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.
Can the flag of the former U.S.S.R. be used for things other than this?
The only thing relevant is how I used the flag which had nothing to do with the "Red Scare".
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.
My apologies, I was not aware you were such a fan of this flag and would have posted it the first time. You can find this image in this article,
The Truth about SourceWatch
It is clearly used to equate socialism to an organization that holds socialist (anti-capitalist) views.
No one is arguing your use of a socialist state. We are arguing the gratuitous use of that particular state.
Then you are arguing a strawman.
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.
Yes everyone who fully understands that a mixed economy includes
publicly owned companies and that public ownership of companies is
socialist are socialists. I do not lump in those who are unaware of what a mixed economy actually is and may "support" it without fully understanding it. In these cases I give them the benefit of the doubt of being ignorant.
Are you denying that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies?
Are you denying that public ownership of companies is socialist?
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.
Supporting the existence of property laws in some form does not make you a capitalist on this support alone.
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.
You have dodged this question again,
Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list? Yes or No?
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.
I am unconvinced. Why are you lying about me behaving like a sophist?
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.
You need to quote what you are talking about. What argument did I dodge?
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.
Their objections based on false reasoning does not make them valid.
...they specifically state that they should not be used to conclude AGW skepticism.
Was this the reason their papers were listed?
Does the list include papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm?
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.
Since you do not know you cannot claim his position regarding AGW is in relation to funding. You have failed to provide any evidence of corruption.
Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?
Can an industry and a scientist hold the same position independently?
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.
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
You have already stated your corruption concerns and have failed to provide evidence of any corruption. These are very serious allegations. If you cannot support them, then your intent is to smear credentialed scientists.
Do you have any evidence of corruption?