Socialism kills (Israel, Canada, military, dollars)

[Kode]

Originally Posted by Brave New World

Political extremes kill, whether right or left wing.

Correct. Extremes are to be avoided.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Kode

Look what Obama did for banksters and corporations. He's just a bit right of center. But republicans are so far to the extreme right that to them Obama is a "leftist" when he isn't. Their judgement is skewed.

Though you have a good point - the accepted definitions of "Left" versus "Right" are skewed.

To simplify it, let's say there are harmless people ("prey") and harmful people ("predators").

The predators seek to TAKE from their prey, for their own benefit.

Which means
>> the so-called "Left" (collectivists, socialists, communists, progressives) are basically predators, seeking to dispossess all property owners for the benefit of the glorious socialist state (that they believe they will control and share in the booty taken).
-and-
>> the so-called "Right" (bankers, corporations, insurance companies, etc) are basically predators, seeking to skim endless wealth and labor from the oppressed worker / owner, while not contributing anything useful to society.

In that respect, there is no real rivalry between the "left" and the "right." In fact, they're opposite wings of the same vulture, feeding on America, and its harmless, productive people.

Another way of looking at it - the predators are law abiding - but they follow the law of the jungle.
Whereas the prey (harmless folk) follow the law of love.

Choose your law and act accordingly.

I hope that helps.

[Kode]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Though you have a good point - the accepted definitions of "Left" versus "Right" are skewed.

To simplify it, let's say there are harmless people ("prey") and harmful people ("predators").

The predators seek to TAKE from their prey, for their own benefit.

Which means
>> the so-called "Left" (collectivists, socialists, communists, progressives) are basically predators, seeking to dispossess all property owners for the benefit of the glorious socialist state (that they believe they will control and share in the booty taken).

Sorry but that is not valid. Today, the "left" is comprised of those you mentioned except that communists are as rare as Charles Manson followers. So they really don't count. And that changes the conclusions to be reached. The left seeks to dispossess only the greedy corporatists of their influence and domination, but the socialists go just a little farther in seeking to end for-profit economics and provide the means for workers to run the factories, serve their communities, and run the government in order to allow these changes to happen and advance them. On the issue of "dispossess all property owners" you need to know what socialist mean by "property". It doesn't mean your home or car or savings for example. It means "the means of production".

-and-
>> the so-called "Right" (bankers, corporations, insurance companies, etc) are basically predators, seeking to skim endless wealth and labor from the oppressed worker / owner, while not contributing anything useful to society.

You skipped the most important section of "the right", and that is their section of the working class that advocates against its own inherent class interests. You will find plenty right here on this forum in case you find my description confusing.

I hope that helps.

Well, not much unfortunately. Too much confusing misinformation.

[O.A.Bachlow]

Extreme liberal socialism is akin to right wing fascist politics. People who admire communism and socialism are living in a fantasy and suffer from historic revisionism - They forget that to create todays China millions of good and intelligent people had to be murdered.....same goes for the former Soviet Union....millions murdered.

The majority is always wrong as they say....democracy has an inherent weakness...that most people are not that intelligent. You can end up with a fascist state that is generated by liberal progressiveness. Political correctness is a tool that is now used in the so called free world...but it is no different than what took place in the early Soviet era and during the cultural revolution in China.

Political correctness is something that a fascist state would use to create a one party dictatorial system with no countering party. Once you insist on creating false free speech that is not free...then you are in the midst of a dictatorship whether you know it or not.

Our type of socialism may not physically kill you but it will destroy and marginalize your future if you are truly a free spirit.

[Kode]

Originally Posted by O.A.Bachlow

Extreme liberal socialism is akin to right wing fascist politics.

There is no such thing as "extreme liberal socialism". You are mixing ideologies that are often in conflict. Most liberals would oppose socialism and anyone who advocates socialism is not a liberal.

The remainder of your post is confusion of the worst sort.

[Wanderer0101]

Originally Posted by BruSan

Or you have the alternative and worse a lot closer to home:

Are 97 of the nation's 100 poorest counties in red states? | PolitiFact

You don't have to ride a bus for 24 hours to another country to buy food in any one of those counties. You are ridiculous.

[Wanderer0101]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

As someone in Amsterdam said during our last election, "we think it's funny when Americans complain about their 'left-wing' party. America doesn't HAVE a left-wing party. It has a right-wing party and a far-right-wing party."

It is hilarious when the lefties try to pretend the Democrats are not leftists. No one buys it but they love living in "make believe" land.

[Prickly Pear]

Originally Posted by Wanderer0101

It is hilarious when the lefties try to pretend the Democrats are not leftists. No one buys it but they love living in "make believe" land.

For the love of... I thought we addressed this.

Originally Posted by Kode

Look what Obama did for banksters and corporations. He's just a bit right of center. But republicans are so far to the extreme right that to them Obama is a "leftist" when he isn't. Their judgement is skewed.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Freak80

[A]Unfortunately, nature does not bend to the wishes of ideologues. There's not enough farmland and water to support the population numbers you wish to see. We can barely feed the people we have now, let alone billions more.

[b] AGW will eliminate much of the farmland and water resources we have now. Let me guess, you think that AGW is a conspiracy by Al Gore?

[A] Thank you for making my point. NATURE alone cannot do a thing. HUMAN BEINGS can engineer the planet to support billions more.

Here's an example of "engineering" agriculture to get up to 5x improvement in yield per surface area.
Vertical plane versus horizontal plane aeroponics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5VU...ature=youtu.be

PERMACULTURE and SUNLIGHT
Obscure but interesting point - - - "solar saturation"
(Food and Permaculture by David Blume)
Food and Permaculture | Permaculture & Alcohol Can Be A Gas
and find it corroborated in the following PDF.
Editorial: The Nonsense of Biofuels - Michel - 2012 - Angewandte Chemie International Edition - Wiley Online Library
Solar saturation is the point at which a plant's photosynthetic machinery is overwhelmed by excess sunlight and shuts down.
...........

" Photosynthesis is most efficient at low light intensities. It is already saturated at 20% of full sunlight and 80% of the light is not used."

...........
In polycultural permaculture (versus monoculture farming), plants shade each other, and thus out perform the "full sun" crops.
When it becomes more important to generate more food per surface area, this fact should be taken into consideration.

In other words, if one used VERTICAL PLANE agriculture, FIVE TIMES the surface area of the corresponding horizontal plane, the 80% reduction in light would not impair the photosynthesis of the plants.

This article claims 3,333 people per acre supported by intensive agriculture:
http://www.splendidtable.org/story/how-to-feed-10000-people-from-food-grown-on-3-acres-in-the-city

USA : 3,794,101 sq mi, 640 acres to a sq.mi, or 2,428,224,640 acres.
If the population of the USA jumped from 320 million to 1.2 billion, how many acres would be needed to feed them?

360,036 acres... if we can feed 3,333 per acre. Too optimistic?
Let's cut that by a factor of 10.
3,600,360 acres needed.
Cut that back by a factor of 10.
36,003,600 acres needed. . . Still have plenty of land.

Are we REALLY running out of FARMLAND?

[b] AGW? What anthropogenic global warming? The cooling trend since 1990s? Are you one of those Karbonites that believe in sequestering carbon? Do you believe that the atmosphere is TRAPPING MORE HEAT?


The Lack Of Greenhouse Gases
...
Is the Earth really in danger of HEATING UP from "Greenhouse gases"?
Let us look at our neighbor, which does not have an atmosphere.
...
The lunar surface (equator) -
minimum : 100 K (-279.67 F)
maximum : 390 K ( 242.33 F)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_moon

Earth
minimum :184 K (-128.47 F)
maximum : 330 K (134.33 F)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

By observation, one may note that despite almost equal energy input from the Sun, the Earth enjoys a substantial COOLING effect (-60K) from the presence of its atmosphere.

Now, let me lead you to a KARBONITE SITE:
Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)

“A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.”

WAIT - the Earth with atmosphere is 60° K cooler than the Moon without an atmosphere.

But they’re saying the greenhouse gases are keeping us 30 K warmer (K and C are the same interval), so we should be 90 K cooler without the “greenhouse” gases.
(Huh?)
....

Much of the radiation from the Earth is emitted by the atmosphere, not the Earth's surface. Based on albedo, the atmosphere is definitely COOLING the planet's surface. (Earth is 60° K cooler than the Moon, despite almost equal insolation)

Earth’s albedo is about 0.30, while the Moon’s albedo is only about 0.11.

ALBEDO - The fraction of incident electromagnetic radiation reflected by a surface, especially of a celestial body.

. . .
Much of the radiation from the Earth is emitted by the atmosphere, not the Earth's surface. Based on albedo, the atmosphere is definitely COOLING the planet's surface. (Earth is 60° K cooler than the Moon, despite almost equal insolation)

If you prefer fahrenheit :
Earth max : (134.33 F)
Space station max : (250 F)
Lunar surface max : ( 242.33 F)

OMG - People believe the EARTH is OVERHEATING from its atmosphere?
. . .
http://wstannard.wordpress.com/the-g...nergy-balance/

One of the comments summed it up : “I postulate => the net result of GH gasses is to cool the Earth!”

Come on, folks, let’s albedo friends.

Coincidentally, the greenhouse gases have a higher emissivity that means they COOL the planet even more.

D’oh!

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Kode

Sorry but that is not valid. Today, the "left" is comprised of those you mentioned except that communists are as rare as Charles Manson followers. So they really don't count.

WRONG.
The "left" / collectivists / socialists / communists all espouse the SAME GOAL - abolition of private property and the institution of COLLECTIVE ownership.

COLLECTIVISM - the socialist principle of control by the people collectively, or the state, of all means of production or economic activity.
- - - Webster’s dictionary

COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of “to each according to his need,” each yielding fully “according to his ability.” - - - Webster's Dictionary.

SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
- - - Webster's dictionary

From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

The "left" is basically bent on stealing everyone's private property and transferring it to the glorious state, to be "managed" by the benevolent leaders... minus a hefty cut for their efforts on our behalf.