It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate Change Laws Implemented by AOC, then Another Arctic Blizzard Occurs in Several States.

page: 9
28
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

Ok so here's the actual thread title.

Climate Change Laws Implemented by AOC, then Another Arctic Blizzard Occurs in Several States.


Keep changing your argument... First of all, your 1st claim was "you are confusing weather with climate." Now that you realized that you put your shoe in your mouth, you want to try to change your argument to claiming something else.

Second of all, AOC is now the main proponent of these drastic changes, including the banning of all fossil fuels. She is not the first one, or the only one who has called for such drastic measure, but her brainwashing of the useful idiots amongst the left's ranks make her the main proponent for it at this time. Third of all, ATS doesn't allow for long titles, so ONCE AGAIN, members have to truncate titles.


originally posted by: amazing
Several things wrong with it, first AOC can't implement laws. She's just one freshman Congresswoman.


Titles in ATS have to be truncated...

But anyways, under socialist rule yes it can be done... Democrats/liberals have shown to want to drastically change how our government works... First, they want to abolish the EC, apart from that the left/democrats/liberals, in general, have called the U.S. Constitution as an old document that doesn't work now, and has to be used as toilet paper by the authoritarian wannabes...

AOC might want to call herself a "democrat socialist," or a "socialist democrat," or a "unicorn socialist for change." But she is still advocating for socialism, and under socialist rule one person, or a small group in the government controls everything. Including every aspect of people's lives. She doesn't have the power to make such changes now, even though she has stated that she will work until such changes are implemented...


originally posted by: amazing
Thread implies (And of course it could just be my take on things) that you talk about Climate change/Global warming and then a Blizzard hits-negating the need for these "climate Laws".


The thread doesn't imply what you claim... Already explained it several times, and you still want to put your own twist on my argument... It is my argument, not yours. Learn to comprehend what people actually type/argue...

What my argument states is: IF the plan of AOC, and some others, to BAN ALL FOSSIL FUELS were to occur, and then another polar vortex occurs, how will people heat their houses when renewable energy sources would not be able to meet the demands?... That argument is not implying "weather is the same as climate..." That argument is not implying "AOC has already forced her beliefs, and the government has implemented her drastic measures..." The argument is a what if her drastic measures are implemented. How will people be able to heat, or cool their houses in extreme weather events like the polar vortex that occurred recently?...

If you still can't understand what is being argued, then just stop responding, and stop trying to derail the thread with your made up fantasies.


originally posted by: amazing
2nd, when you talk about AOC, she's more in line with Denmark and Norway than Venezuela. So I'm not sure why you would bring up Venezuela? You haven't researched these current liberals?


I find it hilarious how left-wingers like yourself keep making these claims about Denmark or Norway being socialist, when in fact they are not.

Even the PM of Denmak, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, has had to point out that Denmark is not a socialist planned economy.



...
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.
...

www.thelocal.dk...

Market economy equals to?... CAPITALISM.


originally posted by: amazing
It's okay not to like Denmark and Norway...We just need to all be talking about the same things here.


All you keep doing is what many in the left, even here, have shown to want to do. You want to force YOUR point of view as being right, when it isn't...

First of all, Denmark is NOT a socialist country, and it's laws ARE NOT socialist. It has been CAPITALISM that has made Denmark rich, not to mention the FACT that they have a much smaller population than that of the U.S. They only have a bit over 5 million people... Even a city such as Miami, or San Francisco, in the U.S. have about the same, or a bigger population than Denmark.

Second of all, in Denmark they don't tax the rich 70%-90% of their income, as it is done under socialism. There are two brackets of taxes for employment/self-employment income. The bottom bracket, above DKK 46,200, taxes 12.16%. Meanwhile the top bracket, above DKK 513,400, taxes an additional 15%. The municipal taxes in Denmark tax between 22.5% - 27.8% FOR EVERYONE.

They DO NOT tax 70%-90% of the income to rich folk as it's done in socialism, and as AOC and other left-wingers want to do in the U.S. So you see, what you are claiming is yet again false.

Neither AOC , nor the rest of the extremists in the democrat/liberal ranks, want to implement welfare as is done in Denmark, and neither is Denmark a socialist system.





edit on 6-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.




posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Oh and btw, before you make up another FALSE claim about taxation in Norway...


...
Norway has, like several other Nordic countries, adopted a dual income tax. Under the dual income tax, income from labour and pensions is taxed at progressive rates, while capital income is taxed at a flat rate.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Norway does not taxes the rich 70%-90% of their income either. They have a FLAT RATE TAX for capital income.

In both Norway and Denmark people can own property, including farms, apartments, etc. Under a socialist system the state owns and controls farms, and other means of production.


edit on 6-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I’m sorry electric, but you’re way off. I’m looking right here in my “socialism and you!!!” Handbook and nowhere does it stipulate what taxes are supposed to be levied. Nor does it dictate how many babies one must kill daily, or how many rich people we have to whip.

It DOES however, state that we should all get a say in how the money we earn is spent. It also says that monopolies, unearned income, and rentiers should be taxed heavily. In fact, it’s very strongly against people getting money that they don’t in fact earn. It’s very much about people working, earning money, and getting to spend it themselves.

And lastly, what you don’t get, is that amazing is saying that Cortez is not, in fact, a socialist. She’s just someone that supports higher taxes on unearned income, and better social programs.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Where do you get your information?? Where does it say that in socialism people are not allowed to own things?? The state owning the means of production is the OPPOSITE of the whole idea of socialism! Have you ever read anything written by a real economist or historian that was actually Marxist and actually describing what it is? Or have you literally gotten your whole education on socialism from Fox, memes, etc?



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Unlike you I actually lived and experienced a socialist economy. You can't lie to me with claims made in your book by another left-wing moron who never experienced socialism.

I am sure you are yet again another left-winger who also thinks Denmark and Norway are socialist, when they are not.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Well, here is the thing. Your "book" was probably written by another lefty whom, like you, has never experienced first hand what socialism truly is.

BTW, do try to keep your argument in line with sane statements that make sense...

In socialism a lot of claims are made, including the attempt at re-writing history. Socialists and communists ALWAYS make the same claims. Meanwhile they are now claiming "everyone will control and own the mean of production and how government spends money." In reality it is ALWAYS the state who does this.

What people like you cannot comprehend is that if the people were to truly own and control the means of production, or how money is spent, then NOTHING will ever be done because every individual has a different idea on how these things must be done.

If that claim by socialists/communists were true, then all that would be done in socialist and communist countries would be to constantly be arguing what to do and how to do things, yet nothing will ever be done.

You can't have millions of people be in charge of a country. You simply CAN'T. However, under the guise of "the people will make the decisions, blah blahblah" the state/government will have all the say, and all the power. Including controlling how people live their lives, what people can think, etc, etc.






edit on 6-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421

Where do you get your information?? Where does it say that in socialism people are not allowed to own things??


Again... Learn to distinguish what people write/say, instead of twisting what people write/say...

I didn't write: "people can't own things." What i wrote is "in socialism people can't own property." I included TWO examples of what kinds of property I was talking about... Farms, and apartments.

You see, if it is true that EVERYONE owns and controls the means of production under socialism, which includes property that makes money, farms, etc. Then how is it possible for people to personally own these properties?...

The collective ownership of the means of production, which would include lands and property that makes money, then it means that no one can't own such property individually... Instead the state owns and controls it claiming it is doing it for the people as a collective.

Directly from the "workers.org website":


...
The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished.
...

www.workers.org...

You see, it is the inability for today's left-wingers to comprehend what you actually read that causes for "left-wingers," who keep demanding socialism, to fall in the same hole time and time again. It simply shows you have no idea of what you talk about, and keep making false claims about socialism which will never be true.

As Chavez was taking control of Venezuela, most of the left even in these forums kept claiming "this is change for good and it will benefit the people." Yet, the opposite is what happened.



originally posted by: pexx421
The state owning the means of production is the OPPOSITE of the whole idea of socialism! Have you ever read anything written by a real economist or historian that was actually Marxist and actually describing what it is? Or have you literally gotten your whole education on socialism from Fox, memes, etc?


It is not the opposite...

Again, let me post the above excerpt directly from a socialist website.



...
The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished.
...

www.workers.org...

In the above excerpt the socialist who wrote that article is stipulating that all the means of production is "public property." Let me ask you something... Who owns and controls public property?... GOVERNMENTS/STATES...

I have not only read the writings of Marx, Trotsky, etc. But I have also in several threads given direct evidence for my arguments.



edit on 6-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Yes. The opposite happened because the wealthy attacked the economy, along with us sanctions, attempted coups, economic espionage, etc. The oligarchs there would rather destroy the economy, with the help of the us, than share the profits created by the workers with those workers. Socialism is very dangerous, for it always brings us CIA, political espionage, economic espionage, and lastly us jack boots. Feel free to elaborate what your role was any time.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
Yes. The opposite happened because the wealthy attacked the economy, along with us sanctions, attempted coups, economic espionage, etc. The oligarchs there would rather destroy the economy, with the help of the us, than share the profits created by the workers with those workers. Socialism is very dangerous, for it always brings us CIA, political espionage, economic espionage, and lastly us jack boots. Feel free to elaborate what your role was any time.


False... It was the socialist economy which introduced price controls and rationing which caused the economy to collapse.

Heck, there were tons and tons of food in government storage that were left rotting by the government of Chavez, meanwhile the people in Venezuela were starving, and are even worse off today.

BTW, back then BARACK OBAMA was POTUS... BARACK OBAMA is a socialist/democrat.

Not to mention the FACT, that the Venezuelan government took by force all private property such as supermarkets, etc. Chavez nationalized everything, closed down radio, and tv stations that would dare contradict him, just like Obama also said he would do. Thankfully Obama wasn't able to close all conservative radio stations. But to this day we see the LEFT making claims that right-wing news sources, and independent non-leftist media must be controlled or shut down "to combat fake news." Yet despite the fact that CNN, and other left-wing media have been publishing fake news, after fake news, there is no call to close them down...




edit on 6-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

I find it ironic how left-wingers, who are completely ignorant of what you talk about, ALWAYS want to claim "socialism didn't do it, it was the capitalists..." When in fact it has always been the "socialist policies which cause the economies to crumble in those nations, and causes famine, oppression, suffering, and death for the population living under such socialist economies...

I lived in Cuba, as a Cuban and not as a rich tourist, and saw first hand what happens when the government introduces price controls, and introduces rationing. In other words, a socialist economy. Before the U.S. introduced sanctions against Cuba, the socialist economy was already taking a toll on Cubans.

It happened, or still happens in Cuba, Venezuela, China, The Soviet Union, North Korea, Burma, India, nazi Germany etc, etc, etc.



edit on 6-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Are you kidding? The media in Venezuela was all owned by the oligarchs and they were always attacking him! And we did plenty to Cuba other than sanctions. We attempted coups, assassinations, biological warfare! What tiny, isolated society would fare any different under economic war with the us? Name me a single socialist nation that was not subject to all our economic and political war from the us.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Are you kidding? The media in Venezuela was all owned by the oligarchs and they were always attacking him! And we did plenty to Cuba other than sanctions. We attempted coups, assassinations, biological warfare! What tiny, isolated society would fare any different under economic war with the us? Name me a single socialist nation that was not subject to all our economic and political war from the us.


BS, I lived in Cuba while you were either not born yet, or you were/are complaining because your french fries were/are cold, or you didn't/don't have enough beer to get drunk and had/have to drive again to your closest store to buy more beer, while mumbling under your breath: "why the heck doesn't my fridge spawn any free beer?..."

To this day we still have to send money to my sisters, my grandmother, and other family members in Cuba so they can eat whatever they are able to buy with U.S. dollars. Otherwise they would be starving like the rest of the Cubans, and even then it's hard to find food in the black market in Cuba.

You make claims which are false, and you know it, and still you make up more BS because of your ignorance on socialism.

BTW, the owners of businesses in Venezuela had to flee, leaving behind EVERYTHING because they received death threats, and the U.S. UNDER OBAMA, didn't force the Venezuelan government to impose the price controls, and the rationing that they implemented. These are socialist policies which are always implemented in far left-wing regimes.

China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc, etc. They all had/have a socialist economy, and they all caused famine, suffering, repression, and death. That's socialism for you. Every communist regime starts being socialist, and use a socialist economy.


edit on 6-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 10:49 PM
link   
BTW, Puerto Rico and Colombia have offered to send food, alongside others, and Maduro is refusing the help claiming "Venezuelans don't need charity," meanwhile Venezuelans are starving to death... It's all over the Spanish news. But you, and your socialist useful idiots will find a way to claim "that's the fault of the U.S...."

Concern as Venezuela Refuses to Accept Aid

That's how socialism has always worked, and it is as it will always work...

The above link is from 2016, but today it is still occurring. In fact Maduro even blocked the borders to stop aid from coming in...

Venezuelan troops blockade bridge to stop aid from Colombia



edit on 6-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:02 AM
link   
The us is preparing to support troops from Columbia and Brazil going into Venezuela to overthrow their govt and steal control of the largest oil reserves in the world. Standard neoliberal coup and theft agenda.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Here from Noam Chomsky. I expect he has a better grasp than you.

“Cuba in the Cross-Hairs: A Near Half-Century of Terror

Noam Chomsky

Excerpted from Hegemony or Survival, Metropolitan Books, 2003

The Batista dictatorship was overthrown in January 1959 by Castro’s guerrilla forces. In March, the National Security Council (NSC) considered means to institute regime change. In May, the CIA began to arm guerrillas inside Cuba. “During the Winter of 1959-1960, there was a significant increase in CIA-supervised bombing and incendiary raids piloted by exiled Cubans” based in the US. We need not tarry on what the US or its clients would do under such circumstances. Cuba, however, did not respond with violent actions within the United States for revenge or deterrence. Rather, it followed the procedure required by international law. In July 1960, Cuba called on the UN for help, providing the Security Council with records of some twenty bombings, including names of pilots, plane registration numbers, unexploded bombs, and other specific details, alleging considerable damage and casualties and calling for resolution of the conflict through diplomatic channels. US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge responded by giving his “assurance [that] the United States has no aggressive purpose against Cuba.” Four months before, in March 1960, his government had made a formal decision in secret to overthrow the Castro government, and preparations for the Bay of Pigs invasion were well advanced.

Washington was concerned that Cubans might try to defend themselves. CIA chief Allen Dulles therefore urged Britain not to provide arms to Cuba. His “main reason,” the British ambassador reported to London, “was that this might lead the Cubans to ask for Soviet or Soviet bloc arms,” a move that “would have a tremendous effect,” Dulles pointed out, allowing Washington to portray Cuba as a security threat to the hemisphere, following the script that had worked so well in Guatemala. Dulles was referring to Washington’s successful demolition of Guatemala’s first democratic experiment, a ten-year interlude of hope and progress, greatly feared in Washington because of the enormous popular support reported by US intelligence and the “demonstration effect” of social and economic measures to benefit the large majority. The Soviet threat was routinely invoked, abetted by Guatemala’s appeal to the Soviet bloc for arms after the US had threatened attack and cut off other sources of supply. The result was a half-century of horror, even worse than the US-backed tyranny that came before.

For Cuba, the schemes devised by the doves were similar to those of CIA director Dulles. Warning President Kennedy about the “inevitable political and diplomatic fall-out” from the planned invasion of Cuba by a proxy army, Arthur Schlesinger suggested efforts to trap Castro in some action that could be used as a pretext for invasion: “One can conceive a black operation in, say, Haiti which might in time lure Castro into sending a few boatloads of men on to a Haitian beach in what could be portrayed as an effort to overthrow the Haitian regime, . . . then the moral issue would be clouded, and the anti-US campaign would be hobbled from the start.” Reference is to the regime of the murderous dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier, which was backed by the US (with some reservations), so that an effort to help Haitians overthrow it would be a crime.

Eisenhower’s March 1960 plan called for the overthrow of Castro in favor of a regime “more devoted to the true interests of the Cuban people and more acceptable to the U.S.,” including support for “military operation on the island” and “development of an adequate paramilitary force outside of Cuba.” Intelligence reported that popular support for Castro was high, but the US would determine the “true interests of the Cuban people.” The regime change was to be carried out “in such a manner as to avoid any appearance of U.S. intervention,” because of the anticipated reaction in Latin America and the problems of doctrinal management at home.

Operation Mongoose

The Bay of Pigs invasion came a year later, in April 1961, after Kennedy had taken office. It was authorized in an atmosphere of “hysteria” over Cuba in the White House, Robert McNamara later testified before the Senate’s Church Committee. At the first cabinet meeting after the failed invasion, the atmosphere was “almost savage,” Chester Bowles noted privately: “there was an almost frantic reaction for an action program.” At an NSC meeting two days later, Bowles found the atmosphere “almost as emotional” and was struck by “the great lack of moral integrity” that prevailed. The mood was reflected in Kennedy’s public pronouncements: “The complacent, the self-indulgent, the soft societies are about to be swept away with the debris of history. Only the strong . . . can possibly survive,” he told the country, sounding a theme that would be used to good effect by the Reaganites during their own terrorist wars. Kennedy was aware that allies “think that we’re slightly demented” on the subject of Cuba, a perception that persists to the present.

Kennedy implemented a crushing embargo that could scarcely be endured by a small country that had become a “virtual colony” of the US in the sixty years following its “liberation” from Spain. He also ordered an intensification of the terrorist campaign: “He asked his brother, Attorney-General Robert Kennedy, to lead the top-level interagency group that oversaw Operation Mongoose, a program of paramilitary operations, economic warfare, and sabotage he launched in late 1961 to visit the ‘terrors of the earth’ on Fidel Castro and, more prosaically, to topple him.”

The terrorist campaign was “no laughing matter,” Jorge Dominguez writes in a review of recently declassified materials on operations under Kennedy, materials that are “heavily sanitized” and “only the tip of the iceberg,” Piero Gleijeses adds.

Operation Mongoose was “the centerpiece of American policy toward Cuba from late 1961 until the onset of the 1962 missile crisis,” Mark White reports, the program on which the Kennedy brothers “came to pin their hopes.” Robert Kennedy informed the CIA that the Cuban problem carries “the top priority in the United States Government — all else is secondary — no time, no effort, or manpower is to be spared” in the effort to overthrow the Castro regime. The chief of Mongoose operations, Edward Lansdale, provided a timetable leading to “open revolt and overthrow of the Communist regime” in October 1962. The “final definition” of the program recognized that “final success will require decisive U.S. military intervention,” after terrorism and subversion had laid the basis. The implication is that US military intervention would take place in October 1962 — when the missile crisis erupted.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   
It goes on further

chomsky.info...



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are correct in that Denmark and Norway are not Socialist governments. That's why I find it funny when people like AOC or Bernie Sanders talk about what they want to do, they're doing a lot of what Norway and Denmark are doing. Not what Venezuela is doing.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   
So just because some places are cold climate change is fake? Do you realize how mental you sound right now op?



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

I don’t understand why it’s funny. They proposed the ideas of Norway and Sweden. Everyone in the us yelled “that’s socialism!” And so now that’s how socialism is defined in the us. Of course, to different Americans socialism can mean Norway, Sweden, nazi Germany, communism, Venezuela, or free school lunch.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: amazing

I don’t understand why it’s funny. They proposed the ideas of Norway and Sweden. Everyone in the us yelled “that’s socialism!” And so now that’s how socialism is defined in the us. Of course, to different Americans socialism can mean Norway, Sweden, nazi Germany, communism, Venezuela, or free school lunch.


Yeah and that's the problem. We can't even agree on who's ideas AOC or Sanders want to incorporate or copy. And when it comes to climate change...we can't even agree on if the Earth is actually warming. Let alone the cause or what to do about it. We can't evne have a discussion if we can't define what we're talking about and agree on core truths. And when it comes to the President's state of the union address most threads and posts are about what people were wearing, dentures, and clapping. We're losing our minds because we can't focus on what's important.







 
28
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join