Fear mongering

[bloodlusta]

I felt we needed a thread about how all the differant political powers use fear to control people.

I turned on FOX news thismorning and the woman was talking about the terrorist plots that had been foiled, she thanked the Patroit Act for them being prevented, in her words exactly "without this Act no American is safe", now im sorry but this was the most blatent fear mongering I have ever seen. You don't need the PA to be safe, the FBI and CIA have been phone tapping for years without it. It means they can tap anyone with needing a warrent, this gives the goverment way to much power. In Britain they have to have warrents and they still mannaged to stop their terrorists. How long till this is turned on anyone who disagrees with Obama?

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

I turned on FOX news this morning and the woman was talking about the terrorist plots that had been foiled, she thanked the Patroit Act for them being prevented, in her words exactly "without this Act no American is safe", now im sorry but this was the most blatent fear mongering I have ever seen.

How about, "If we don't act now to stop climate change, the entire world will be destroyed within 50 years".

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

You don't need the PA to be safe, the FBI and CIA have been phone tapping for years without it.

True, but that information couldn't be used in court or acted on by law enforcement agencies. With the advent of the Patriot Act, such wiretaps could be admitted as evidence and used to prevent attacks.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

It means they can tap anyone with needing a warrent, this gives the goverment way to much power. In Britain they have to have warrents and they still mannaged to stop their terrorists.

They can't tap "anyone". The Patriot Act specifically limits the use of the taps to persons communnicating with people outside the US.

US to US: No tap without a warrant.
US to Foreign: Yes tap without warrant.
Foreign to US: Yes tap without warrant.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

How long till this is turned on anyone who disagrees with Obama?

Well, they've already had the DHS declare anyone who disagrees with Obama a "Potential Domestic Terrorist", so it's not too far off.

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by shetlan

How about, "If we don't act now to stop climate change, the entire world will be destroyed within 50 years".
.

That one always makes me laugh, IF climate change is happening we can't stop it, so we should be stocking up on food and weapons.

Originally Posted by shetlan

True, but that information couldn't be used in court or acted on by law enforcement agencies. With the advent of the Patriot Act, such wiretaps could be admitted as evidence and used to prevent attacks. .

In most other countrys wire tapped are used in court, I was sure they could have been in the US?

Originally Posted by shetlan

They can't tap "anyone". The Patriot Act specifically limits the use of the taps to persons communnicating with people outside the US.

US to US: No tap without a warrant.
US to Foreign: Yes tap without warrant.
Foreign to US: Yes tap without warrant.
.

Well then the Paroit act had nothing to do with this, because it was the people in the US calling each other

Originally Posted by shetlan

Well, they've already had the DHS declare anyone who disagrees with Obama a "Potential Domestic Terrorist", so it's not too far off.

Worrying isn't it? its like I always said, every major dictatorship has been left wing and dictatorships have to be left wing, because they rely on taking rights away from people. "oh goly isn't the world scary, please mr government take our rights away to make us safer". Which is why it suprises when the 'right' supports this kind of thing.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

That one always makes me laugh, IF climate change is happening we can't stop it, so we should be stocking up on food and weapons.

The very idea that humans can have such drastic effects on the environment is laughable. The idea that one can fix the environment by using different light bulbs is equally laughable.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

In most other countrys wire tapped are used in court, I was sure they could have been in the US?

You could only use a wiretap in court if you already had a court order to employ the wiretap. The Patriot Act lifted this restrication, but only in cases relating to terrorism.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Well then the Paroit act had nothing to do with this, because it was the people in the US calling each other

True, the Patriot Act has nothing to do with the Denver plot.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Worrying isn't it? its like I always said, every major dictatorship has been left wing and dictatorships have to be left wing, because they rely on taking rights away from people. "oh goly isn't the world scary, please mr government take our rights away to make us safer". Which is why it suprises when the 'right' supports this kind of thing.

The Patriot Act was a more powerful piece of legislation than was required, but there did need to be a major overhaul of the US's terror prevention systems.

My only problem with the Patriot Act is that it brought "domestic terrorists" under the same banner as foreign terrorists. Under this newfound power, changing the definition of terrorist to "Anyone who disagrees with me" is all a President would need to do to become a tyrant.

[ninefingers]

You're So right....
And, this global warming makes me wonder if the American Indians didn't have it right in the first place...making nature a god and worshipping her rather than raping her, as the white man...



EDIT:
And, these fluorescent bulbs? They cost so much more than incandescent, and seem to only last a year, anyway. It must take Mucho more natural rescources to make a compact Flouorescent. There is all that "saved energy" going down the drain. Or, simply being used by the Chinese factories to save American power. If they'd last a few years, like they should, it would be different.

[Voodoo5]

Things are way too partisan these days, and all the honours and offices that we bestow upon single people are bound to cause trouble and exacerbate inefficiencies, after all, we're human (aww shucks).

Florescent bulbs don't do much, but china allowing lead to seep into various nearby towns up to thrice the already generous chinese limits is just messed up. Even if you don't (and you don't) find climate change plausible (or possibly influenced by man), you should still push industrial responsibility, heavy industrial exhaust/waste has a human effect if not environmental.ps. will you quit using that bloody useless sheep/cow argument? I never said anything about methane, take my word.

But enough with the eco-crap. Yes, fear is, has been, and will be exploited by the U.S and the world over, and us alone can't do dick about it. But even tyrants have the best intentions (usually) and the white-washed house and it's supporters thought it was appropriate, and I would be hard-pressed to convince them otherwise ('cause I can't).

I think that it's probably a nearsighted approach, to an issue where a comfortable public is a less volatile (pardon the pun) public.

sorry, final note: are my posts getting better? I'm not too proud to learn and benefit from this.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

IF climate change is happening we can't stop it, so we should be stocking up on food and weapons.

To fight global warming?

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming? - turns out it probably is all lies.

__

You could say people were "fear mongered" about swine flu too (and you'd be right). In that case though making the illness out to be more dangerous and threatening than it was made people wary and more likely to take precautions against it. As a result, despite the shady methods of propaganda, it reduced incidences of disease. The same could be said of "global warming", although I think the benefit there was making people use less energy. As for the Patriot Act, I guess that's a different argument...

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by headcase

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming? - turns out it probably is all lies.

I've been trying to tell people about that for years; I'm glad to see the BBC finally picked up on it.

Originally Posted by headcase

You could say people were "fear mongered" about swine flu too (and you'd be right). In that case though making the illness out to be more dangerous and threatening than it was made people wary and more likely to take precautions against it. As a result, despite the shady methods of propaganda, it reduced incidences of disease.

Did it? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is, swine flu isn't anymore of a threat than the normal flu. Most people didn't react to the swine flu BS at all.

There's a new super-kill-us-all disease every three years.
The swine flu didn't kill us the first time, so the asians tried to kill us with SARS. That didn't work so they tossed the ball to the mad cows. The mad cows couldn't get the job done, so they tossed it over to the birds (avian flu). The birds couldn't do it, so the mosquito/west nile thing came around. That was just stupid - so they let the pigs try again.

Originally Posted by headcase

The same could be said of "global warming", although I think the benefit there was making people use less energy. As for the Patriot Act, I guess that's a different argument...

Why is "using less energy" supposedly a benefit?
This whole global warming farce has cost billions to industry. Adhearing to new "green standards" has made it impossible for hundreds of businesses to operate - costing thousands of jobs.

[bloodlusta]

Personally I like the idea of home producing their own water, food and power. And I don't think factoys should be able to pump out toxins into the water ways (farmers are far worse though). I think in the end its about balance. You can't say factoys have to be 100% green but you cant let them do whatever they want either.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Personally I like the idea of home producing their own water, food and power.

So do I, but in the modern world we live in, it's just not realistic.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

And I don't think factoys should be able to pump out toxins into the water ways (farmers are far worse though). I think in the end its about balance. You can't say factoys have to be 100% green but you cant let them do whatever they want either.

The whole "factories pump toxins into waterways" thing is seriously over exaggerated.

Secondly, there's a big difference between "100% green" and the kind of standards the eco-nuts want people to hold to.
Case in Point: the city of Berkeley (the self-proclaimed most liberal city in California) is working on legislation that would require every factory and manufacturing plant in the city limits to both collect and treat rainwater from their roofs before allowing it to drain into the delta. . . I know what you're thinking; and yes, you read that right.

To be serious, none of the eco-green-save the earth BS has anything to do with saving the world - it never has. It's just another trick in the liberal bag.

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by shetlan

So do I, but in the modern world we live in, it's just not realistic.
.

Sure it is. Solar panels, vegy garden, a little lawn mower and a water catcher. A lot of people over here manage it

Originally Posted by shetlan

The whole "factories pump toxins into waterways" thing is seriously over exaggerated.

I have to disagree there. It is a major issue, even over here. The Waikato river is so polluted with heavy metals you can't eat the trout out of it anymore.

And the run off from farms is a massive issue. It creates massive algal blooms which kill the oxygen in the water. But we don't have to decrease our farming. All in needs is bush planted around the waters edge to obsorbe the nitrates.

Also factory run off is having a major impact on our seas, and that can't be denided. Just look at the massive 'dead zones' around the US, Mexico, China and Japan. also its not just factorys we have massive over fishing. We are killing our seas and this has to be adressed.

Im not 100% sure about all this "oh climate change is going to kill us bla bla bla" but I do know that we are having a negitve impact on this earth. But again its about balance. You can't tell people not to cut down the rainforest because where are they going to get an income from? But at the same time you can't just let the entire rainforest dissapear.

[Steve_TPF]

I agree regarding the effects of pollution (as opposed to global warming) but for goodness' sake bloodlusta can you include some references when you make statements like "Just look at the massive 'dead zones' around the US, Mexico, China and Japan."

It's done like this:

Dead Zones (Wiki).

Originally Posted by L>A> Times

Reporting from Corvallis, Ore. - An oxygen-depleted "dead zone" the size of New Jersey is starving sea life off the coast of Oregon and Washington and will probably appear there each summer as a result of climate change, an Oregon State University researcher said Thursday.

The huge area is one of 400 dead zones around the world, most of them caused by fertilizer and sewage dumped into the oceans in river runoff.

Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone.

Dead Zones (Science Focus.)

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Sure it is. Solar panels, vegy garden, a little lawn mower and a water catcher. A lot of people over here manage it

Solar Panels are
1: Useless when it's clowdy - which makes them useless to most of the world as a practical power source.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Im not 100% sure about all this "oh climate change is going to kill us bla bla bla" but I do know that we are having a negitve impact on this earth. But again its about balance. You can't tell people not to cut down the rainforest because where are they going to get an income from? But at the same time you can't just let the entire rainforest dissapear.

The logging companies that cut down "the rainforest" plant new trees where they cut down the old ones - if they didn't, there would be nothing to cut down later.
That has nothing to do with "balance" it's just sound business practices.

As far as the dead-zones go - animal poop and fertilizer are the largest causes they're citing.
Animals (and people) have been pooping as long as there have been animals, and their poop has been washed into the sea as long as there has been rain.
Fertilizer, is largely animal poop (see previous point).

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Solar Panels are
1: Useless when it's clowdy - which makes them useless to most of the world as a practical power source.

No because when the sun is at its brightest is when the least amount of power is being used. So the panels store the power for later. Also the panels arn't to power the entire house. They power a percentage of the house, it is to reduce the dependance on power stations. And there is still enough light on a cloudy day to power solar pannels as the clouds don't filter the UV rays.

Originally Posted by shetlan

The logging companies that cut down "the rainforest" plant new trees where they cut down the old ones - if they didn't, there would be nothing to cut down later.
That has nothing to do with "balance" it's just sound business practices.

But they can't replace the rainforest (biodevercity) so they are whiping out entire animal populations. Also most of the logging is not for the timber itself, a lot of it is to create farm land.

Originally Posted by shetlan

As far as the dead-zones go - animal poop and fertilizer are the largest causes they're citing.
Animals (and people) have been pooping as long as there have been animals, and their poop has been washed into the sea as long as there has been rain.
Fertilizer, is largely animal poop (see previous point).

The fertilizer that is the issue is the artifisal. And its the run off from farms. This is not natural. You cannot denie that dead zones are of human creation and that they are a massive problem.

The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

No because when the sun is at its brightest is when the least amount of power is being used. So the panels store the power for later. Also the panels arn't to power the entire house. They power a percentage of the house, it is to reduce the dependance on power stations. And there is still enough light on a cloudy day to power solar pannels as the clouds don't filter the UV rays.

If the panels aren't going to power the entire house, then who freakin' cares! Solar panels are ridiculously expensive, prone to malfunction, and don't produce all that much energy. Let's not forget the fact that they don't produce any energy at night, on cloudy days, or for much of the rainy season (which is more than half the year in many areas). Solar power just isn't a feasible power source.

Beyond that, if they're going to use the normal grid anyway, why not just build a nuke plant and be done with it! More energy AND cheaper energy.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

But they can't replace the rainforest (biodevercity) so they are whiping out entire animal populations. Also most of the logging is not for the timber itself, a lot of it is to create farm land.

"Biodiversity" doesn't have any bearing on being able to cut down trees. If you're cutting down a canopy tree, then you plant a canopy tree - if you're cutting down an oak tree, you plant an oak tree.

As for the farm land - what do you have against farm land?
God forbid we should feed people and provide jobs for the locals.

Note: Rain forests still cover a full 6% of the planet's surface - 3.45million square miles (roughly the same size as the continental Unites States).

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

The fertilizer that is the issue is the artifisal. And its the run off from farms. This is not natural. You cannot denie that dead zones are of human creation and that they are a massive problem.

The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone

Twenty years ago, we "could not deny" that global cooling was going to destroy the world.
Thirty years ago, we "could not deny" that overpopulation was going to starve humanity out of existence.
Five years ago, we "could not deny" that global warming was going to be the end of the world.

Mother nature is one tough broad, she can handle herself.

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by shetlan

"Biodiversity" doesn't have any bearing on being able to cut down trees. If you're cutting down a canopy tree, then you plant a canopy tree - if you're cutting down an oak tree, you plant an oak tree.

*facepalm* its not that simple. You can't exspect them to keep a record of every tree they cut down. And they don't. Rainforests have hunderds of differt types of trees all growing in one small area. And the time time it takes these trees to grow makes them impractial to grow for timber.

Originally Posted by shetlan

As for the farm land - what do you have against farm land?
God forbid we should feed people and provide jobs for the locals.
.

That was the point I made at the start! Im not agaist logging the rainforest! Its very rich for these greenies to tell these poor farmers not to get more farm land while they (the greenies) are eating 3 meals a day on land that was logged 200 years ago. The people in these developing counrties are just doing what we did. Yes it would be good if they could earn a living without logging but until you come up with those jobs I say let them keep logging.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Mother nature is one tough broad, she can handle herself.

I was more worried about the fishing industry

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

*facepalm* its not that simple. You can't exspect them to keep a record of every tree they cut down. And they don't. Rainforests have hunderds of differt types of trees all growing in one small area. And the time time it takes these trees to grow makes them impractial to grow for timber.

Since we've established that they're cutting them down to clear space for farmland, that doesn't really matter.

None the less, the presence of 300 different species of trees doesn't make any difference in reference to being able to plant more. If you know the proportional number of each tree (1 in 100, etc) then you buy a proportional number of seeds and mix 'em up before planting.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

That was the point I made at the start! Im not agaist logging the rainforest! Its very rich for these greenies to tell these poor farmers not to get more farm land while they (the greenies) are eating 3 meals a day on land that was logged 200 years ago. The people in these developing counrties are just doing what we did. Yes it would be good if they could earn a living without logging but until you come up with those jobs I say let them keep logging.

Then why are we even talking about this?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

I was more worried about the fishing industry

There are plenty of fish in the sea.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Solar Panels are
1: Useless when it's clowdy - which makes them useless to most of the world as a practical power source.

Not really my solar panels generate power even on cloudy days, it just generates less power then on a sunny day, but I have 8 panels generating 36 watts of power & charginf 8 marine batteries which store my power not used in the house for night time. Plus I have a 64 watt wind genie in the system as well...

Its completely possible. However I don't believe in the save the planet BS I'm just a self-sufficiency nutter.

Fear mongering is easy; economic fear mongering (the economy will colapse), environmental fear mongering (climate change), political fear mongering (socialism is taking over) & race fearmonging (white people & conservatives hate Obama) are common its all in how the government acts...

[archleone]

Originally Posted by Draven

Not really my solar panels generate power even on cloudy days, it just generates less power then on a sunny day, but I have 8 panels generating 36 watts of power & charginf 8 marine batteries which store my power not used in the house for night time. Plus I have a 64 watt wind genie in the system as well...

How much do you produce in comparison to how much you use?

Originally Posted by shetlan

"Biodiversity" doesn't have any bearing on being able to cut down trees. If you're cutting down a canopy tree, then you plant a canopy tree - if you're cutting down an oak tree, you plant an oak tree.

As for the farm land - what do you have against farm land?
God forbid we should feed people and provide jobs for the locals.

Note: Rain forests still cover a full 6% of the planet's surface - 3.45million square miles (roughly the same size as the continental Unites States).

Originally Posted by shetlan

Since we've established that they're cutting them down to clear space for farmland, that doesn't really matter.

None the less, the presence of 300 different species of trees doesn't make any difference in reference to being able to plant more. If you know the proportional number of each tree (1 in 100, etc) then you buy a proportional number of seeds and mix 'em up before planting.

Originally Posted by shetlan

The logging companies that cut down "the rainforest" plant new trees where they cut down the old ones - if they didn't, there would be nothing to cut down later.
That has nothing to do with "balance" it's just sound business practices.

You can't really be that stupid to think that that is how it works. Less than half of the world's rainforests are still there so obviously the loggers aren't planting a tree for everyone they cut down. And as for the farmland, when the rainforest is cut down for farmland in the Amazon rainforest the land is only sustainable for farming for five to ten years before all the nutrients are depleted due to the fact that the plants aren't putting anything back into the soil since they use everything.

[ninefingers]

Solar panels are getting better. There are new, "amorphous" panels now that are cheaper and more efficient than ever, not to mention flexible and much less fragile. Some made right in Tucson.
It is the UV that charges a panel. So; even on a cloudy day, some gets through. Try putting a stained white cloth out on a hot, sunny day; then a hot, overcast day. It will be bleached by the UV just the same, but takes at least 4 times longer.
There is more than solar panels. I'm sure we've all seen on the Discovery Channel using computerized sun-tracking reflectors to heat oil in a tank or in tubes to boil water. Very Cheap. Also, using metal alloys instead of oil.

The fact that this and other technology exists and other countries invest in it and keep much of their power cheap-to-free these ways shows that the cartels in the US are trying to scare us into still buying coal or oil from them. The French have had no problem with nuclear power; we have had no deaths from it. If the US Gov't runs all Nuke plants; they will show the zero-accident record that the government has proven with submarines and surface ships. The Commercials cut corners to save money; and cut safety.

[ninefingers]

P.S: What does everyone on this forum have against France? The French love to protest, and their government listens. Their gov't. is afraid of the people; unlike we being afraid of our gov't. Things change in France, they have a good National Health service that works--there are expatriate Americans there just for that reason. *They eat healthier, smaller portions than us.** More fresh fruit and vegetables, bought daily. They respect each other's rights--no one cares if your are a Communist, etc, so long as you don't cut down France. The older generation appreciate the US and what we've done to bail them out in both world wars. They will open up if you just try to speak their language, even badly. If you don't go in with an "America First"; or "Everyone should speak English" attitude, they are good people. Some of the newer generations are a bit snotty; they weren't involved in the wars.

No, I don't want to live there, I like my Guns. I just wanted to show it is possible to have a country where the Gov't. remembers who pays them, and doesn't intimidate them like ours.

* "Sicko"; by Michael Moore.
** Survey of portions served by McDonald's around the world.

[ninefingers]

[quote=headcase;75806]To fight global warming?

He didn't infer that. You gotta be joking. He said if there is nothing we can do about it; may as well turn survivalist.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by archleone

How much do you produce in comparison to how much you use?

More power in the winter gets used but my TV is on almost 24/7 & my lap top is one for several hours as well, plus a black light in the living room, hot water heater, air conditoner/heater, frig & a freezer. My power bill is like, $20 max and I don't suffer power outages. I grow much of my own food & keep deer meat people give me or a get from hunting in the freezer. All I buy is pork chops, steaks, shrimp, flower, borritos, rice & sugar & I have plenty of can food to last me for about a year or so. I cycle the canned food out.

To be honest I ussually end up feeding my friends & family with the extra... If shit gets bad with the economy which I believe is going to happen; I'm gonna be alive and well.