Yeah because use of the giant red flag of the USSR has nothing to do with the tactics about scaring the American populace with concern over the rising influence of the Soviet union.
You have quoted everything so far in your line by line but you deleted the picture. Lets go ahead and post it again so if people read this they can see what is being talked about.
No one is arguing your use of a socialist state. We are arguing the gratuitous use of that particular state.
Intellectual cowardice at its finest.
So by your standard everyone in America is socialist. I reject that standard as I imagine would most Americans. You can label things all you like. You do seem to like doing that.
Contra that is that most Americans supporting property laws makes them capitalist too.
I think at that point given your standard the conclusion obviously is that socialist does not imply anti-capitalist or the reverse by your definition.
That would be the third time i have answered that particular question. As to your last little dig, my point is you both do it. You can bold your questions and wave your hands all you like. Its meaningless posturing. if you cannot figure out the obvious thats your problem and if you want me to begin the premise of your argument, you can forget about it.
Its a weak and obvious tactic in a game that I do not play.
As for voting for the Libertarian Party, I have stated my reasoning. Its obvious from the result of every election ever that they have a chance of nil of winning and I have told you about my desire for more plurality in the American system. Most libertarians that i have met do not behave as a sophist like you do and the notion of a third political voice having a say appeals to me more than your obvious limited imagination can conceive of.
As for your next bolded question, I again am not going to answer it. I have told you why. You dodged the argument by trying to place the blame on RG however its quite obvious you exhibit the same behavior to a much greater degree.
Now I will extend my same arguments again. Those authors objected to their inclusion on the list. They have asked specifically to be taken off the list unless I am mistaken. Meehl, I believe, went so far to go to say that using his analysis is improper for describing trends.
This leaves you a choice. You can ask your question again which once again i will repeat myself or you can actually make your argument for yourself. I am sure you will try and discredit me instead. Oh well.
I asked when his relationship with the energy lobby began. I don't know. thats the entire basis of your argument. Its known that he does and its also known that he has worked with the coal lobby regarding advertisement campaigns.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/08/bu...anted=2&src=pm
Now as I stated I have a concern with scientists that behave in the same way as tobacco scientists that worked with cigarette manufacturers in the first half of the twentieth century until now.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0106164921.htm
Their tactics are widely publicized. Oil and tobacco magnates have lobbied together and worked in tandem before like with the Heritage Foundation with Phillip-Morris and ExxonMobil so yes I have a very healthy skepticism as these are the same people that brought us
As for the last, i think that the influence of agencies such as the NSF or NASA has on the scientists they endorse should be very concerning. The difference however is there is at least a measure of oversight and accountability.
Further, unlike when dealing with ExxonMobil, we can file for discovery of do ents using the Freedom of Information Act. I see no obvious economic benefit to them making a conclusion one way or another. OTOH, the impact for the energy lobby is obvious. Its saying their product is unsafe.