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

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

It's possible the contrast between left-wing bias and right-wing bias causes some people to think.  Those views contradict each other, after all, and someone is bound to notice the discrepancies.  Yes. People who use their brains would know something was in the middle.  However, I think a third element must be present for that to work consistently: the reader must have a well-spoken, dispassionate source that contrasts with emotion and bias.    Assumes one can differentiate and that one can determine the veracity of the source.     Two biased sources yammering is all noise and no signal.  Again, is based on being able to differentiate to begin with. It also generates anxiety, which inhibits critical thinking.  No, critical thinking is a process.  If you juxtapose bias with a well-reasoned source, even the average person will notice the contrast.  Again, many assumptions here.  Spin doctors abound because they can make a cogent story from nonsense.  They'll also enjoy the well-reasoned source more and, thus, naturally shy away from bias.  They might, but what are the facts?  Where did the facts derive?  How credible was the source?

It's esp. helpful if the well-reasoned source notes where the biased sources are correct - or at least, where their perspectives are driven by people's lived realities. You are actually talking about an analysis here, as distinct from a report  with biases, or a report of the facts as were presented to the author or experienced by same.  E.g. I've been successful discussing pollution with moderates because I can acknowledge - without sharing my preferred policies - that both pollution and economic growth affect people.  I'm no more excited about smog than I am about poverty.  The second I admit that, the issue stops being an ideological struggle and starts being a legitimately difficult problem we're all working on.  Surely you should be talking about the sources of information.  Your "policies" would only be relevant if you were able to relate then back to what you knew.  As it turns out, we're all so passionate about these issues because we instinctively know we're all in this together.  Does that mean you are a globalist, and that you deem it is inevitable? Anxiety will reign until someone steps up, admits it's a difficult problem, and leads the conversation.  Hmmm, my experience is that anxiety has a strong base in the unknown.  If one does not know something nowadays, there are lots of ways to find out.  A big problem evident from this forum is where people look.

Of course, I'll never convince the True Believers(TM), What/who are they and what is it they are believing?  and plenty of people have financial incentives to tout their opinions.  Are you talking about media moguls now?  Fortunately, these groups are a minority.  Who are they?  It's the moderates - people with lives to attend to who would prefer not to think about these issues at all- who listen and understand.  That's something of a leap in faith, but exactly what is the subject at issue? And then they vote.  In elections where 1-2% of the population determines the result, convincing the moderates is sufficient. There is no logic to that comment unless you are talking about a single issue at play, and they are usually called referenda.

As a side benefit, leading reasonable discourse teaches others how to discuss reasonably.  Assumes intent.  Our behavior shapes the world.  If we want to live in a reasonable world, we must create it.  

Of course, Tom lives in circumstances far removed from my own.  If my perspective doesn't apply to his environment, I'd love to understand why.  You answered your own question.  Maybe our individual perspectives can be broken down, combined, and reassembled into something more universally applicable.  Maybe, but for what intent.?

When I read stuff that makes little or no sense I can ignore it or, in this fabulous world of the internet where fools like me can comment, add my two bob's worth.  So I did.

I re-read your piece twice to try make something from it.  I can freely bask in my stupidity because for the most part I had no idea what you were talking about.  Ignorance is truly bliss.

[Red + 252]

39 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

Surely you know this is a rhetorical question. Your link simply reinforces what she said previously and, as I said in another post, she essentially echoes Macron.  My link was to the source, and as has been previously pointed out, there are some poor translations.  Merkel's word are unlike your earlier claim.  The globalists are attempting to redefine what patriotism and nationalism are.  Merkel makes clear how she sees these two senses in application in real politic.  To suppose there are universally agreed definitions seems a long bow.

While I agree that in order for the EU to function as an effective single political entity it would require each member to surrender some sovereignty I believe this is the exact reason it will fail. The EU is not the US.  The EU  not a political unity - it's a common market.  False equivalences are not useful.

By the way what is traditional sovereignty?   It's everything a nation has power to decide upon.  Japan, for example, cannot maintain a standing army. You're either sovereign or not.  We in Australia cannot make champagne, but we are sovereign.  Elements of sovereignty can and have been ceded by nations. More Euro-weasel phrases. Don't bother trying to answer the question, it's rhetorical.  Only if you did not appreciate that not all nations have the ability to control all aspects of happenings within their borders.

Her explanations on how to go about that are through national parliaments. False, and you need to listen clearly to her words. Perfectly reasonable sounding until an EU member has a parliament or president that rejects open borders or any other policy they favor.  I trust you realise there is a political process at member nation level that allows that to happen.

This is Poland now. Their democratically elected president and parliament refuses to take refugees and are reshaping the Polish justice system yet Merkel and Macron refuse to accept that and have threatened Poland with sanctions. Of course, Germany and France are paper tigers so they haven't gone through with this yet probably because they fear it will accelerate the EU's demise.  You seem to be confused about boundary issues.  

You’re being disingenuous about the context of Merkel’s statements. The context is populism and migrants. If you bothered to read the website you’d know this. The quotes are from the Konrad Adenauer Foundation before whom she gave this speech. She was singing to the choir.  Perhaps if you spoke/understood German and listened to her speech you would not make that claim.

What Merkel said about sovereignty isn't even the worst part of her speech. She goes on to re-define what it means to be German, French, Italian, Polish, etc  by saying whoever lives permanently (whatever that means, legal, illegal, 10 yrs, 50 yrs?) in a country is German, French, Italian, Polish,… and that being German cannot be defined by a group of ethnically German, Polish,… people.  Merkel made clear the distinction between patriotism and nationalism.   

„Das Volk sind die Menschen, die dauerhaft in einem Land leben und nicht eine Gruppe, die sie als Volk definiert“

In other worlds no German or Pole can say a Syrian ‘refugee’ is not German or Polish so long as he permanently resides in Germany or Poland. Pure nonsense.  My mother is a WWII refugee and a permanent resident of Australia.  She regards herself as an Australian.

I referenced Breitbart, a US website, so obviously I’m contrasting with US msm. I don’t know the extent of coverage in Europe but it should be obvious I’m not disputing that. After all I provided a link to a German website of a foundation before whom she gave this speech in German so any German media can easily access and report on it if they choose. There is no similar coverage in the US except right leaning media PJmedia, washingtonthinker, zerohedge… What is your point?  Mine was that Merkel said nothing controversial - it's common knowledge.

This is all unremarkable to someone such as yourself who would just stand around as your wife or daughter was raped and serve the rapist coffee afterwards but I imagine a Pole or anyone with cojones has a different view of the situation.  That's a non sequitur and has no rational basis given you know nothing about me.

Nope. Members of state media who share the same agenda. Again she was singing to the choir. Did you expect her to give a speech before AfD members telling them they’re wrong about migrants and nationalism?  Perhaps if they invited her, she would. Her performances in parliament are reported to Germans through mainstream media so would not be a surprise.

Last paragraph deleted at request of Tom Kirkman hehe  As if I cared.

 

[Red + 252]

26 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Keep trying; you'll get there eventually. 

Ok, so explain what True Believers believe?

Or respond to other issues I raised - getting there implies there was a destination, but from what you write there was never a journey to take.

[Illurion + 894]

22 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Whether or not Western leaders will change their neoliberal ways as a populist storm front approaches remains to be seen, but I for one am not betting on it."

Agreed.

Europe is lost,  with the exception of of a couple of former eastern block countries.

I still have hope for America.

It will all depend on what the rabid corrupt swamp dems and rinos do.

If Trump is removed,  all bets are off.

[Illurion + 894]

21 hours ago, shadowkin said:

What exactly is your translation? You're trying to discredit his argument that globalists want nation states to surrender sovereignty but you actually strengthen it by suggesting Merkel said European states must surrender more sovereignty than they already have. This is worse than saying states must be prepared to surrender sovereignty as it suggests they've already surrendered some sovereignty. You have no point here.

AlexF can argue what the translation of what was said all he wants,  but the fact is that those leaders ARE SURRENDERING THEIR SOVEREIGNTY....

Moot point.

[Illurion + 894]

21 hours ago, shadowkin said:

The article was from Breitbart but the quote was from a speech Merkel gave before the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, hardly a right-wing hotbed. I don't know of any msm outlet that reported this which tells you all you need to know.

I like Breitbart,  and trust it far more than the fake news talking heads.

For example,  the UK media are so corrupt,  that the only way to get an accurate story out of the UK is via Breitbart London.

[Illurion + 894]

20 hours ago, Red said:

Or try to understand that where there a different definitions with varying nuances,

BS..

There is only one true definition to most words.

All of the online dictionaries are corrupted politically correct garbage.

 

When i need a REAL english definition,  i use my 1974 American Heritage Dictionary.

The definition listed above for DUCK DUCK GO is almost verbatim from my American Heritage Dictionary.

 

The google answer is corrupt garbage,  and only a fool would use it.

[Illurion + 894]

12 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Red, keep in mind that there are people who lambast anything and everything without being able to translate "Guten Morgen." 

Nonetheless, they will go mouth off about Merkel. (As you said, nothing remarkable in that speech.  All stock stuff.) 

I do not speak german.

But i can recognize a traitor when i see one.

She is one.

So is macron.

In the end,  she and macron, and others will find themselves hung upside down with their throats cut.

It is the European way.

They have caused the death of many thousands in Europe through their poor decision making.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

15 minutes ago, Illurion said:

I like Breitbart,  and trust it far more than the fake news talking heads.

For example,  the UK media are so corrupt,  that the only way to get an accurate story out of the UK is via Breitbart London.

https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1080199326746460161

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

27 minutes ago, Illurion said:

When i need a REAL english definition,  i use my 1974 American Heritage Dictionary.

The definition listed above for DUCK DUCK GO is almost verbatim from my American Heritage Dictionary.

 

The google answer is corrupt garbage,  and only a fool would use it.

Yep.  I have around a dozen old hard copy English dictionaries.  I'm very particular about proper definitions of words.

Google in particular is weaponizing words, similar to what Orwell warned about in 1984 (war is peace).

Try this experiment for yourself.  Google the definition of "nationalism" in both Google and DuckDuckGo.  And also use an old (at least 10 years old) hard copy dictionary as well, if you have one available.  Then try it for other words as well.  Google is perverting and distorting the words people use to think.

 

 

[Illurion + 894]

8 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Yep.  I have around a dozen old hard copy English dictionaries.  I'm very particular about proper definitions of words.

Google in particular is weaponizing words, similar to what Orwell warned about in 1984 (war is peace).

Do this experiment for yourself.  Google the definition of "nationalism" in both Google and DuckDuckGo.  And also use an old (at least 10 years old) hard copy dictionary as well.  Then try it for other words as well.  Google is perverting and distorting the words people use to think.

 

I love the lawnmower meme.

So accurate,   the alleged elite,  and their slaves,   want to destroy everyone who actually has a brain.

[Red + 252]

8 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Do this experiment for yourself.  Google the definition of "nationalism" in both Google and DuckDuckGo.  And also use an old (at least 10 years old) hard copy dictionary as well.  Then try it for other words as well.  Google is perverting and distorting the words people use to think.

Thinking people use google as a tool, not as their brain.  I previously linked to a detailed piece on "nationalism", demonstrating my point.  Clearly there is a degree of disengagement in this forum.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

19 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Yep.  I have around a dozen old hard copy English dictionaries.  I'm very particular about proper definitions of words.

Google in particular is weaponizing words, similar to what Orwell warned about in 1984 (war is peace).

Try this experiment for yourself.  Google the definition of "nationalism" in both Google and DuckDuckGo.  And also use an old (at least 10 years old) hard copy dictionary as well, if you have one available.  Then try it for other words as well.  Google is perverting and distorting the words people use to think.





I just did this experiment for "nationalism".

Here is DuckDuckGo:

Here is Google:

 

 

@Marina Schwarz

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

34 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

 

September 22, 1776. 

Nathan Hale, a Connecticut Yankee.joined up with the revolutionaries and then volunteered for an espionage and reconnoiter mission in New York City.  He was captured by the British, who have no sense of humor for that sort of thing.  Taken out to a tree and with a stout rope put around his neck, Hale proudly and defiantly declared, "I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

With that defiant statement, he was promptly hanged. 

Setting aside the war-crimes aspect of British behavior, I would have to opine that THAT is a true expression of patriotism. Nathan Hale, an authentic patriot.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

There is a good book called "Nudge" that describes how easy it is to manipulate people's behavior with the smallest, simplest changes.  The book describes benevolent use of such manipulation, but a corporation could just as easily use psychological techniques for profit.  Google has openly admitted they do so. 

I would also note that Big Tech has amassed incredible knowledge, both about individuals and the art/science of manipulating those individuals.  It's impossible to know what, exactly, they're doing and how, exactly, that affects us.  They harvest information from the entire internet and use it to guide what we see.  I don't believe anyone using their services is immune to their practices.

I would also highly recommend everyone here spend some time on https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/.  You may be frightened how deeply Big Tech has sunk its talons into society. 

There is a gulf between behaviour and critical thinking.

As a general principle, people can be manipulated by what informs them, so controlling the means of communication/information becomes key.  These principles were known well before Big Tech appeared.  In any case, nothing prevents the thinking person from questioning the nature/content/source of information.  And in this regard we can thank technology for providing us with access to resources allowing us to dig deeper.

[shadowkin + 584]

The link I provided is the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. They have every reason to post her words correctly as she is speaking in front of a friendly audience and share her agenda. You need to read her words again she’s clearly referring to migrants, populism, and the UN migration pact. You’re doing a lot of hemming and hawing about what was said but the bottom line is that France, Germany, the EU wants member states to surrender sovereignty.

Congratulations you linked correctly to her speech. It’s the only thing you got right.

4 hours ago, Red said:

The EU  not a political unity - it's a common market.  False equivalences are not useful.

From the EU website

From economic to political union

The European Union is a unique economic and political union between 28 EU countries that together cover much of the continent.

Sounds like a political entity to me. You’re confusing what the EU started as with what is now. How is it you can’t even bother to search this and see how the EU defines itself?

Even if you were right that it is simply a common market then why is the EU issuing condemnations of Russia’s recent actions in Ukraine? Hardly the behavior of just a common market simply interested in selling vegetables to each other.

4 hours ago, Red said:

You seem to be confused about boundary issues.

This makes no sense.

4 hours ago, Red said:

My mother is a WWII refugee and a permanent resident of Australia.  She regards herself as an Australian.

Nice to know but know but your mother's refugee status is irrelevant. You’re trying to compare Australia to nation states. Bad analogy. Australia is a nation of immigrants so I have no doubt your mother would be accepted as Australian. But even now she’s only a permanent resident and not a citizen. Interesting. Now tell your mother to take up residence in China, Japan, India, or South Korea for x years or so. When the authorities come to deport her and she says she regards herself as Chinese, Japanese, Indian, or Korean they’ll have a good laugh as they load her onto a plane. In 90% of the countries in this world it doesn’t matter what your mother regards herself as it only matters what the state regards her as.

90% of the countries in this world are not going to allow you to squat for x years and then self-declare your nationality no matter what your feelings. Pure fantasy.

4 hours ago, Red said:

That's a non sequitur and has no rational basis given you know nothing about me.

I don’t need to know you to know that you’re a cuckold.

4 hours ago, Red said:

As if I cared.

Sure you do which is why you took the time to read it and respond.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your first language isn’t English.

[shadowkin + 584]

4 hours ago, mthebold said:

Keep trying; you'll get there eventually. 

Don't hold your breath

[Red + 252]

2 hours ago, shadowkin said:

Congratulations you linked correctly to her speech. It’s the only thing you got right.  Which means what you claimed was not.

From the EU website

From economic to political union

The European Union is a unique economic and political union between 28 EU countries that together cover much of the continent.

Sounds like a political entity to me.   True - you would not know, so anything you suggest will sound right - but only to you.  You’re confusing what the EU started as with what is now.   Actually, it is you who is confused - Read page 7 for a succinct explanation.  How is it you can’t even bother to search this and see how the EU defines itself?  I did, a long time ago, and keep track, albeit not as keenly as I once did.

Even if you were right that it is simply a common market then why is the EU issuing condemnations of Russia’s recent actions in Ukraine?  Hardly the behavior of just a common market simply interested in selling vegetables to each other.  Read page 28 of my link.

This makes no sense.  Only if you do not understand how the Eu operates.

Nice to know but know but your mother's refugee status is irrelevant. It rebutted your claim, so was directly relevant.  You’re trying to compare Australia to nation states. No, because that comment makes no sense.  Australia is a sovereign nation, just like Germany.  Bad analogy. Australia is a nation of immigrants so I have no doubt your mother would be accepted as Australian.  Had she been a permanent resident of Germany, she would be equally accepted there - so your claim was not sound.  But even now she’s only a permanent resident and not a citizen.  She has an Australian passport and never felt the need to go through a citizenship process. Interesting. Now tell your mother to take up residence in China, Japan, India, or South Korea for x years or so. When the authorities come to deport her and she says she regards herself as Chinese, Japanese, Indian, or Korean they’ll have a good laugh as they load her onto a plane. That is not an argument - can't you keep focus? In 90% of the countries in this world it doesn’t matter what your mother regards herself as it only matters what the state regards her as.  That was never in question.

90% of the countries in this world are not going to allow you to squat for x years and then self-declare your nationality no matter what your feelings. Pure fantasy.  FYI - introducing a straw man with me merely shows you are not competent.

I don’t need to know you to know that you’re a cuckold.

Sure you do which is why you took the time to read it and respond.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your first language isn’t English.

Try to keep to the facts - I have no interest in your opinions.

[Red + 252]

2 hours ago, shadowkin said:

The link I provided is the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. They have every reason to post her words correctly as she is speaking in front of a friendly audience and share her agenda. You need to read her words again she’s clearly referring to migrants, populism, and the UN migration pact.

I forgot to reiterate the point that what Merkel said translates differently to your link, as others have pointed out, and I regard the purest interpretation being: "Member States must be today - should today, I say - prepared to cede sovereignty".

You are welcome to believe something which clearly was not conveyed in her speech, as her words remain testament.  However, your KAF link was not a full and detailed translation of her speech, as KAF would not need to do this given that their audience would be predominantly German speakers.  

Why would I need to read her speech, when I can listen to it?  Merkel covered a lot of ground in 4 minutes and was very well received.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

This has to be one of the most amusing threads on this forum. How the topic evolves!

@Tom Kirkman, I'm now officially a fan of Google's synonyms section. Patriotism = isolationism, sweet! Oh, speaking of bad things to feel about your country, I recently came across the term oikophobia. Psychiatric in origin, as I understand, it's migrated into politics. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

8 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

This has to be one of the most amusing threads on this forum. How the topic evolves!

@Tom Kirkman, I'm now officially a fan of Google's synonyms section. Patriotism = isolationism, sweet! Oh, speaking of bad things to feel about your country, I recently came across the term oikophobia. Psychiatric in origin, as I understand, it's migrated into politics. 

That article on oikophobia was amazing!

Since it is a Facebook article, I can't seem to copy & paste the text here.  But well worth reading, from 2012.

And yes, Google's version of synonyms just keeps getting increasingly Orwellian.  When Google eventually defines war as peace then then Google's totalitarian wordf*ckery will be complete.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Yep. There's also a more recent one from the WSJ but, of course, it's behind a paywall.

37 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

When Google eventually defines war as peace then then Google's totalitarian wordf*ckery will be complete.

The way it looks, it's just a question of time.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

12 hours ago, shadowkin said:

While I agree that in order for the EU to function as an effective single political entity it would require each member to surrender some sovereignty I believe this is the exact reason it will fail. The EU is not the US.

The Delusional Leaders of the Eurozone

I had forgotten that this was the 20th anniversary of the start of the Euro. But the Eurocrats in Brussels hadn't. Some hours before the New Year commenced, Juncker and friends put out a press release extoling the virtues of the Euro. Virtues such as "unity, sovereignty, and stability … prosperity".

Well so much for New Year cheer. With this one tweet, the EU put 2019 on track to be even worse than 2018. Using any of those words to describe the Euro—apart perhaps from "unity", since the same currency is used across most of continental Europe now—is a travesty of fact that even Donald Trump might baulk at.

Sovereignty? Tell that to the Greeks, Italians or French, who have had their national economic policies overridden by Brussels. Stability? Economic growth has been far more unstable under the Euro than before it, and Europe today is riven with political instability which can be directly traced to the straitjacket the Euro and the Maastricht Treaty imposed. Prosperity? Let's bring some facts into Juncker's fact-free guff.

I'll start with Phil's point about Greece. ...

[Illurion + 894]

Such fun things in the news today:

 

https://thenationalsentinel.com/2019/01/01/despite-uns-dire-warnings-world-is-revolting-against-climate-change-policies/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/31066-is-the-liberal-international-order-2018-s-biggest-loser

https://tsarizm.com/news/2019/01/01/poland-says-coming-election-will-change-eu-political-trajectory/

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/27/orban-bringing-africas-problems-europe-destroy-culture/

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 12/29/2018 at 3:55 PM, Illurion said:

No thank you.

I am not interested in reading Hitler's my story book.

I have always felt that the true right wing in Germany at that time were the loyal German Nationalists in the military,  before it was all co-opted by the Nazi's.

So instead of backing your opinion up with measureable facts we are to accept "what you always felt" as gospel... I assume you win a lot of discussions, because if you disagree with someone you can just dis-regard measureable facts. 

Sad that this is happening on an intellectual forum.