Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes -- Is America Next?

[Red + 252]

3 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Blaming Russia for the French yellow jackets protests is simply absurd.

So true - no way would Russians let revolutionaries wear yellow 😈.

[TXPower + 643]

6 minutes ago, Red said:

So true - no way would Russians let revolutionaries wear yellow 😈.

No, they would definitely wear Red.......

[Robert Ziegler + 121]

Hot off the press: Monsieur Le President joins Les Gilets Jaunes! En marche.... comme on dit.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Yes.  But so is the U.S.  And so is China.  And so is Saudi Arabia.  The list is endless.

Blaming Russia for the French yellow jackets protests is simply absurd.

Yes, I'll give you that.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Posting to Live Leaks:

car saved from the flames by protesters and firefighters 

[Epic + 390]

18 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Oh, I don't know, Tom: I'm actually quite sure Russia is involved with social media and every other avenue of influence they can get their hands on.  Putin, and the vast ex-Soviet/current Russian "intelligence" services are trained in creating division.  Something to always keep in mind.

Think about this:

If the Russians were really good at creating division, then would we really know they were the ones creating the division?  Obviously not.  If they were good at it, we would be divided and not know why.  In fact, if the Russians were really really good, then not only would they create division, but they would likely also be able to convince the rest of us that someone other than Russia is the real "culprit".  Moreover, if Russia was really good at creating division, then they would also convince us that this other "real" culprit was also exceptionally 'trained in creating division'.  

Thus, since it is now commonly believed that Russia is not only creating division but that they are also exceptionally 'trained in creating division', we may now fairly reasonably conclude that Russia is most likely not at all very good at creating division and that Russia is being framed by the actual culprits (who are actually very good at creating division).  

So who would the real culprits be?  

To answer that, we simply need to ask who are we told we should be least suspicious of?  Or rather, who are we told to 'trust the most'?

Obviously, we are told to trust the main-stream media.  They have 'all of the facts'.  They are our source to all 'truth' concerning current events.  In fact, trusting them is implicit in everything both we and they say and do.

Hence, the most likely culprit of division, it seems, are the news agencies, and Russia is the least likely culprit.  This conclusion seems to make even more sense once one realizes precisely who it is that is constantly trying to convince us that it was the Russias...  And who is trying to convince us of this???  Obviously, it's the main-stream news media!  

[Epic + 390]

19 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Anyway, back to Mr. Wolff's comments.  He states right about here, at 03:41 in the video, that "the capitalists of the world, the big bankers, the big corporations, who were mostly responsible...." were the ones at fault.  My view here is that he is not attacking capitalism, but rather he is attacking certain capitalists, and he is "using the term loosely" as we say where I come from, because they ought to be called crooks or at least incompetent.  That is my feeling anyway.  You may have a different view of what he is saying.

@Rodent

Here's my take on it...  I think you are both right!

Here's why:

Wolff is doing what I see many people do...he is blurring his definitions.  Anytime someone uses messy definitions, you always end up with a messy argument.  This is even more so in the field of economics.  It is not uncommon to have 3 or 4 different economics terms all mean the exact same thing, or to have two different meanings for the same economics word...and that is precisely what Wolff is doing and why what he is saying can sound so right to some and so wrong to others.  Specifically, Wolff (like most people) is assuming that there are only two main forms of economic systems today: capitalism and socialism.  

But the reality is that there are three: socialism, capitalism, and monopoly.  

Wolff is confusing the term 'capitalism' with the term 'monopoly'.  Unfortunately for Wolff, capitalism is as far from monopoly as capitalism is from socialism.  To confuse capitalism with monopoly is akin to confusing capitalism with socialism...and that is just a silly thing to do. 

Under capitalism, there is competition, and this drives prices down (and consumers win).  Monopoly is very different.  There is there is no competition in a monopoly, and so there is no force to drive down prices.  Likewise, when there is competition, this drives up efficiency.  But with socialism, there is no force to increase efficiency.  So, with capitalism there is both, but with either of the two extremes, there is lacking one vital part of the economic system.  Hence, capitalism is just as far from monopoly as capitalism is from socialism.  ...three economic systems: socialism, capitalism, and monopoly.

It's best to think of capitalism as the ideal between those two dangerous extremes.  Of course, this is really an over-simplification, and the reality is that we live in a complicated economic system involving all three social structures at once, and they are all vying for power (but you get the idea).  

And that's where the confusion is taking place in the video.  Rodent rightfully claimed Wolff was wrong because he was using the word 'capitalism' even though Wolff wasn't accurately depicting capitalism.  What Wolff was actually depicting was monopoly (can calling it capitalism).  This is an easy mistake, because capitalistic systems often devolve into monopolistic systems (but so do capitalistic systems devolve into socialistic systems).  So, rewatch the video and every time Wolff uses the word 'capitalism', just change that word in your head to the world 'monopoly', and then you will see that Dan is right about what Wolff is saying!

See?  Clear definitions always clear things up.

One more point about socialism, capitalism and monopoly.  So, why is it that capitalism always degrades into the dangerous extremes of either socialism or monopoly.  The answer has to do with control.  Under capitalism, the high level of competition results in giving the power to the people.  Only under socialism or monopoly can all of that power be collected into the hands of a few.  Under socialism, those 'few' are the central planners.  Under monopoly, those 'few' are the owners of the means of production. 

For this reason (for the reason of collecting all power into the hand of the few), those 'few' have been and will always be actively trying to undermine the pure capitalist economy in order to turn it into one of the two extremes.  Under capitalism, we all win.  Under either of the others, only a small few can win. 

Aristotle would have a lot more to say about this, but the Golden Mean will have to wait for another day. 

[jaycee + 348]

Looks like the Belgians getting in on the demo craze started by the French. This lot have a leadership though and are most definitely right wing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46585237

Thousands of demonstrators in Brussels have marched against a UN migration pact, signed in Marrakech last week.

Flemish right-wing parties called the march, which took place near major EU institutions, amid fears the pact could lead to an increase in immigration.

[Illurion + 894]

15 hours ago, Epic said:

Hence, the most likely culprit of division, it seems, are the news agencies, and Russia is the least likely culprit.  This conclusion seems to make even more sense once one realizes precisely who it is that is constantly trying to convince us that it was the Russias...  And who is trying to convince us of this???  Obviously, it's the main-stream news media!  

Trump is right.

The media is the enemy of the people.

The media is always telling us Americans that we need to change the 2nd amendment and outlaw guns.

WRONG.

We need to change the 1st amendment,  and REMOVE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS FROM IT.

Then create a new amendment that REGULATES THE PRESS.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

26 minutes ago, Illurion said:

Trump is right.

The media is the enemy of the people.

The media is always telling us Americans that we need to change the 2nd amendment and outlaw guns.

WRONG.

We need to change the 1st amendment,  and REMOVE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS FROM IT.

Then create a new amendment that REGULATES THE PRESS.

Not a good road to go down.  I've been a Freedom of Speech activist for many years.  I live in a country where newspapers are required to get an annual licence to publish newspapers.  The government has in the past revoked the permit for newspapers to publish, and voices dissenting against the government were shut down.

Here is one of my old articles that was published in The Malaysian Insider, a newspaper that was forced to close down a couple years ago due to their vocal investigations of corruption by the PM and the government.  As it was not safe at the time for me to use my real name, the newspaper gave me the pseudonym of "Oilman".  The original article on The Malaysian Insider is gone, but a blogger snagged the article and saved it (although he butchered my formatting and messed up some of my text a bit, but the general gist of my article remains intact)

Malaysia headed for significant financial shortfall in 2016 – Oilman

^ Even anonymously, I tried to be careful how I worded my points in that article.

 

Anyway, calling for changes to the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and removing Freedom of Speech protections for the media is the wrong road to go down.

Just about as dangerous as calls to edit or remove the 2nd Amemdment of the U.S. Constitution regarding the right of citizens to bear arms.

Both are bad ideas.

Just because *some* media is bad DOES NOT mean that Freedom of Speech protections should be taken away from *all* media.

Just becausr *some* gun owners are irresponsible DOES NOT mean that the Right to Bear Arms should be taken away from *all* citizens.

Take emotion out of the equation and think logically.

*Less* government intervention and laws tend to be better than *more* government intervention and laws.

Removing Constitutional Rights is an extremely dangerous path to start heading down.  It doesn't end well.

Just my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.

 

[Illurion + 894]

27 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Removing Constitutional Rights is an extremely dangerous path to start heading down.  It doesn't end well.

Just my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.

You are i usually agree. 

But not this time.

In fact,  i will double-down,  and state that we need to make another "constitutional" change:

Some time ago,  under the guise of "campaign reform",  the Supreme Court "extended" the 1st amendment rights to "COMPANIES.'

So,  COMPANIES ARE PEOPLE NOW.

BIG MISTAKE.

Companies have money,  most people do not.

Companies have already used these new "rights" to run all over people.

To destroy people.

And they have unlimited money to bribe politicians.

We need to add a new amendment to the Constitution that specifically strips companies of any constitutional rights.

 

ps:  as far as i am concerned,  when a "NEWS" media company deliberately LIES,   that is a crime,  and it should be treated as such.

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by Illurion

[Illurion + 894]

Just when you think things can't get any more weird in Germany,  here is this:

https://neonnettle.com/news/5951-germany-to-re-educate-children-from-conservative-right-wing-families

1984 is here.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 12/15/2018 at 12:48 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Rasmus, it seems we view things differently on some topics. No problem.

I'm a proponent of Nationalism and not of Globalism.

The EU is looking increasingly like a failed experiment of a "Globalist Europe".  Seems the EU may eventually break up again back into its separate, individual countries.  Will wait and see.

Yes. We do view some things differently. And that is fine, really. However, I come from a debate culture where people try to discuss factually to the extent possible and where people try to find common ground. Or try to discuss main goals and agree on those before discussing how to reach the goals. 

As an example I do not make references to the many atrocities committed in the name of nationalism. Nationalism has many times lead to fascism. But I do not try to attribute that "quality" to everybody that advocates for nationalism. 

By seeking dialogue and looking for the best in your counterparts you achieve better results in my experience. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 12/15/2018 at 12:47 PM, jaycee said:

On 12/15/2018 at 9:27 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

 

I live in the UK and you have taken a story and heard what you wanted to hear. The fact is the UK is very evenly spilt on leaving EU and staying literally 49/51% and those that want the UK to stay want to have another go at it to see if they can get the 'right' result in a new referendum in true European ‘democratic’ fashion. They have been campaigning for this since the result of the last referendum. If they get their wishes the UK will see riots like France as the democratic wish of the people is not being heeded. The fact is the deal on the table is actually what nobody wants due to poor negotiating skills by our divided politicians who in many cases have been undermining our negotiating  position in the hope of forcing another vote. There is no popular mandate for another referendum apart from the liberal left who believe in democracy as long as the result is what they want. It is a terrible situation brought about by a political system run for the politicians and their backers.

JC, 

I could have worded my post better. I was sat in airport when I did it. I was trying to capture exactly what you just did. I was not suggesting that you need another vote in the UK. if the current deal is not good enough - do a hard brexit. Everybody will lose, but my bet is the UK will be the bigger loser. 

what I was trying to say though is 51 % is not an overwhelming majority. And the balance is a lot different in other countries. The silent majority that I am talking about is the 49 % in the UK that actually respect decision and doesn't take to the street and burn cars. That silent majority is way bigger in other countries. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

 

On 12/15/2018 at 1:01 PM, Dan Warnick said:

Sorry, Rasmus, I know you addressed this to Tom, but I would like to address your post. 

I'm not going to say too much on Brexit because I'll get blasted by our Brit friends if I do: The people voted "exit"; not the BS they've been subjected to over the last 2 years. Hard Brexit has always been an option. It still is. 

Number of French protesters:  It is rare for a majority of eligible voters to come out during an election, but the people that do vote tend to speak the will of the overall population.  Same thing applies for protesters. 

Nothing but immigrants?  Please open your mind to the concept of the people being more complex than that.  The fact that they may not be overly organized means, to me at least, that the major parties no longer represent what the masses feel they can identify with.  They'll organize soon enough, or they will indeed dissipate and die out after getting what they believe are enough, or all they can get, concessions. This was a typo. It should have read all about about money. The paradox with eastern europe in the EU is that they like all the benefits but want none of the responsibillities. A lot immigrants that "leave" brits are annoyed about are in fact eastern european workers. 

A huge silent majority in Europe that will kick back?  As in, against the protesters?  You mean like going out into the streets to fight against the protesters?  Really?  Let's revisit this one in a month or two. I did not mean that they would take to the streets. Making civil demands for example. Such as demanding of officials to end the violence etc. My point is simply that 20% - 30% of a population cannot dictate policy. That is not how it works. 

ps. You are correct, there is a huge silent majority in the States as well.  They are called Donald Trump supporters (or anti-regular-establishment) and they have already acted and will continue to act for at least the duration of Donald Trump's eligibility to be President.  These people, as deplorable as we may be, are by and large educated, hard working, family people who care where our country is going and are now prepared to push back against forces in government, or forces that want to ascend to government, to make sure they are acting in our interests and with our blessing.  After Donald's tenure is completed there may be no candidate of similar qualifications to take over and we will grudgingly vote for some other Yahoo.  However, we will remain active in our government and push back on what has been exposed to be going on.

Your quote from "A southern, christian, parent, her husband is an airforce captain. She said : Thank God you know we are not like all you see portrayed in the news." is an endorsement of all that I have stated above, because what is portrayed in the "news" is a huge distortion of what most Americans really are.

I will restrain myself for commenting on Trump. 

Comments above in bold. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 12/14/2018 at 6:27 AM, mthebold said:

My understanding is that Europe takes a different tack: have a capitalist market, but leave important social services to the government.  I believe Germany started their safety net in the 1800's.  I'm not sure when the rest of Europe followed, but the basic idea is that y'all are generally OK with government provided it functions correctly.

Paul, 

I would not say that it is a different tack. It is rooted in a different interpretation of liberalism and capitalism, based on social-liberalism. The main difference is that we raise the question : when is a choice actually a choice? To translate into simple terms - if a person is solely focused on  figuring out where the meal next is going to come there is no energy for betterment. This can to an extent be applied on immigrant populations as well.. 

It can be argued that some countries have taken it too far. But at the same time there is also some historic evidence that social-liberalism has done well for Europe. Just look at per capita GDP since the 1950s. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 12/15/2018 at 8:00 PM, mthebold said:

Are you saying there will be a backlash against the protests or a backlash against the governments?

see comment above to @Dan Warnicks post. 

[jaycee + 348]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

JC, 

I could have worded my post better. I was sat in airport when I did it. I was trying to capture exactly what you just did. I was not suggesting that you need another vote in the UK. if the current deal is not good enough - do a hard brexit. Everybody will lose, but my bet is the UK will be the bigger loser. 

what I was trying to say though is 51 % is not an overwhelming majority. And the balance is a lot different in other countries. The silent majority that I am talking about is the 49 % in the UK that actually respect decision and doesn't take to the street and burn cars. That silent majority is way bigger in other countries. 

I think we are on the same page there is no real majority in the UK for anything but the vote went for Brexit so Brexit should happen otherwise there is no democracy. There is a minority who want to change that because they claim those that voted to leave were too stupid to know what they were doing, that is their main argument believe it or not, social media is still full of Remainers making that point the arrogance is breathtaking. Unfortunately a lot of that minority are politicians, those that the voters voted in to do their wishes, and so far the nation has tolerated their mucking about on the basis that they will get there in the end but they haven't so now we are heading for a hard exit which is not good for anyone as you say. If the politicians manage to create another referendum there will be many very upset people as the last one caused many people to argue even within families and raised aggression levels across the UK having another will infuriate many beyond reason. Hard Brexit I believe is the only solution right now as nobody has a mandate for anything else e.g Norway or Canadian style deals, new referendum or current negotiated deal so we must just follow the process and leave without a deal. I am pretty certain once we leave accommodations will be rapidly be found to prevent a few European economies from collapsing, Ireland's in particular, and to make the transition easier as it is in everyone's best interest. At the moment that point is lost on both the UK and EU sides.

[Rodent + 1,424]

Hungary is apparently next on the "I hate the government" bandwagon. (unrelated to climate)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/17/smoke-grenades-tear-gas-exchanged-hungary-slave-law-protests/

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

29 minutes ago, Rodent said:

Hungary is apparently next on the "I hate the government" bandwagon. (unrelated to climate)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/17/smoke-grenades-tear-gas-exchanged-hungary-slave-law-protests/

Victor Orban is anti-immigration and somewhat anti EU. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

14 hours ago, Illurion said:

Just when you think things can't get any more weird in Germany,  here is this:

https://neonnettle.com/news/5951-germany-to-re-educate-children-from-conservative-right-wing-families

1984 is here.

Believe me, Illurion, I get where you're coming from with regards to our current "media", but the article you link to above is a fine example of why a free press remains one of the truly balancing powers of any society.

[shadowkin + 584]

French protectionism + more welfare for indigent muslim invaders = GAFA tax (google, apple, facebook, amazon)

"France's move to introduce the tax on January 1 could be driven by domestic budget concerns, with the finance ministry looking for new sources of revenues and savings" 

Tax will simply be passed on to consumers

[AlexF + 12]

Hi all,

I read almost all comments and reactions of current discussion... I do not know what to say as so many "strange" ideas have been said in the middle of interesting points. If you have specific questions I will try to bring answers, my answers which by definition are biased by my own experience. But without false modesty it migh be worth far more than 75% of everything I read the last 2 hours... 😉

Regards

PS : I only refere to the part of the discussion that is related to french protests.

[Otis11 + 551]

On 12/12/2018 at 11:04 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Note to international readers:  there is NO place inside the USA where anyone is allowed to "kill to protect our property."   What are known as "stand your ground" laws are modifications of the general requirement for any person confronted by another to first retreat.  Some States inside the USA have modified this requirement to retreat, otherwise incumbent on everybody, to where a citizen has the option to "stand in place" and then if further attacked, to fire upon the attacker.  That option, and you find that in places such as Florida, applies also to non-home locations.  You can be on the public sidewalk or in a shopping mall and if attacked, you then have the legal option to resist with force including deadly force if attacked personally.  You are then "standing your ground."

No such privilege extends to property. If someone is stealing your motorboat from your dock you are not entitled to go run out of your house with a shotgun and start blasting away.  Irrational, emotionally charged and  hysterical people write that they can, and will, and that is a good reason to keep guns out of the hands of those people.  An irresponsible, untrained, hysterical person with a loaded gun is a menace to society.  That always, always goes wrong. 

International readers may also take note that America is awash with guns.  As a practical matter all proposals to restrict guns are doomed to fail, it is now far too deeply ingrained in the society.  Americans pay a huge price for that, of course, as the total number of (internal USA) gun deaths since the jihadists knocked down the World Trade Center buildings inside New York now exceeds the number of US combat deaths in all of WWII.  Those deaths are just Americans shooting themselves or each other, forget about the Muslims, those are basically inconsequential.   It rather reminds me of that line in Casablanca, where Mr. Rick says (with dry intonation) to Major Strasser,when the new German Commandant suggests the Wehrmacht will go to New York:  

 Well, there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade.

On 12/13/2018 at 1:02 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Note to readers:  watch out for people who go and post things from Texas websites that seek to foment the use of guns. 

No Texas law, indeed no State, provides for an individual to go shoot someone dead when they are stealing property.  While in certain parts of Texas you might not be prosecuted  (and in other parts you would be charged with manslaughter), the so-called "castle rule" simply does not provide for shooting anyone who you "reasonably think" is wrongfully in or on your property. The "castle rule" provides that, if you are inside your home and someone has broken in, then you may "use force" to stop him from hurting you and you no longer are obliged to flee out the back door  (which you do have to do in many States, unless you cannot flee further). 

Crazies with guns who think they can play lawyer are dangerous to society. 

Sorry Jan, I'm a little behind on this post, but I think it is important to clarify this. You are most definitely mistaken.

The law in Texas most definitely allows for the use of lethal force to protect your property. Even if the perpetrator is fleeing, if he is still in possession of my property while fleeing and on my property (even if trying to exit), I am absolutely within my legal rights in Texas to use lethal force to stop his escape.

Note to all - this also applies to cars. In Texas, my car is my castle. It is an extension of my property.

Agree with it or not - That is the law as written, and I have seen it hold up in court.

(Please do not read into this my beliefs - either way. I am trying to keep this simply factual and inform readers. I cannot speak with authority on the definition of 'Stand your ground' in any state other than Texas.)

[Illurion + 894]

On 12/17/2018 at 9:23 AM, Dan Warnick said:

Believe me, Illurion, I get where you're coming from with regards to our current "media", but the article you link to above is a fine example of why a free press remains one of the truly balancing powers of any society.

I disagree.   They are totally unbalanced as far their reporting is concerned.

Isn't it strange that the MEDIA DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY FROM EVERYONE BUT THEMSELVES.