and everything else. America can't bitch about an inefficient and ineffective government when that's what America seems to want. It's funny how countries with higher tax rates have happier and more productive populations. 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: There's a lot

Vastet wrote:

 There's a lot of problems with your government and tax system. That does not mean that government and taxes themselves are the problem. They aren't. America's problem is that it spends so much taxes on the military that they can't afford to spend taxes on social programs or other things taxes are supposed to be for. Start electing politicians who want to reduce the American footprint on the planet and you'll find a windfall of taxes for social security and everything else. America can't bitch about an inefficient and ineffective government when that's what America seems to want. It's funny how countries with higher tax rates have happier and more productive populations. 

Agreed, way too much is spent on military spending. But the world is a very dangerous place. Homo sapiens may not survive being an R-selected species than can build weapons of mass destruction. The world needs a police force until we have a rational approach to things like population levels and natural resouce distribution.

The military should be paid for with land/natural resource/pollution fees. Also, the US military is something of a welfare program as well. Congressmen fight for funding to flow to their districts for the economic benefits.

These 'happier' places are rapidly being replaced by Islam. Why do I see their talented workers leaving for these places escaping the high taxes?

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/business/worldbusiness/26labor.html

Is that sustainable or does Scandanavia/Canada turn into another shitholes?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Everything EXC says is a

Everything EXC says is a lie. The human species survived a few million years without America. America is not preventing shit, despite the desperate claims of American politicians, strategists, and military. Noone has used a WMD akin to a nuke EXCEPT America. And even America is too cowardly to use a nuke now that most everyone has them. The world doesn't and has never needed a world police. Certainly not a police that is as hypocritical and corrupted as America.

Your continued proven lies about immigration are just repeated lies that were already disproven multiple times.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The world

Vastet wrote:

The world doesn't and has never needed a world police. 

But if the subject is Climate Change, suddenly we are living on razors edge and massive government intervention is required to save us. The actions of a few people could make the difference in the survival of millions. My SUV is a WMD cabable of destroying the planet from its' tailpipe emmisions. We need a world police to enforce the climate policy of welfare queen scientists and elites that tell fly around the world and live in mansions to tell us little people that pay their salaries how we need to be green.

 

But if the subject is terrorism, individuals and small groups are nothing to worry about. They can't do much damage, only my SUV is a WMD. If it is immigration, the higher carbon footprint of Canadian/American refugees is nothing to worry about. How convenient is your science and view of the world. Just change the premise of every argument according to the globalist agenda of tax slavery for all of mankind.

Anyone can build weapons that can kill millions, who is going to stop them?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:The

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:

The world doesn't and has never needed a world police. 

But if the subject is Climate Change, suddenly we are living on razors edge and massive government intervention is required to save us.

Clearly you just don't like democracy. The governments intervening in climate change are doing so by the will of the people who elected them. And in no way does any current or past action against climate change resemble a world police. 

EXC wrote:
The actions of a few people could make the difference in the survival of millions. My SUV is a WMD cabable of destroying the planet from its' tailpipe emmisions. We need a world police to enforce the climate policy of welfare queen scientists and elites that tell fly around the world and live in mansions to tell us little people that pay their salaries how we need to be green.

No we don't. Just like we didn't need a world police to largely end slavery and bring higher levels of equality to people everywhere. 

EXC wrote:

But if the subject is terrorism, individuals and small groups are nothing to worry about. They can't do much damage, only my SUV is a WMD. If it is immigration, the higher carbon footprint of Canadian/American refugees is nothing to worry about. How convenient is your science and view of the world. Just change the premise of every argument according to the globalist agenda of tax slavery for all of mankind.

Anyone can build weapons that can kill millions, who is going to stop them?

Their own self preservation, idiot. America hasn't prevented anyone from launching nukes, the knowledge that 30 countries would reciprocate has prevented everyone from launching nukes. Refugees don't make a dent in the carbon footprint of a nation. You're so clueless. Everything EXC says is a lie.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Clearly you

Vastet wrote:

Clearly you just don't like democracy. The governments intervening in climate change are doing so by the will of the people who elected them. And in no way does any current or past action against climate change resemble a world police. 

Democracy can't work when the elites manipulate the unwashed masses that never learn to think rationally. How exactly does 'going green' work without a world police. Groups a great economic benefit when using the cheapest/most efficient energy.

Vastet wrote:

No we don't. Just like we didn't need a world police to largely end slavery and bring higher levels of equality to people everywhere. 

I thought you believed Capitalism was slavery???

I don't think it ended. The US still imports millions of desperate people from overpopulated turd world shitholes and lets the rich take advantage of their non-citizenship. The working man has all the taxes imposed by government put on his back. The housing crisis means the middle class are slaves to landlords and banks.

Letting people have some choice about who is their master is not ending slavery. It won't end until the working man has leverage. That won't happen until there is population control.

 

Vastet wrote:

Their own self preservation, idiot. America hasn't prevented anyone from launching nukes, the knowledge that 30 countries would reciprocate has prevented everyone from launching nukes. Refugees don't make a dent in the carbon footprint of a nation. You're so clueless. Everything EXC says is a lie.

Remember 9/11? Where was their self-presevation? The bad guys are not going to let us know where they live or who they are so easily. Also WMDs are likely to be biological agents not nukes. The perpetrators not heads of state.

22% of Canadians are immigrants. So they contribute 0% of the carbon footprint?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam

If you keep people in the third world and don't let them immigrate to countries like US and Canada, they will have a lower carbon footprint. The same people claiming to be so pro-science will deny and ignore this obvious fact when the subject is immigration. Think for yourself once and stop being a puppet of globalist slavery agenda.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Clearly you just don't like democracy. The governments intervening in climate change are doing so by the will of the people who elected them. And in no way does any current or past action against climate change resemble a world police. 

Democracy can't work when the elites manipulate the unwashed masses that never learn to think rationally. How exactly does 'going green' work without a world police. Groups a great economic benefit when using the cheapest/most efficient energy.

Actually democracy can, and does, work even when manipulated. The more manipulation the more effective the manipulation and less effective the democracy, but the people can only be manipulated so far. Inevitably they revolt. Which is a good chunk of the reason why Trump got elected and Sanders would have been if not screwed by Clinton. Dissatisfaction breeds populism and authoritarianism which leads to a rise in anarchism, at which point heads roll. Democracy at it's ugliest and finest simultaneously.

As for climate change, every year that goes by sees more acceptance and less resistance from the population at large as they see first hand evidence repeatedly. Noone I've talked to in years has been able to say they haven't noticed a change in climate. Why is it such a bad thing to attempt to limit the impact we have? To have cleaner air and a healthier environment? Doing nothing is stagnation, not progress. You can't stop progress. Noone could stop the human species from starting to use oil, and noone can stop the species from massively reducing its dependence on a material that isn't worth the cost. The action will breed new ideas and new technologies that will have a smaller environmental impact overall. It's happening whether governments force it or not. When Trump announced he wouldn't join the Paris accords, many of America's biggest businesses all announced they would adhere to the accords regardless. As climate impacts increase in severity, resistance to acceptance of reality will fade to nothingness. And a hundred years from now, deniers of climate change will be regarded with as little respect as flat earthers and mindless barbarians.

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:

No we don't. Just like we didn't need a world police to largely end slavery and bring higher levels of equality to people everywhere. 

I thought you believed Capitalism was slavery???

You think a lot of stupid things. Capitalism is not slavery. It can result in slavery (and so can socialism), but it is not in and of itself slavery. Capitalism is as necessary as socialism for a functioning society. The scales of any economy balance only between capitalism and socialism. 

EXC wrote:
I don't think it ended.

It didn't completely end, no. A number of places around the world still have some level of true slavery. But compared to 200 years ago there's barely any.

EXC wrote:
The US still imports millions of desperate people from overpopulated turd world shitholes and lets the rich take advantage of their non-citizenship. The working man has all the taxes imposed by government put on his back. The housing crisis means the middle class are slaves to landlords and banks.

lol the massively extreme exaggeration of immigrant impact continues, still without any evidence. If the US imported millions of immigrants consistently, your population would be much higher and much more diversified.

EXC wrote:
Letting people have some choice about who is their master is not ending slavery. It won't end until the working man has leverage. That won't happen until there is population control.

Yet more lies. Population control is pointless and even harmful, as demonstrated by China. Leaning harder towards socialism than capitalism on a global scale would bring some degree of economic and social parity to the global population. Add education and you instantly have a shrinking global population. Something which is inevitable, by the way. The global population will continue to rise for a time, but it will peak and begin to fall without anyone forcing people not to have children. Which is literally impossible to accomplish anyway. There will never be direct population control and there never should be.

EXC wrote:
 

Vastet wrote:

Their own self preservation, idiot. America hasn't prevented anyone from launching nukes, the knowledge that 30 countries would reciprocate has prevented everyone from launching nukes. Refugees don't make a dent in the carbon footprint of a nation. You're so clueless. Everything EXC says is a lie.

Remember 9/11? Where was their self-presevation?

Their self preservation was in the attacks. It was their only way to strike back at an aggressive,egistical, corrupt, and incompetent country that was interfering in their homelands unasked for over decades. YOU are the bad guys. The World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were legitimate military targets. Because we are on the side that got attacked, and because the majority of American's are ignorant as to what their country has been doing the last 70 years, the attackers are terrorists who are trying to destroy freedom. But in their homelands, the attackers are freedom fighting heroes who died defending their people. The majority of the West refuses to accept these facts, but they remain facts all the same. You cannot manipulate people without inevitably getting kicked in the face. Sept 11 was a tragedy because thousands died. But it was even more a tragedy because America itself caused the hatred filled response to manipulation of the Middle East.

EXC wrote:

The bad guys are not going to let us know where they live or who they are so easily. Also WMDs are likely to be biological agents not nukes. The perpetrators not heads of state.

You wouldn't have so many enemies if you didn't make so many enemies. 

EXC wrote:

22% of Canadians are immigrants. So they contribute 0% of the carbon footprint?

They contribute far less than 22% of Canada's carbon footprint. Canada's carbon footprint is dominated by industry, which is almost completely unimpacted by immigration. Furthermore, those who Canada admits are more likely to have a higher than average carbon footprint in their own country, and coming to Canada won't change it much. Finally, those who immigrate to Canada see their children grow up as Canadians, who are just as unlikely to have a bunch of kids as other Canadians are on average. Which is why constant immigration is necessary for a country that has a declining population yet depends heavily on capitalism.

EXC wrote:

If you keep people in the third world and don't let them immigrate to countries like US and Canada, they will have a lower carbon footprint. The same people claiming to be so pro-science will deny and ignore this obvious fact when the subject is immigration. Think for yourself once and stop being a puppet of globalist slavery agenda.

The third world is quickly catching up to the first world. Especially now that the first world is attempting to reduce its footprint. Every family that stays in the third world will inevitably have a higher footprint than any who immigrate to the first world within 50 years.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 Vastet wrote:Why is it

 

Vastet wrote:
Why is it such a bad thing to attempt to limit the impact we have? To have cleaner air and a healthier environment? Doing nothing is stagnation, not progress. 
 If you use less oil, it doesn't stay in the ground. It is then available for someone else to use at a lower price. It is just like if you don't buy a house now, it is not going to sit empty.You have population pressures and limited natural resources on the earth. Every available resource will be used to fuel more population growth until we regulate this growth.  
Vastet wrote:
 Capitalism is as necessary as socialism for a functioning society. 
 So why can't charity handle all the things you want socialism do like healthcare, education, food and housing for the poor? If charity can't handle it, there are too many people that can't afford children having too many. 
Vastet wrote:
 lol the massively extreme exaggeration of immigrant impact continues, still without any evidence. If the US imported millions of immigrants consistently, your population would be much higher and much more diversified.
 And where exactly do these millions of harmless immigrants get housed since we already have a massive homeless crisis due to lack of housing. Where is there land to build more roads without damaging the environment? And all this massive population increase should be done while lowering our carbon footprint and no environment impact? You are delusional. There is not an infinite amount of land and water. Infrastructure to support more population doesn't get build without a massive carbon impact and massive disruption of ecosystems. 
Vastet wrote:
Population control is pointless and even harmful, as demonstrated by China.  
Yes, the good old days of the Great Chinese famine. Now their problem is obesity. They have tons of empty housing while US and Canda has millions living the steets and cars or slaves to landlords. 
Vastet wrote:
Canada's carbon footprint is dominated by industry, which is almost completely unimpacted by immigration.  
 Industry and farms produce enought to support demand. You have 22% immigration. 22% of production is for them. If you look at cities where there is extreme housing shortage, people are commuting very long distance to have a place to live. So the impact of immigration is actually worse than just the 22%.  

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Vastet wrote:Why

EXC wrote:

 
Vastet wrote:
Why is it such a bad thing to attempt to limit the impact we have? To have cleaner air and a healthier environment? Doing nothing is stagnation, not progress. 
 If you use less oil, it doesn't stay in the ground.
 Yes, actually, it does. Noone mines a product noone uses.  
EXC wrote:
It is then available for someone else to use at a lower price.
 Only if the supply continues unabated while demand is reduced. Neither of which is true in the real world.  
EXC wrote:
It is just like if you don't buy a house now, it is not going to sit empty.
 Yet millions of houses lie empty. Indeed entire towns lie empty. Everything EXC says is a lie.  
EXC wrote:
You have population pressures and limited natural resources on the earth. Every available resource will be used to fuel more population growth until we regulate this growth.
 Population regulates itself. No resources are used to fuel population growth. By your own admission and evidence, the most chronic offenders of carbon exhaust are populations which are in decline and seek immigration to fill in for the lack of growth.  
EXC wrote:
Vastet wrote:
 Capitalism is as necessary as socialism for a functioning society. 
 So why can't charity handle all the things you want socialism do like healthcare, education, food and housing for the poor?
 Because charity is inefficient and ineffective. No charity has ever accomplished a fraction of what a government can.  
EXC wrote:
If charity can't handle it, there are too many people that can't afford children having too many.
 Or charities are a stupid and useless way of distributing resources, that are subject to corruption on a scale that dwarfs that of which governments even attempt.  
EXC wrote:
Vastet wrote:
 lol the massively extreme exaggeration of immigrant impact continues, still without any evidence. If the US imported millions of immigrants consistently, your population would be much higher and much more diversified.
 And where exactly do these millions of harmless immigrants get housed since we already have a massive homeless crisis due to lack of housing.
 Due to capitalism. It doesn't matter how big or small your population is, you're going to have homelessness in capitalism.  
EXC wrote:
Where is there land to build more roads without damaging the environment?
 Everywhere.   
EXC wrote:
And all this massive population increase should be done while lowering our carbon footprint and no environment impact? You are delusional.
 You're so delusional that there's a picture of you beside the word in the dictionary. Lowering the average individual carbon footprint of the average human is even more necessary in a growing population. And more effective.  
EXC wrote:
There is not an infinite amount of land and water.
 For our purposes there most certainly is infinite land and water. The human species will never cover the world in cities. The maximum the human species will hit before being reduced across the board is 11 or so billion. It will never go higher than that.  
EXC wrote:
 Infrastructure to support more population doesn't get build without a massive carbon impact and massive disruption of ecosystems.
 Everything EXC says is a lie.   
EXC wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Population control is pointless and even harmful, as demonstrated by China.  
Yes, the good old days of the Great Chinese famine. Now their problem is obesity. They have tons of empty housing while US and Canda has millions living the steets and cars or slaves to landlords.
 No, now their problem is a heavily imbalanced generation growing up that doesn't have enough girls. China has tonnes of empty housing because they build the equivalent of a New York City every year or less and have been doing so for more than a decade. If North America put even a 100th the effort into building housing and infrastructure we would have eliminated homelessness back in the early 1900s.  
EXC wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Canada's carbon footprint is dominated by industry, which is almost completely unimpacted by immigration.  
 Industry and farms produce enought to support demand.
 Foreign demand.  
EXC wrote:
You have 22% immigration. 22% of production is for them.
 No, more like <1%.  
EXC wrote:
If you look at cities where there is extreme housing shortage, people are commuting very long distance to have a place to live. So the impact of immigration is actually worse than just the 22%.

Everything EXC says is a lie.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
So the 22% immigrants have

So the 22% immigrants have almost no carbon footprint??? It is probably also less than 1% for women and persons of color, LGBTQs, etc... Is it only the evil white males killing the planet?

So why don't you tell us where housing and roads can be built without raising objections from environmentalists and scientists. How do cities like solve their housing and traffic crisis. Where exactly are these places to build?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
 The average individual in

 The average individual in Canada has less than 1% of the carbon footprint so why would immigrants be any different?

EXC can't win an argument so he attacks his opponents by asserting they hold positions that they don't and never have held.

Only 3% of the Earth's surface is inhabited by humans, so there's plenty of room to build housing literally everywhere. Cities have survived despite having persistant traffic crises for millenia. Clearly there's no traffic crises.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.