waitforufo

NY Daily News has the fifth largest circulation in the United States. Beats the Washington Post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States_by_circulation

Really? A mischaracterization? Not everyone thinks so. The travel alert says... So just exactly how am I supposed to show vigilance when in public places or using transportation? Should I frisk each person in stadiums, movie theaters, buses, and air planes? Would that be the proper amount of vigilance? The above might as well say, enjoy the holidays while being fearful and paranoid.

Here is what John Kerry recently said about Charlie Hebdo. So the Charlie Hebdo massacre was legitimate and rational. So move along. There was nothing to see there.

I was occasionally bullied and every time I was bullied I fought. I felt sorry for those who would not fight. There torment from bullies was relentless. Treat me with violence and I will respond with violence. Our state department has a different plan. We are supposed to cower in our homes. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/state-worldwide-travel-alert-paris-terrorist-attacks/ Do you see this cowardice as noble?

Yes, violence does beget violence. ISIS needs to be taught that lesson. We should teach ISIS that lesson frequently and until they are no more.

There are significant differences between slavery and serfdom. I will try to explain briefly. When you are a slave you are owned by another person. Your owner can do with you as he or she wishes. Even to the extent of working you to death, beating you, or taking your life. When you are a serf, you belong to the land you work or occupation that hold. A feudal lord administers the land that you occupy or your business where you work. That lord does this for the benefit of the feudal government. The head of this system is the king or sultan. The feudal lord that administers your land or business has an oath of fealty to those above him or her in the feudal chain, but he or she also has an oath of fealty to serfs that work the land or business they administer. The feudal lord can not evict serfs from the land to which they belong, or terminate workers from a business to which they belong without providing equivalent land or work opportunities. If another feudal lord wants to take over the administration of a land or business without taking on the serfs that belong to that land or business, a premium must be paid to the current administrator so that equivalent land or work can be found for the serfs impacted. So a serf is not without the contract rights of their lord's oath of fealty, where a slave is without rights. The above explains at the heart of Palestinian conflict. At the end of world war one, feudal lords became properly or business owners, and serfs became tenants farmers or employees. This change, administered by the United Kingdom by the way, eliminated the oath of fealty between lords and serfs. Property and business owners could now evict or terminate employment of former serfs. They could sell there land or businesses without concern for former serfs. At the same time Jews in Europe gained rights were they were allowed to invest outside of their national boundaries. This started the Zionist movement. Zionist started purchasing land in in Palestine from former feudal lords, now property owners. In most cases Zionists, in appreciation of the former feudal agreements between lords and serfs paid a premium to have the former serfs resettled. The former lords now property owners, now no longer legally required to resettle there former serfs, pocketed the premium. Due to this, the Zionist evicted the tenants of the former land owners. What Palestinians are complaining about today is that their former oath of fealty was not respected. They blame the Zionists because they were the purchasers. Why they don't blame their former feudal lords is a mystery. In many respects they should blame the UK for not making them land owners instead of tenants. Why didn't the UK make them owners? I guess that didn't sit well with a country that maintains its own royalty. So today Palestinians long for their feudal rights.

Quit hiding from the truth. There's a reason why ISIS attracts followers. They claim to be a caliphate. There is a difference between a slavery and a serfdom.

How may communist party members in Cuba or any other communist country practice a religion? Get real. Yeah, and then Christians decided they wanted to live in a modern world. The ability to borrow money has pulled more people out of poverty than any other financial policy change in history. How many people would own homes, cars, washing machines, etc, if it wasn't for the ability to borrow money? Islam forbids usury for the same reason the feudal Europe did. Forbidding usury keeps you beholding to your feudal lords and masters. Sharia law is feudal. Muslims long for the days of the feudal caliphate under the Ottoman Empire.

But isn't Islam the religion of peace? Shouldn't following Islam's religious ideology produce nothing but peace? Doesn't history show that Islam and sharia law generate nothing but peace and happiness? MigL you must be off track with the above opinion. You need to start paying attention to overtone. If it wasn't for The Great Satan (aka the United States of America) everything in the world would be peaceful and happy and without conflict. Get with the program.

I think this is the best post I ever read on Science Forums. What happened in Paris was beyond the pale. The time for a civilized response is past, and a response is required. The president of the Nation of France declared the terrorist attack on Paris an act of war. You do know what war means right? France, while perhaps not our greatest ally, is an ally with which we have great sentimental attachment. France is also a member of NATO. Great big historical events often have humble beginnings.

Mainstream followers of Islam believe that the Quran contains the actual words of god, thus making the Quran divine. Interpretation implies changing the words of god and is strongly discouraged if not forbidden. Mainstream followers of Christianity believe that the Bible was written by divinely inspired individuals and is hence not divine. Bible interpretation is therefore required. Sure there are fringe Christians that also believe the Bible is divine but they are a small minority of Christian believers. Episcopalians, Methodist, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, and the various Orthodox Christians all believe the Bible requires interpretation. This belief that the Quran is divine has been the main obstacle to having a Islamic reformation similar to the Christian reformation of the 15 and 16 hundreds. Perhaps those rabble rousing individuals in Paris, who just happened to be coincidentally Muslims, were just looking for a safe space.

So am I now to assume that you at least agree that Ike warned about the scientific technological elite and not just the military industrial complex? I haven't show that it has become a problem? I provided this essay. http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2015/11/climate-wars.pdf Chapter 3 is of particular interest. You don't think James Hanson is getting rich lobbying the government? You don't think subsidies for renewable energy aren't crony capitalism? Solyndra ring any bells? Also NOAA has been in the news quite a bit lately. They are refusing a congressional subpoena. Who runs who? Who is acting like the elite? The people, through congress, made a request, but I guess the technological elite can say f-you we are in charge. Oh yeah, I also provided this. https://www.google.c...uqc3zUS8w0slxQw Subsidized renewable energy operators in the UK are now chomping at the bit for government contracts on diesel engine power generation.

No I'm not talking about the military industrial complex and neither was Ike in his second warning. Ike's second warning angered scientists at the time of the address. Just google "technological scientific elite". Scientist need money just like everyone else. They live in an environment of publish or perish. To do research, they need grants and funding. When the government gravy train pulls into the station they are more than willing to jump on board. Once on, they will not jeopardize there source of funding. It takes no group of conspirators to bring this about. Just natural human inclination toward self interest. That is why Ike said... Again this problem is akin to the military industrial because the corruption by federal money, the gravy train, is the same.

Did you even read the address? Here is the YouTube if that is more convenient. The static at the beginning disappears after a minute. Two warnings. I did not pick the military industrial complex. I picked the precise place where Ike transitions from his warning about the military industrial complex to that of the scientific technological elite. Akin because both have the same goal of dominating public policy to their own ends. Climate change is exactly the of science and scientific research what Ike was warning us about. The gist of your comments on the essay I posted are covered within that essay. Climate change science will tolerate no heretics. If it did, the research funding would be diminished or cut off. The gravy train must continue at all costs.

With regard to the two warnings Ike's says this even before mentioning the military/industrial complex. The two he mentions are... 1) The military/industrial complex 2) The scientific-technological elite Two money grubbing pigs trying to dominate public policy to there own ends.

There are two warnings in the speech. One is the military/industrial complex. The other was that public policy would become captive of a scientific-technological elite. Here is the quote again. Why did he say "equal and opposite danger" if he was speaking of the same thing. He gave two warnings. Why is the equal and opposite danger ever present? Why have curiosity when you have huge government contracts and science by a consensus of those on the gravy train.

Are you unfamiliar with the word "akin"? Eisenhower specifically warns... Notice that he doesn't warn about big oil. He is specifically warning about the corruption of science by a gravy train of federal funding. Matt Ridley just released an excellent essay on the topic. http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2015/11/climate-wars.pdf

So then lets get back to the opener. The Climate Hawk and the IPCC say modeling is impossible and only produces confusion. If this is true, what science supports spending money on climate change policy? I have never said there was a conspiracy. There is simply a gravy train. Americans were warned of the ill effects of this gravy train by President Eisenhower. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

Because climate is always changing regardless of the actions of mankind. I believe the climate is changing. If you are going to scold me, why not scold John. His post 41 basically says carbon policy is not environmental, it is political. Talk about playing into the skeptic's hands.

Sure there is plenty of evidence, you simply don't listen to it. Your mind is made up and you label anyone who disagrees with the "consensus" a denier. The question John, is it really worth the cost? Could the money be better spent elsewhere. By the way, I'm not the only one not buying it. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-americans-understand-arent-too-worried-about-climate-change/ Is climate policy currently working? Let's check the UK. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QqQIwAGoVChMI1PvW0sL3yAIVgTSICh1tzwKj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F0f664c78-821b-11e5-8095-ed1a37d1e096.html&usg=AFQjCNGkUtaaCUk0WOcIsK3tPwH_FyMxzA&sig2=S4h6cbcuqc3zUS8w0slxQw Lets check Asia. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/asia/china-burns-much-more-coal-than-reported-complicating-climate-talks.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=3

Why don't you climate alarmist wake up? There are negative consequences for being wrong about anthropogenic climate change. Trillions of dollars spent on trying to prevent the replenishment of CO2 in our atmosphere just might be a bad bet. If it is, you will be creating nothing but poverty and suffering. Why do you think countries like India, China, and Russia are telling you to drop dead. Why do you think American politicians are trying to convince the the people that gee shucks even it we are wrong the result will only be a better planet line Johns cartoon suggests? If you are wrong, the lost opportunity of the money spent on preventing your predicted catastrophe that never comes will be enormous. If you don't see the hubris of John's cartoon, you are blind.

You write as if it is not already a crime to cross that line. Why should my rights be restricted if I never cross that line? I should not be prevented from exercising the rights of my nature because some choose to abuse the rights of others. I am not abusing the rights of others. Why should I be punished because of the criminal acts of others? Am I not innocent until proven guilty?

The money we are talking about isn't just sitting around doing nothing. It is in the hands of tax payers and energy consumers. They will spend it. Some will spend it on the necessities of life, some will spend it on education, others at the track, and people like me will spend it on motorcycles and fast women. So the money will still be spent on people doing stuff. Your Mickey mouse idea is just that, a Mickey mouse idea. It's the broken window fallacy. Perhaps you should study economics a bit more. Particularly focus on the multiplier effect. I see no benefit and little multiplier effect from figuring out more expensive ways of producing energy if anthropogenic climate change is insignificant or a hoax as your cartoon suggests. If it is a hoax, spending the money in that way will only produce suffering in the lives of those the money is taken from. The article in my opener from the Climate Hawk says The IPCC says So we know very little. So considering all the motorcycles and fast women one can get with $100T and the known enjoyment both will bring, why spend the money on something we know so little about?

The source is important because it sets limits on restricting rights. If my rights are part of my being, then I cannot fully be myself with out my ability to enjoy my rights. My understanding is that spacetime curvature is the effect of gravity not the cause. Maybe I'm wrong. Saying masses attract does not give an explanation as why they attract, just that they do. Knowing the effects of gravity is what helps us do smart things knowing the source is unimportant. Justice requires that we work to maximize the rights of all individuals.

I have been speaking of natural rights. When the declaration speaks of "Laws of Nature", natural rights are spawned from those laws of nature, not the laws of man. That is why rights are inalienable and natural. When the law speaks of "acts of god" the law is simply saying "not caused or brought about by any person or persons." So in liability law, no person or persons are to blame. In the case of rights, since they were not brought about by any person or persons, they can not be changed by any person or persons. When the declaration speaks of "Laws of Nature" it is not speaking of gravity or Maxwell's equations. Edit------- Perhaps a bit of a correction is needed for that last comment. The founders, being influenced by the philosophy of the enlightenment, considered the rights of man to be as much a part of the laws of nature as gravity and the other physical laws. So asking where do natural rights come from is exactly the same as asking where does gravity come from.