Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (9751)	2/18/2012 9:58:21 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 85487

Thanks. You should try to avoid the [/url] at the end of your links, it messes them up, when I click on that one it just takes me to Silicon Investors home page. If it was plain text I could just select it and click open in a new tab, or open in a new window, but since it does go through as a link (just not a working one) that doesn't work either. What does work is copying the whole thing, and then manually removing the /url, I did that and got to the post in question. I don't think you can reasonably say your more libertarian than Ron Paul, since on that test "economically right" is libertarian on economic issues. I'm not sure I like the terminology, or that you would either, but whatever word or phrase that could be used to replace "economically right" the point is that part of the test is one where the higher your score is, the more libertarian you are. Combining a low score (highly libertarian) on the social libertarian part, with a low score (anti-libertarian) on the economics part, would present you as a liberal, or "progressive", or "social democrat", or socially liberal socialist, or (from the test's own terminology) "socially libertarian" and economically leftist) or any of a number of other possible terms, but not "libertarian". Following your link I saw my reply to your old post. Message 26408408 My score then was Economic Left/Right: 5.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67 As opposed to my more recent score of Economic Left/Right: 6.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13 So to the extent one trust the score I've become more libertarian on both axises. Edit I see at politicalcompass.org That they have Barak Obama as more "Libertarian" than any of the Republican candidates except Paul. The reason for that is why the test and score show "economicly right" as being libertarian, the charts don't. So really the chart is saying he is modestly more social libertarian than most of the Republican candidates. I suppose that's possible, but even that is questionable, for example he's pushing imposing payment for contraception on church organizations. That's one case where "socially liberal" (in its modern American meaning) and "socially libertarian are on opposite sides, even if normally they are close to the same thing. I also think they put him too far to the economic "right" or economically libertarian side. I'd say the same about the Republican candidates as well, they really are not all that economically libertarian (even if they are more so than Obama, which is reflected by the chart at the above link)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (9751)	2/19/2012 9:20:42 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Conservation Hawks Founder: “If Climate Change Isn’t Real, I’ll Give You My Beretta” By Brad Johnson on Feb 19, 2012 at 8:40 am The founder of Conservation Hawks, an organization of sportsmen dedicated to fighting climate change, will give up his gun if global warming is a hoax. A Beretta Silver Pigeon 12 gauge shotgun “If you can convince Conservation Hawks chairman Todd Tanner that he’s wasting his time, that he does not have to worry about climate change, he will present to you his most prized possession: A Beretta Silver Pigeon 12 gauge over/under that was a gift from his wife, and has been a faithful companion on many a Montana bird hunt,” Hal Herring writes at The Conservationist. “I know the gun, and I’ve hunted and fished with Todd for years. He’s not kidding. You convince him, he’ll give you the gun.” Let’s say you are walking down a trail in the wilderness with your wife and kids, and you come upon a grizzly sow, standing on a carcass. She charges, flat out. You’re in front of your family. What do you do? Just give up? Pretend it’s not happening? Let her maul you and everything your care about? Of course you don’t. You take action. That is how I see climate change. It’s real, it’s threatening everything we love. Not taking action is not an option. Tanner rebuffed the argument that action on global warming pollution just means a government takeover. “You want to talk about government intrusion, think about what it means if we don’t address this now while we have the time and resources,” he said. “ We will lose the freedoms that we have because somebody—and it will be government—will be in an all out effort to try and address the effects. To try and address the effects of our neglect. We’ll face the worst thing of all—losing our freedom. And we’ll already have lost most of hunting and fishing. That’s how serious I believe this is.” So those of you who deny the threat of global warming — Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, David Koch—this [gun] could be yours if you can convince Tanner that there’s really just a scientific conspiracy to trick people that greenhouse pollution is dangerous. thinkprogress.org