Cats in US kill billions of birds, mammals, study finds

Jan 29, 2013
A domestic cat sits in October 17, 2010 in Manassas, Virginia. Domestic cats in the United States kill up to 3.7 billion birds and as many as 20.7 billion mice, voles and other small mammals each year, biologists estimated on Tuesday.

Domestic cats in the United States kill up to 3.7 billion birds and as many as 20.7 billion mice, voles and other small mammals each year, biologists estimated on Tuesday.

Puss is probably the biggest human-induced killer of these species, outstripping better-known culprits such as , or hunting, they said in a study published in the journal Nature Communications.

A team led by Scott Loss at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute in Washington looked at published research into the predation habits of cats.

Cats that have outdoors access kill between 30 and 47 birds apiece in temperate parts of Europe and North America each year, and between 177 and 299 mammals, according to past investigations.

The next step was to get an estimate of the number of cats in the United States.

Loss's team calculated there were around 84 million cats with owners, of which a couple of million are unlikely to have outdoor access or go hunting.

Added to that are between 30 and 80 million "unowned" cats—animals that are wild or free-ranging but without an owner and survive on goodwill.

"We estimate that free-ranging kill 1.4 to 3.7 billion birds and 6.9 to 20.7 billion mammals annually," says the study.

"Unowned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality."

The paper says the estimates are much bigger than previously thought, and show that cats "are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic [man-made] mortality for US birds and mammals."

It adds: "Scientifically sound conservation and policy intervention [are] needed to reduce this impact."

The study tried to get a fix on the numbers of reptiles and amphibians that are killed by cats, but drew a blank.

According to the famous "Red List" compiled by the/ International Union for (IUCN), cats on islands have caused or contributed to the extinctions of 33 , mammals and reptiles.

The study coincides with a fierce debate in New Zealand, where Gareth Morgan, a businessman turned philanthropist, has called for cats there to be eradicated to save the country's unique species of wildlife, which includes the flightless kiwi.

Explore further: Suburban dugites and bobtails come under the microscope

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Fur flies over call to rid New Zealand of cats

Jan 23, 2013

A campaign to eradicate New Zealand's cats as a way of protecting native wildlife has raised the hackles of pet lovers, with critics leaping to the defence of their feline friends.

Cat survey reveals impact on birds

Jan 11, 2013

Some pet cats are killing a lot of birds around the UK, a new study shows. Most don't do much harm, but millions of marauding felines add up to what could be a serious problem for the nation's wildlife.

Zambia bans lion, leopard hunting

Jan 10, 2013

Zambia's tourism minister on Thursday announced a ban on hunting lions and leopards, saying the feline numbers are decreasing too quickly.

Curiosity to kill Australian cats

Feb 24, 2010

Australian scientists are hoping to add some truth to the old adage by using curiosity to kill some of the country's millions of wild cats.

Recommended for you

Study indicates large raptors in Africa used for bushmeat

15 minutes ago

Bushmeat, the use of native animal species for food or commercial food sale, has been heavily documented to be a significant factor in the decline of many species of primates and other mammals. However, a new study indicates ...

Noise pollution impacts fish species differently

2 hours ago

Acoustic disturbance has different effects on different species of fish, according to a new study from the Universities of Bristol and Exeter which tested fish anti-predator behaviour.

Invertebrate numbers nearly halve as human population doubles

2 hours ago

Invertebrate numbers have decreased by 45% on average over a 35 year period in which the human population doubled, reports a study on the impact of humans on declining animal numbers. This decline matters because of the enormous ...

Insecticides similar to nicotine widespread in Midwest

3 hours ago

Insecticides similar to nicotine, known as neonicotinoids, were found commonly in streams throughout the Midwest, according to a new USGS study. This is the first broad-scale investigation of neonicotinoid ...

User comments : 228

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nkalanaga
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2013
But how much did the predators we've displaced, such as foxes, eat? We know that birds and rodents were preyed on before cats reached North America. And, in Europe, wild cats are a native species, so at least some of the predation should have happened even before domestication.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2013
Good. Now the next time someone cries about windmills killing birds they should get a sense of proportion.

Here's a listing of estimated bird deaths by cause:
http://science.ho...irds.htm
Deadbolt
1.9 / 5 (19) Jan 29, 2013
New Zealand cats to be unreplaced and euthenazed out of existence in favor of the flightless kiwi?

Surely getting rid of many more animals to save much fewer of another kind of animal just because some humans think uniqueness is more important than numbers, is fairly debatable in its morality. Nature isn't an entity which has thoughts and feelings on this, so it really comes down to us, and whether we like cats more than kiwis. Does the fact that a kiwi is one of a few give it more right to live? It all depends on whether people like cats more than tiny rare flightless birds. In the end, cats are just the biggest problem these things have, so how far should we be willing to go to save them? Should dogs be next in line after cats?
Claudius
3.4 / 5 (35) Jan 29, 2013
Kitten thinks of nothing but murder all day.
VendicarE
Jan 29, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Wolf358
3.6 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2013
Not seeing anything so far about the millions of migratory birds being killed every year by the lighting on ocean oil-rigs....
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (47) Jan 29, 2013
Yea, but how many worms have birds murdered.
kochevnik
3.1 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2013
More cats => less bird flu
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (56) Jan 29, 2013
"[cats] are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic [man-made] mortality for US birds and mammals. Scientifically sound conservation and policy intervention [are] needed to reduce this impact."


This is illustrative of how the mush-heads that are the liberal 'social progressives' think, ...and is why they're a threat to liberty and humanity in general.

They mine for such statistical facts in the wake of mere human existence. They search for such 'anthropogenic defects' in nature and society to engineer 'fixes' by controlling human behavior.

Notice these same dimwits regard it natural for birds to eat worms and cats to eat birds,... but once humans somehow are involved in causes and effects, it is no longer considered natural. This is their failed premise. The anthropogenic effects upon the planet ARE in fact as natural as birds eating worms.

There have been innumerable species extinct through effects from another, in the history of life on this planet.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (52) Jan 29, 2013
There is no end to reactionary 'statistically valid' justifications for government to control and regulate human behavior. This is the threat to human nature itself,... the invalid notion that Human Nature and mere presence should not have an impact upon the planet, nor cause social ill effects.

The greatest threat to personal liberty is the 'liberal progressive', the social engineer, and their army of statisticians.
Shootist
3.5 / 5 (29) Jan 29, 2013
Just like your average Gun Grubbing, Tea-Bagger.

"Kitten thinks of nothing but murder all day." - Claudius


heh, wiping out VD, one sock puppet at a time.
jonnyboy
2.3 / 5 (19) Jan 29, 2013
keep hiding scott.....one less cover.
Tenche
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2013
Has anyone heard of the soil food web? OF COURSE they kill lots of birds and other stuff. Are we going to start killing off cats just like we do with everything in agriculture? Anyone who knows about the soil food web knows that ever form of life is there to keep balance for another form a life. Get rid of one part, and you screw the whole thing up.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (28) Jan 29, 2013
so it really comes down to us, and whether we like cats more than kiwis. Does the fact that a kiwi is one of a few give it more right to live?
More right to be protected from extinction. Cats are vermin and an invasive species.
so how far should we be willing to go to save them?
Eradicate the invasive species.
More cats => less bird flu
But more T gondii.
Kitten thinks of nothing but murder all day.

http://www.youtub...AJwlj8gw
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (48) Jan 29, 2013
"Kitten thinks of nothing but murder all day." - Claudius

Just like your average Gun Grubbing, Tea-Bagger - Vendicar#.


Yep true, but only within the confines of our own homes.

The far left, like Vendicar, are against guns because they desire to save criminal home invaders lives, from the defense of law abiding citizens. Such is the state of the liberal mind.

Don't ask them about the ridiculously high gun-death rate in the very tough-gun-law state of Chicago, though, they would rather consider it expected behavior and lower the bar of acceptability, than have to analyze statistics that may be interpreted as racist,... such is the hypocritical and convoluted mentality of the far left.

P.S. Next on the agenda of the tree-hugger left,... instead of "carbon footprint",.. they will generalize to the idea of a "nature-footprint". Does your existence cause a nature-footprint? If so you are a plague upon the earth.
dschlink
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2013
But how much did the predators we've displaced, such as foxes, eat? We know that birds and rodents were preyed on before cats reached North America. And, in Europe, wild cats are a native species, so at least some of the predation should have happened even before domestication.


Except domesticated cats mostly just kill and don't eat their prey. They aren't hungry, they are just evolved to kill, so they do. They wipe out the animals that foxes and other small carnivores depended on.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (47) Jan 29, 2013
Don't humans murder cows and fish all the time. Cows have feelings too!!

But wait, by raising cattle (etc) in quantities beyond what would have been the case without us, we create cow manure which feeds worms and beetles which in turn feed birds,...

What we really need is a cycle-of-life accountant and lawyer to defend us against the environmentalists!
full_disclosure
2.6 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2013
The 'Coward Herr Vendicar' has childishly changed his personal login profile, slightly to avoid people following his name back through past comments..... Anyone interested in his cowardly death threats towards posters in the past comments section, follow them through the link below. http://phys.org/p...ndicarD/

Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (47) Jan 29, 2013
You link is broke, full_disclosure.

Anyone can google search the following screen names, going back to Netscape days to see what a degenerate antique troll and far leftist Vendicar is,..

"Vendicar_Decarian"
"VendicarD"
"Scott Douglas"
"Scott Nudds"
"VD Scotty"
"VD Nudds";
CrowdedCranium
4 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2013
Ailurophobic church officers in the 1300's tried to eradicate cats and came to a bad end.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (34) Jan 29, 2013
Except domesticated cats mostly just kill and don't eat their prey. They aren't hungry, they are just evolved to kill, so they do. They wipe out the animals that foxes and other small carnivores depended on.
I guess you didnt read the part where most of this is done by feral and stray cats who are doing it to survive? They are filling a niche, overlapping with many natural predators including the coyote.
Jonseer
2.1 / 5 (19) Jan 29, 2013
Yea, but how many worms have birds murdered.


What's hilarious about your idiotic comments is how in total the reveal your profound ignorance on the subject.

That being the case to argue against your position would be a waste of time, because you are so ignorant you wouldn't know what a fact was or wasn't, and instead rely on your own innate sense of "that sounds right" "that sounds wrong" to guide you without bothering to research to see if what you feel is right or wrong.

You actually think you know something more about information by classifying it as "left or right wing" (as in liberal environmentalists).

Just pathetic.
full_disclosure
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2013
Thanks Noumenom here it is.....just check out the 'Green Murder Porn' this guy wanks to....http://phys.org/p...ndicarD/
Wolf358
3.3 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2013
Our four healthy adult cats drag home _maybe_ one "squeak" a month; mostly moles or fieldmice, an occasional chipmunk, the rare squirrel, and the _very_ rare bird. The squirrels, at least, look no less healthy or numerous in the decade we've been here. I believe they (the cats) weed-out the slow and sickly.
RitchieGuy55
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2013
Yea, but how many worms have birds murdered.


What's hilarious about your idiotic comments is how in total the reveal your profound ignorance on the subject.

That being the case to argue against your position would be a waste of time, because you are so ignorant you wouldn't know what a fact was or wasn't, and instead rely on your own innate sense of "that sounds right" "that sounds wrong" to guide you without bothering to research to see if what you feel is right or wrong.

You actually think you know something more about information by classifying it as "left or right wing" (as in liberal environmentalists).

Just pathetic.
Jonseer

How strange. How do you know all that just from reading about worms being murdered by birds, Jonseer?
RitchieGuy55
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2013
Except domesticated cats mostly just kill and don't eat their prey. They aren't hungry, they are just evolved to kill, so they do. They wipe out the animals that foxes and other small carnivores depended on.
I guess you didnt read the part where most of this is done by feral and stray cats who are doing it to survive? They are filling a niche, overlapping with many natural predators including the coyote.
TheGhostofOtto1923

Otto darling. . . . .yoo hoo. . . . .I'm back Sweetheart. . . . .feral cats and stray cats are the same as house cats, my love, exceptin that house cats mostly stay indoors and are well fed. But if they run off, they be hungry too and eat all dem birds what dey can gets. They all gots dem sharp claws and teeth, so don't be actin like all knowing cuz U only pretending to be knowing about dem cats. Now when U gonna call me on your homophone, Otto?
Nite
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2013
Birds' droppings easily spread decreases:
Erysipeloid
Salmonellosis
Pasteurellosis
Avian tuberculosis
Streptococcosis
Yersinosis
Vibriosis
Listeriosis
Meningitis
Encephalitis (7 forms)
Mycotic
Aspergillosis
Candidiasis
Histoplasmosis
Coccidiosis
American trypanosomiasis
Toxoplasmosis
Chlamydiosis
Q fever
How about they don't have anything that harms them, think maybe we'd have a problem.
NickFun
3 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2013
Cats have done this since the beginning of time. Why are things different now?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (43) Jan 29, 2013
Yea, but how many worms have birds murdered.


What's hilarious about your idiotic comments is how in total the reveal your profound ignorance on the subject.

That being the case to argue against your position would be a waste of time, because you are so ignorant you wouldn't know what a fact was or wasn't, and instead rely on your own innate sense of "that sounds right" "that sounds wrong" to guide you without bothering to research to see if what you feel is right or wrong.

You actually think you know something more about information by classifying it as "left or right wing" (as in liberal environmentalists).

Just pathetic.


Your post here contains no actual content. If you knew anything about politics, I think you would have understand better what I was referring too.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (43) Jan 29, 2013
Yea, but how many worms have birds murdered.
your idiotic comments [..] reveal your profound ignorance on the subject. [...] you are so ignorant you wouldn't know what a fact was or wasn't, [...] without bothering to research to see if what you feel is right or wrong.


But I never took issue with any facts presented in the above study,.. so what are you referring too exactly?

My point was that, if the anthropogenic effect of stray cats killing birds, rises to such a level of importance to require fixing and thus government involvement as the study calls for, then the countless other anthropogenic effects to nature would likewise require government involvement. Just logic so far. Taking this to its natural conclusion, one can see that government would have to regulate all aspects of human affairs. This implies a far left government, and loss of liber
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 29, 2013
liberty.
VendicarE
2.2 / 5 (20) Jan 29, 2013
NumenTard preaches Fascism while paying lip service to Liberty.
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (19) Jan 29, 2013
Cats have done this since the beginning of time. Why are things different now?
-NickFun

Eagles and hawks have been known to carry off small cats. However, cats don't poop onto peoples' heads from above the way birds do. Seagulls and pigeons, for instance, tend to defecate on people, statues, windshields and are considered vermin and disease carriers. But things are different now because these "researchers" must have a "cause", in spite of the fact that cats keep the rat and mice population down and make valuable and lovable pets. Many old people who live alone and keep cats as pets are far less lonely than those without cats. Cats are mostly silent, so neighbors aren't too annoyed by them.
There are way more advantages to owning cats...and even stray cats are excellent mousers. I think that there is much ado about nothing in the article.
Caliban
2.8 / 5 (20) Jan 29, 2013
Cats have done this since the beginning of time. Why are things different now?


Things are different now because Domestic cats are just that -"Domesticated" into a new subspecies via the efforts of humans. we created these animals, where they didn't exist before, and -again through human agency-- have introduced them all over the world to places where they simply weren't part of the ecology, as in the example of N Zealand.

Additionally, they exist in far larger numbers than they would without the support -direct or indirect-- of human activities.

Our disregard for our creation --specifically feral and stray cats-- places an outsized burden upon the prey species they hunt, that simply didn't exist prior to our injection of cats into the natural environment, everywhere.


Caliban
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2013


My point was that, if the anthropogenic effect of stray cats killing birds, rises to such a level [...] Just logic so far. [[[Taking this to its natural conclusion, one can see that government would have to regulate all aspects of human affairs. This implies a far left government, and loss of liber]]]


It does nothing of the sort. It implies only a larger, more invasive government, more probably of the totalitarian type, which are typically --contrary to your "implication"-- of the RightWing type.

nonounme's ideological bias is so deeply stained that it can no longer even post a comment without revealing its inflexible ideological bias.

Now, shut your suckhole, maroon.

obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (25) Jan 29, 2013
NumenTard preaches Fascism while paying lip service to Liberty.
-Vendicardietardietardtard...E

Can you back up your statement with valid evidence? Or are you just blowing out your ass again...tardietardtard?

I have never met a Liberal/Socialist/Tardietard who wasn't a congenital liar and a dirty fleabag. VD fits all the requirements.

Fascism is based on authoritarianism...aka a dictatorship. Barack Obama's policies are a prime example of what a subsequent attempt will be in the future at promoting Fascistic principles. Those principles will be utilized in the future for the purpose of fundamentally changing Constitutional Law and the Bill of Rights to make (by force), a more perfect union of Socialist states.

Your labeling Noumenon as a fascist is incredibly stupid and unwarranted...but is not surprising given your past career as head clown of clown city.
FrankHerbert2
2.3 / 5 (22) Jan 29, 2013
In the US fascism will come draped in the flag, carrying a bible.
Roland
3.6 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2013
Here in rural Oregon, lots of pet owners dump their no-longer-wanted animals. The coyotes and foxes get most of the feral cats, and the mountain lions take care of the dumped dogs. It all balances out. Birds and rodents NEED predation of all kinds because they are prolific breeders. Most bird nests are beyond reach of most cats. And domestic animals don't last long in the wild anyway.
Shakescene21
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2013
Coyotes have recently moved into my exurban area, and there has been an increase in "Missing Cat" signs.

Where is Tabby? Ask Wile E. Coyote.
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (21) Jan 29, 2013


My point was that, if the anthropogenic effect of stray cats killing birds, rises to such a level [...] Just logic so far. [[[Taking this to its natural conclusion, one can see that government would have to regulate all aspects of human affairs. This implies a far left government, and loss of liber]]]


It does nothing of the sort. It implies only a larger, more invasive government, more probably of the totalitarian type, which are typically --contrary to your "implication"-- of the RightWing type.

nonounme's ideological bias is so deeply stained that it can no longer even post a comment without revealing its inflexible ideological bias.

Now, shut your suckhole, maroon.

-Taliban

Why Taliba...er, I mean Caliban, somehow I'm not surprised at your incorrigible disrespect of your betters. Be that as it may, your slurring slander of the so-called "RightWing type", of which you appear to know nothing about, and yet obsess over, leaves the impression (contd)
MandoZink
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2013
Cats have done this since the beginning of time. Why are things different now?

Because we we shamelessly mollycoddle the viscous little bastards and we don't seem to...

Hang on a sec. Another one wants on my lap. Gotta go.

My bad.
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (22) Jan 29, 2013
(contd)
leaves the impression of a college sophomore sticking his little toe into the vast ocean of the "LeftWing type", and declaring it the perfect temperature and acidity, as opposed to the "RightWing type" that is less perfect due to lack of the authoritarianism that is desired by all who cling to the "LeftWing type" of dictatorship. The abomination of the Obama nation will give you a clue as to what the "LeftWing type" really amounts to. The college sophomore in you concerns himself not with liberty, freedom, and all that good stuff.
Nay, you must learn the hard way, and learn it you will.
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (23) Jan 29, 2013
as opposed to the "RightWing type" that is less perfect due to lack of the authoritarianism
What Earth do you live on, tardboy?
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2013
The same is true for Christian Americans.

"Birds and rodents NEED predation of all kinds because they are prolific breeders" - Roland

When does the party start?
VendicarE
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2013
Sox hasn't liked college sophmore's since he flunked out of highschool and realized that he would have to contend himself with marrying a fat, dumb chick who's greatest aspiration was to work as an slave to China through employment at Walmart.

"The college sophomore in you concerns himself not with liberty, freedom, and all that good stuff." - Sox
VendicarE
2 / 5 (16) Jan 30, 2013
Yes, and have done on innumerable occasions.

"Can you back up your statement with valid evidence?" - Sox

You fake not having noticed because you also pay homage to Fascism.

"Fascism is based on authoritarianism...aka a dictatorship." - Sox

Fascism is more properly known as Corporatism my dear Corporatist.

"Barack Obama's policies" - Sox

You mean Universal health care?

Bahahahahhaahahahahaha.....

obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (20) Jan 30, 2013
If you don't agree with me, I will understand. But cats do have an innate quality of good as opposed to evil. They seem to have a certain amount of passion that enables them to understand when their people need that je ne sais qua (sp?) such as a little or a lot of rubbing of your face, neck, ears, hands...and when to leave you alone while going off to surreptitiously watch you in case they are needed at a moment's notice. Cats reward their people with keeping the house free of rats and mice. A nice, fat, juicy mouse caught and well aged before making it a meal and a sip of water is fine with most felines. The odd thing is that, if anyone else has noticed...cats see what we cannot see...not matter how hard you stare at whatever direction they are looking intently. We just can't see what they see. Very intriguing and a little unnerving.
Some cultures believe that cats keep the demons away and protect their owners.
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (21) Jan 30, 2013
LMAO now you believe in demons? What a tard.
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (21) Jan 30, 2013
Yes, and have done on innumerable occasions.

"Can you back up your statement with valid evidence?" - Sox

You fake not having noticed because you also pay homage to Fascism.

"Fascism is based on authoritarianism...aka a dictatorship." - Sox

Fascism is more properly known as Corporatism my dear Corporatist.

"Barack Obama's policies" - Sox

You mean Universal health care?

Bahahahahhaahahahahaha.....

-Venditardietard...E

That corporatism that you love so much (lol) is what provides jobs for millions of people. Universal health care is a euphemism for extremely high taxes for workers who will become so poor from paying for that Universal health care that they will have less money left over to buy the necessaries, you know...like food and gasoline...the stuff you take for granted up there in Canada, VD.
But, never fear...when the American "LeftWing types" take a gander at what they'll be paying, there will be an awful lot of bitching to impeach their Savior, Obama.
Hallelujah
SiteReader
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2013
Okay, just slit my cat's throat. What would be the environmentally sound way to dispose of the body?
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (19) Jan 30, 2013
Cats need free Universal health care...why not, VD, cats are people too, right? :)
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (18) Jan 30, 2013
LMAO now you believe in demons? What a tard.
-FrankHerbert the sock puppet of Theghostofotto1923 with nothing cogent to say, as usual

Let me repeat my original comment, which FrankHerbert misquotes as usual:

"Some cultures believe that cats keep the demons away and protect their owners."

Now, FrankHerbert, second clown to VD's first clownship in clown city...exactly what part of the word "SOME" do you not comprehend?? eh?
FrankHerbert2
2.2 / 5 (20) Jan 30, 2013
You're the only clown here.
Some, maybe, possibly...
I've got a word for you. Coward.

Also, retard.
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2013
You're the only clown here.
Some, maybe, possibly...
I've got a word for you. Coward.

Also, retard.
-FrankHerbert, second clown to VDtard's first clownship in clown city.

Well, so you DO know the definition of "Some"...and yet you accused me of believing in demons. You little freaking moron. Oh darn, I did it again...I called you a little freaking moron when I really meant to call you a little FUCKING MORON.

Sorry about that little mistake

Oh, BTW...when are you going to show us the link to where it says, or where you claim that I said something about believing in 900 foot invisible martians...or was it invisible marshmallows?

Show me...show us your evidence...the link, please.
Caliban
1.8 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2013
Okay, just slit my cat's throat. What would be the environmentally sound way to dispose of the body?


Toss it out for the coyotes.

They always appreciate a fresh snack --especially one that doesn't bite and claw when they try to eat it!
Caliban
1.7 / 5 (16) Jan 30, 2013
(contd)
leaves the impression of a college sophomore sticking his little toe into the vast ocean of the "LeftWing type", and declaring it the perfect temperature and acidity, as opposed to the "RightWing type" that is less perfect due to lack of the authoritarianism that is desired by all who cling to the "LeftWing type" of dictatorship. The abomination of the Obama nation will give you a clue as to what the "LeftWing type" really amounts to. The college sophomore in you concerns himself not with liberty, freedom, and all that good stuff.
Nay, you must learn the hard way, and learn it you will.


The stupidiosity of your stupidiosness leaves no doubt as to your
idiotry.

We can all see that you consider yourself to be a bit of a raconteur, which only serves to underscore the delusional condition in which you exist, ob.wan.suckhole.

Now piss off, maroon.

Czcibor
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 30, 2013
I'm impressed how a paper on cats killing mice and birds become a politicall issue.

To be honest I thought that it was exactly the point of having cats in cities - to keep population of rodents under control and at best also have a few pigeons eliminated by occasion.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (41) Jan 30, 2013
[[[Taking this to its natural conclusion, one can see that government would have to regulate all aspects of human affairs. This implies a far left government, and loss of liberty]]]
It does nothing of the sort. It implies only a larger, more invasive government -


That's exactly what I said in that quote. What do you think "loss of liberty means", you imbecile? Answer: government invasiveness. It's clear that you agree with me wrt the end result of trying to "fix" the multitude of anthropogenic effects,... bigger government and loss of liberty.

of the totalitarian-- of the RightWing type.


You're utterly ignorant of politics. Libertarianism and conservatism proper, expose a SMALLER and less evasive government while OBVIOUSLY, liberal and socialist mentality expose LARGER more invasive government. Not a debate.

Not all republicans follow libertarianism and proper conservatism, and not all democrats are far left. You're just ignorant of political philosophy.
alfie_null
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2013
I'm impressed how a paper on cats killing mice and birds become a politicall issue.

Agreed.
Not safe to discuss religion, politics, or cats.

Missing from the stats on bird death is how many birds die overall (I'd not be surprised if it was much larger than bird death by cat predation). Or how many species are threatened by domestic cat predation (likewise not surprised if it is a small number, close to zero).
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (43) Jan 30, 2013
EDIT: "Libertarianism and conservatism proper, expose a SMALLER and less [invasive] government"

In case your ignorance is based on you not being an American,..."Liberalism" is supposed to mean 'for liberty' which means less government intrusiveness in personal affairs, and it means this in some countries still I suspect. But in the USA the far left, supporters of big government adopted this term under false pretenses and the conservatives rather than correcting its misuse, politicized it into a negative.

In any case, in the USA it should be unambiguous and clear to anyone who is even moderately literate in politics that liberalism implies an larger and more intrusive government which means loss of liberty.

Next time try chewing the far left propaganda you are feed before swallowing, and you may have a chance to spit it out before embarrassing yourself (caliban).
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (43) Jan 30, 2013
I'm all for rational measures to prevent damage to the environment, but extreme environmentalism presupposes a far left government because anthropogenic effects upon the environment can only be reduced significantly via social engineering and gov control over human behavior, as well as redistribution of wealth. Wrt AGW the UN admits this. It is not under debate. Environmentalism is being USED as a foot-in-the-door for socialism or at minimum far left politics.

Conservatives and especially libertarians are AGAINST such government growth and intrusion and misuse of environmentalism. Conservatives and libertarians as defined in the USA support liberty and the constitution, while for example liberals want ban guns (totalitarianism) to fix another statistical social ill.

Education for Caliban provided free of charge.
NikFromNYC
3 / 5 (16) Jan 30, 2013
Good. Now the next time someone cries about windmills killing birds they should get a sense of proportion.

How many endangered hawks do cats kill?
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 30, 2013
Good. Now the next time someone cries about windmills killing birds they should get a sense of proportion.

Here's a listing of estimated bird deaths by cause:
http://science.ho...irds.htm


Yes, but a good environmentalist would dismiss that argument totally out of hand. The windmill deaths are "unnatural" and man made therefore by definition bad. Since cats are animals they get an unlimited pass, proportion be damned...

When making a point in an argument it is possible to have your "cake" and eat it, but you'll certainly be a hypocrite then.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (29) Jan 30, 2013
such as a little or a lot of rubbing of your face, neck, ears, hands...and when to leave you alone while going off to surreptitiously watch you in case they are needed at a moment's notice
Just remember pussytard/Ritchieguy, cats clean their rectums by licking them. Maybe this is why you use the name?
Okay, just slit my cat's throat. What would be the environmentally sound way to dispose of the body?
Save more birds. Feed it to another cat.
hagger
1.6 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2013
and pesticides,vehicles,weather,hunting,natural predators,pollution, dont kill many..this is an un provable statistic..set to get one set of animals lovers against the rest who believe this moronic crap..same as all snow flakes are different..un provable mind numbing pointless crap..the single greatest threat to all life on this planet is us..we have decimated all the species thro hunting or eating or fun..we have rendered many thousands extinct..how proud we must be..we do it for fun..cats do it to live..or because they are cat's..nature..and those that attach human feelings to an animal and say it hunts for pleasure..morons..animals do not have human feelings..the hint is in the word ' animal '..just pointless stats giving the least cerebral of us the excuse to kill cats..or what ever other animal is the ' bad guy ' at the time..nothing but contempt for it..
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2013
The windmill deaths are "unnatural" and man made therefore by definition bad.

Breeding/keeping cats isn't?

To the bird it doesn't matter: dead is dead. And from the sheer numbers cats are orders of magnitude more to worry about to birds than windmills.

And no: I'm not saying that we should do anything against cats. Bird populations obviously can cope with that type of attrition.
And if they can do THAT they certainly can cope with the comparably pitiful attrition due to windmills.
freethinking
2.9 / 5 (25) Jan 30, 2013
Progressives and Environmentalists will have us all living alone in a 8 by 8 cell (I mean room) lite by a single LED, eating tasty green goo, living to the ripe old age of 60, unless we develop some illness, in which case we would be transformed into green goo a bit earlier than planned.

Meanwhile the Elite Progressive Environmentalists such as Al Gore, Obama, etc, will be living in mansions, eating endangered animals, flying in private jets, etc. etc.

However the most amusing thing about this is, most of the crazy progressive environmentalists I know own CATS and I have a strong dislike for CATS! So I say, annoy a Progressive get rid of all cats! (If you are a conservative and you own a cat, smarten up!)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (27) Jan 30, 2013
And no: I'm not saying that we should do anything against cats. Bird populations obviously can cope with that type of attrition.
Obvious to whom google-shy? Songbird pops have shrunk drastically and cats are at least partially to blame:
http://www.stanfo...rds.html
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2013
Almost all animal populations have shrunk - and many of them aren't being eaten by cats. We're destroying their living spaces by turning them into farmlands and cities (and your article makes explicit mention of that).

The only spcies that have not declined are those that are right at home in cities (pidgeons, rats, and - yes - cats). If cats were the real cause of population drop then pidgeons wouldn't be doing as well as they are.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2013
Breeding/keeping cats isn't?


Touche', again I forget that no matter what men do we're wrong...
ECOnservative
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2013
So, I'm supposed to feel bad for the food they eat? Sorry, PETA folks wear leather shoes and drive cars with leather seats so their 'sensitivity' on this issue is suspect. I'm glad the mice/rats the cats eat are gone.
Czcibor
1 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2013
I'm impressed how a paper on cats killing mice and birds become a politicall issue.

Agreed.
Not safe to discuss religion, politics, or cats.

Missing from the stats on bird death is how many birds die overall (I'd not be surprised if it was much larger than bird death by cat predation). Or how many species are threatened by domestic cat predation (likewise not surprised if it is a small number, close to zero).

I knew that bears (like Bruno the Bear) are a political issue, but cats? There is much that I have to learn.

http://www.spiege...532.html

To be honest I would not expect too many protected species in cities. Rather a case where cats hunt for other animals that were given unfair advantage by humans.

It seems that someone gave us negative grades. Maybe our discussion about cats is derailing an importan poitical debate?
PJS
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2013
@Noumenon

Every single thing that happens in the universe is "natural", including humans trying to preserve the biodiversity of the planet. Personally I would prefer a world with more species of animals than just humans, cats, and cows. Your argument against human intervention is also the argument in favor of it...
couscous
3 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2013
Bad kitty !
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (18) Jan 30, 2013
(contd)
leaves the impression of a college sophomore..."RightWing type" that is less perfect due to lack of the authoritarianism that is desired by all who cling to the "LeftWing type" of dictatorship. The abomination of the Obama nation will give you a clue as to what the "LeftWing type" really amounts to. The college sophomore in you concerns himself not with liberty, freedom, and all that good stuff.
Nay, you must learn the hard way, and learn it you will.


The stupidiosity of your stupidiosness leaves no doubt as to your
idiotry.

We can all see that you consider yourself to be a bit of a raconteur, which only serves to underscore the delusional condition in which you exist, ob.wan.suckhole.

Now piss off, maroon.

-Taliban of Caliban

What is a "suckhole? Any relation to Theghostofotto1923's sucksuck? You make no sense, as usual, but thanks anyway for the compliment: Raconteur = person who tells anecdotes in a skillful and amusing way. That is acceptable.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (39) Jan 30, 2013
Every single thing that happens in the universe is "natural", including humans trying to preserve the biodiversity of the planet. [...] Your argument against human intervention is also the argument in favor of it.


I don't think the more extreme environmentalists would agree with you. In their minds, not only is it natural for man to pollute and damage the environment, but humans are a virus upon the earth which needs to be saved, via government imposed social engineering and regulation.

I'm not against doing rational things to protect the environment, as I mentioned above.

I'm merely pointing out that there are endless effects caused by man that would require fixing also, if the lower standard for such action is 'domesticated cats eating too many birds'.

The "liberal social progressive" will seek to control and regulate every aspect of your life. There is no end to scientifically based statistical effects, social or environmental, for them to "justify" it either.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2013
such as a little or a lot of rubbing of your face, neck, ears, hands...and when to leave you alone while going off to surreptitiously watch you in case they are needed at a moment's notice
Just remember pussytard/Ritchieguy, cats clean their rectums by licking them. Maybe this is why you use the name?
Okay, just slit my cat's throat. What would be the environmentally sound way to dispose of the body?
Save more birds. Feed it to another cat.
-Theghostofotto1923 aka FrankHerbert et al

I see that Blotto is very famiiiar with licking rectums. I wonder if Blotto licked the rectum of his boyfriend RitchieGuy01. It's easy to see from reading the Ritchie posts that he is crazy for Blotto but Blotto avoids admitting that he's into gay sex.

OH, BTW Blotto...is it true that when you were a kid, every time you went into the sandbox, all the cats in the neighborhood would come around to cover you with sand??
Hmmm...could be they knew a piece of shit when they saw you.
FrankHerbert2
2.3 / 5 (19) Jan 30, 2013
@Noumenon

Every single thing that happens in the universe is "natural", including humans trying to preserve the biodiversity of the planet. Personally I would prefer a world with more species of animals than just humans, cats, and cows. Your argument against human intervention is also the argument in favor of it...


Exactly correct. I will never understand why people, for non religious reasons, feel the need to remove human activity from nature. If something is not natural, it is super natural, and the supernatural does not exist.

The "liberal social progressive" will seek to control and regulate every aspect of your life.
Just the aspects that harm others. Conservatives on the other hand... well let's just party like it's 999.

PS: You're a moron Obama_socks.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (40) Jan 30, 2013
I will never understand why people, for non religious reasons, feel the need to remove human activity from nature.


But that's what the far left environmentalist think. They regard humans as a virus upon the earth. Their favorite word is "anthropogenic" specifically engineered to define the baseline earth without humans, so one can "subtract the difference" and label it a problem.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2013
<<<<< The Raconteur (according to Caliban)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (29) Jan 30, 2013
Almost all animal populations have shrunk - and many of them aren't being eaten by cats.
EXCEPT, according to the article I posted which you did not read, cats are being blamed in part for this decline.

Why this crass disregard for scientific research in favor of your own uninformed opinions AA? Youve been doing this a lot lately.
If cats were the real cause of population drop then pidgeons wouldn't be doing as well as they are.
Again more rogue postulation with absolutely no regard for SCIENCE whatsoever.

"unlike dippy little English sparrows or robins, pigeons hide their nests...back when they emerged in Asia (evidently, they were nature-living animals, once), pigeons were cliff-dwellers.
By the time they leave the nest, they'll be about the same size as the adults."
http://www.discov...yon.html

-Pigeons and chickens and full-grown rabbits are usually too large and feisty for cats.
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (18) Jan 30, 2013
I will never understand why people, for non religious reasons, feel the need to remove human activity from nature.


But that's what the far left environmentalist think. They regard humans as a virus upon the earth. Their favorite word is "anthropogenic" specifically engineered to define the baseline earth without humans, so one can "subtract the difference" and label it a problem.


It must be comforting to live in a black and white world of absolutes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (28) Jan 30, 2013
Seagulls and pigeons, for instance, tend to defecate on people, statues, windshields and are considered vermin and disease carriers.
-But so are cats pussytard, in part because they clean their rectums with their tongues. And they eat roadkill. And you seem to have no problems with these animals then engaging in 'a little or a lot of rubbing of your face, neck, ears, hands'. Seems a little unsanitary. But maybe you dont consider catshit 'dirt'? I hear roadkill is a staple in the ozarks.
islatas
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2013
Physorg, please moderate this site and rid the article comment sections of the endless ramblings by: Obama_Socks, VendicarE, Noumenon, FrankHerbert2, TheGhostofOtto1923, etc. It has become exceedingly annoying and increasingly impossible to have meaningful discussions on this site. You are judged by the company you keep.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (41) Jan 30, 2013
The "liberal social progressive" will seek to control and regulate every aspect of your life.
Just the aspects that harm others.


Which includes nearly everything since energy use effects everyone, and poor diet increases health care costs for everyone. Mayor Bloomberg is a social progressive, and banned large sodas for just that reason. Tip of the iceberg.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2013
Seagulls and pigeons, for instance, tend to defecate on people, statues, windshields and are considered vermin and disease carriers.
-But so are cats pussytard, in part because they clean their rectums with their tongues. And they eat roadkill. And you seem to have no problems with these animals then engaging in 'a little or a lot of rubbing of your face, neck, ears, hands'. Seems a little unsanitary. But maybe you dont consider catshit 'dirt'? I hear roadkill is a staple in the ozarks.
-Theghostofotto1923

Oh, so you live in the Ozarks, Blotto? How enlightening. I live and work in California.
Cats are only as sanitary as they need to be. The saliva of dogs and cats are only slightly antibacterial, but it seems to be adequate for their daily cleaning. It is not recommended for a dog or cat to lick a wound on a human, because the animal could transmit more bacteria into the wound than the saliva's antibacterial properties could eliminate. It's best to wash hands, etc.
FrankHerbert2
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2013
Re: advice on washing hands

Well, I think that's the first non-retarded thing pirouette/Obama_socks has ever said!
EverythingsJustATheory
3 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2013
Libertarianism (just like Communism) can work in an ideal world where humans do not exploit one another. The problem is that it isn't the case. A balance must be there to keep things in check. Human nature to put one's self above all others is too great to go unchecked.

Without government intervention of some sort, there will be massive trusts, price fixing, etc. Corporations will exploit their workers and the environment. Without govt intervention, we would all be working 7 days a week without any paid sick leave, no benefits, and pay below minimum wage.

When a corporation pollutes the environment, it becomes the government's job to clean it up. The profits are privatized, the losses are socialized. Corporations need to pay for the impact they are having on all of us, i.e., the environment.

Just like all systems in nature, there needs to be a balance between the two.

The logical extentsion of libertarianism is anarchy, or complete freedom from authority.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (27) Jan 30, 2013
because the animal could transmit more bacteria into the wound than the saliva's antibacterial properties could eliminate.
So... the saliva only works in the wound and not in the mouth? Or the bacteria only begins to function when it hits the wound? And why would anyone want a cat to lick their wound pussytard?

Cat mouths are full of anal and carrion bacteria and you seem to think it is a bad idea for them to lick wounds but its ok for 'a little or a lot of rubbing of your face, neck, ears, hands' which as anyone knows, have similar entry points for disease.

See this is why we could tell that your phony pussytard was no nurse. You are uniformly full of shit.
EverythingsJustATheory
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2013
I agree that there are certainly times that environmentalists go too far. My father worked for the EPA, and he was invovled with determining pollution control levels in the 70s.

Interestingly enough, both sides of the issue would accuse their analysis as being paid off. The environmentalists would want so many restrictions that the industry was no longer viable. The corporations wanted so little that they were causing damage to people, or infringing on THEIR FREEDOM to life a healthy life (outside their own choices of course).

The solution was somewhere in the middle, as most solutions are. Regulations that still allowed corporations to grow and expand, but also provided some protections to the average joe.

How did this government intervention restrict freedom? In my opinion, it increased it because the loss for the corporation was a gain for everyday people.

Extremes are the signpost of irrationality.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2013
Re: advice on washing hands

Well, I think that's the first non-retarded thing pirouette/Obama_socks has ever said!
-FrankHerbert/Blotto

Your continued use of the name Pirouette and others as regards to me simply proves that your brain is warped, Blotto. Your DID mental affliction has a side effect of slight or severe memory loss, which may be the reason why you are unable to see my name (Obama_socks) on the left side of each of my posts and to commit it to memory for the duration of the thread.

Perhaps you need a stronger prescription for your DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER, in order to remind you of names, places, dates and other repetitive data, which you appear to ignore consistently, but may only be the result of your incomprehension brought on by too low a dose.

You remind me a little of Obama whose consistent lying to Liberal-Americans is and was designed to encourage the fools to donate to his campaign fund(s).

Go Cats!!
FrankHerbert2
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2013
It all makes sense now. Obama_socks is a cat hoarder. Toxoplasmosis has infected his/her/its nervous system, and now it is aroused by the smell of cat piss.

I think I may have solved Obama_socks' identity: http://www.youtub...dffoXTIo
EverythingsJustATheory
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2013


You remind me a little of Obama whose consistent lying to Liberal-Americans is and was designed to encourage the fools to donate to his campaign fund(s).



Obama is not that liberal. In fact, in a study performed, his voting record was the most conservative democratic president since Woodrow Wilson.

Cap and Trade was a Republican idea 20 years ago.

Individual Mandate (Obamacare) was the Republican response to Clinton's HC proposal 20 years ago.

The thing is, the right wing has shifted so far right now that ideas that used to be conservative are seen as liberal now by conservatives. That doesn't mean they actually are.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2013
because the animal could transmit more bacteria into the wound than the saliva's antibacterial properties could eliminate.
So... the saliva only works in the wound and not in the mouth? Or the bacteria only begins to function when it hits the wound? And why would anyone want a cat to lick their wound pussytard?

Cat mouths are full of anal and carrion bacteria and you seem to think it is a bad idea for them to lick wounds but its ok for 'a little or a lot of rubbing of your face, neck, ears, hands' which as anyone knows, have similar entry points for disease.

See this is why we could tell that your phony pussytard was no nurse. You are uniformly full of shit.
-Thegoatofotto1923/FH

Go look it up, Blotto...do some research...inform yourself. You're right, I am no nurse and I have never been a nurse or said I was, or anything else your warped DID afflicted mind can think of.

You continue your lies and accusation and demand that others do research, but now you fail.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (28) Jan 30, 2013
It all makes sense now. Obama_socks is a cat hoarder. Toxoplasmosis has infected his/her/its nervous system, and now it is aroused by the smell of cat piss.

I think I may have solved Obama_socks' identity: http://www.youtub...dffoXTIo
Waaahaahaaa I see the resemblance. The ravages of T gondii. Perhaps she is planning on having a cookout-

You know pussytard, people DO move from the ozarks to california
http://www.youtub...axUF0k18

-You can take the billie out of the hills but...
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2013


You remind me a little of Obama whose consistent lying to Liberal-Americans is and was designed to encourage the fools to donate to his campaign fund(s).



Obama is not that liberal. In fact, in a study performed, his voting record was the most conservative democratic president since Woodrow Wilson.

Cap and Trade was a Republican idea 20 years ago.

Individual Mandate (Obamacare) was the Republican response to Clinton's HC proposal 20 years ago.

The thing is, the right wing has shifted so far right now that ideas that used to be conservative are seen as liberal now by conservatives. That doesn't mean they actually are.
-Everythings

Twenty years ago was a different set of circumstances. Obama is a Socialist who studied Constitutional Law for the purpose of gradually changing those Laws, even by Executive Orders, if he can.
Congress is in disorder and they don't understand that the Laws should not be changed for the sake of a man whose agenda is to Socialize
FrankHerbert2
2.3 / 5 (16) Jan 30, 2013
More dogwhistle racism. "Socialist" is the new n***er.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (29) Jan 30, 2013
Go look it up, Blotto...do some research...inform yourself. You're right, I am no nurse and I have never been a nurse or said I was, or anything else your warped DID afflicted mind can think of.
Right... youre an engineer now. An engineer who thinks that aliens would be able to modulate the magnetosphere of a planet just to say hi. An engineer who cant cipher that zero births for 100 years would result in a little less than zero growth. A NASA engineer who doesnt fathom WHY when a satellite such as the Webb is into construction, it is way too late to add equipment to it.

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2013
Actually, there are few dedicated Congressmen who are motivated enough to insist on the preservation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, AS IS.
Most of them are fearful of losing their jobs in DC that some of them will go over to the other side just to protect their jobs. Socialism is bad for America. Most people with even half a brain understand this concept. Socialism might be OK with Europeans...but the U.S. is not Europe.
FrankHerbert2
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2013
Actually, there are few dedicated Congressmen who are motivated enough to insist on the preservation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, AS IS.
You don't understand the first thing about the Constitution. You've likely never read it, and assuming you had, you are not qualified to interpret it. For one, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, not separate from it.

Socialism might be OK with Europeans...but the U.S. is not Europe.
Care to back this up? American exceptionalism is utter bullshit. Good luck.
obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2013
@Everythings

Obama's intention is to destroy the rule of Law...using the procedures in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"
Obama doesn't care if the economy collapses totally. From the ashes, he intends to form a Socialist nation. He believes that's where it's at.
EverythingsJustATheory
4 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2013
Actually, there are few dedicated Congressmen who are motivated enough to insist on the preservation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, AS IS.
Most of them are fearful of losing their jobs in DC that some of them will go over to the other side just to protect their jobs. Socialism is bad for America. Most people with even half a brain understand this concept. Socialism might be OK with Europeans...but the U.S. is not Europe.


I really don't understand how Obama is a socialist. I live in DC and pay attention to politics. I just don't see it.

Obamacare was a huge handout to the HC corporations
Stock market has doubled since he came into office
Tax rates were higher under all presidents from FDR until Reagan, and the top rate was around 90% under Eisenhower (R)

What has he done that is so Socialist? He's a moderate liberal, nothing more or less.
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2013
@Everythings

Obama's intention is to destroy the rule of Law...using the procedures in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"
Obama doesn't care if the economy collapses totally. From the ashes, he intends to form a Socialist nation. He believes that's where it's at.
Evidence?

What has he done that is so Socialist?
Simple, he's black.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2013
It's backed up every day...Read the news, Blotto...the REAL news...not from Liberal media who are loath to buck the Obama regime by telling the truth to Americans. The Liberal media are scared of Obama, and they should be. He will be unstoppable.
EverythingsJustATheory
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2013
The founding fathers specifically designed our constitution to be changed. That's one reason it has lasted as long as it has.

There's not many Congressmen calling for the restoration of the Bill of Rights by repealing the Patriot Act. At least 'habeus corpus' was restored by the government once the Civil War ended. No signs point to it being restored now.
sirchick
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2013
billions a year?????? surely thats abit high
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2013
It's backed up every day...Read the news, Blotto...the REAL news...not from Liberal media who are loath to buck the Obama regime by telling the truth to Americans. The Liberal media are scared of Obama, and they should be. He will be unstoppable.

Please don't be stupid. Just provide some evidence. What is he doing that is socialist?
EverythingsJustATheory
3 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2013
It's backed up every day...Read the news, Blotto...the REAL news...not from Liberal media who are loath to buck the Obama regime by telling the truth to Americans. The Liberal media are scared of Obama, and they should be. He will be unstoppable.


I really don't mean this to be insulting, but one sign of mental delusion is to believe that only one's own side has merit and that everything that opposes it must be lies meant to deceive.

That is certainly the mindset Fox News tries to bestow upon their viewers. There are some liberal media that attempts the same, though most of the media IMO are somewhere in the middle.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2013
No, Obama is far from being a moderate Liberal...he is a full Socialist. Do you not understand that he cannot rush into fulfilling his Socialist agenda. He has to do it by stealth, and that takes time...but he will do it.
There are liars in DC. Look at Benghazi and Hillary Clinton's stonewalling of the truth. There are a lot of other examples...Look at Eric Holder and the Fast and Furious debacle. They don't want anyone to KNOW the truth...so they hide it... even from the lawmakers in Congress. This is what they do, and it's treason.
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2013
No, Obama is far from being a moderate Liberal...he is a full Socialist.
Evidence?

This is what they do, and it's treason.
Read the Constitution. Treason is defined in there and perceived socialism has nothing to do with it.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2013
Even that gun control shit. Dem Senator Dianne Feinstein wants everyone to be stripped of the only means of self protection, but SHE isn't about to get rid of HER guns. Besides liars, there's the hyprocrites. She doesn't care if someone else's home will be invaded and a family killed. She's got hers and everyone else can go to hell
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2013
I'm still waiting on that evidence.
EverythingsJustATheory
5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2013
No, Obama is far from being a moderate Liberal...he is a full Socialist. Do you not understand that he cannot rush into fulfilling his Socialist agenda. He has to do it by stealth, and that takes time...but he will do it.
There are liars in DC. Look at Benghazi and Hillary Clinton's stonewalling of the truth. There are a lot of other examples...Look at Eric Holder and the Fast and Furious debacle. They don't want anyone to KNOW the truth...so they hide it... even from the lawmakers in Congress. This is what they do, and it's treason.


He only has 4 more years in his political career with a Congress that won't let him do anything, even if it was their idea 2 weeks ago. I don't see how he will implement it even if his true feeling are what you say (though I don't agree).

Every government has cover-ups of some sort. Bush had lies and deception about WMDs that have cost our country dearly, in loss of life and in the deficit.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2013
Getting back on topic...cats are a valuable part of Nature and do a service to keep rats and mice along with the diseases they bring, at bay. Soap and water takes care of whatever Blotto considers dirty about cats. Unless Blotto prefers the company of big fat rats running around in his basement apartment.

Only when you show me where I ever said anything about a belief in 900 ft. invisible martians.
EverythingsJustATheory
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2013
Even that gun control shit. Dem Senator Dianne Feinstein wants everyone to be stripped of the only means of self protection, but SHE isn't about to get rid of HER guns. Besides liars, there's the hyprocrites. She doesn't care if someone else's home will be invaded and a family killed. She's got hers and everyone else can go to hell


Obama has never proposed taking peoples' guns away. Only limiting the future purchase of mass killing devices, i.e., assault rifles and large magazines. Why do people take an inch and extend it to a mile?
FrankHerbert2
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2013
Please explain how Obama is a socialist bent on destroying American.
EverythingsJustATheory
3 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2013
Agree to disagree Obama socks, have a goodnight...
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2013
Even that gun control shit. Dem Senator Dianne Feinstein wants everyone to be stripped of the only means of self protection, but SHE isn't about to get rid of HER guns. Besides liars, there's the hyprocrites. She doesn't care if someone else's home will be invaded and a family killed. She's got hers and everyone else can go to hell


Obama has never proposed taking peoples' guns away. Only limiting the future purchase of mass killing devices, i.e., assault rifles and large magazines. Why do people take an inch and extend it to a mile?
-Everythings

Do you honestly think that a Ruger or Glock handgun, for example, will do less damage than a AR15 or AK47? The only difference is the amount of bullets fired within a certain amount of time. A bullet from a handgun aimed at the head where it strikes the victim the right way, is just as deadly as a whole magazine emptied out and only one bullet hits home.
Obama's advantage will be to limit or eliminate gun ownership complete
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2013
Agree to disagree Obama socks, have a goodnight...
-Everythings

You too. good night
Socks_is_Pirouette
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 30, 2013
http://phys.org/n...und.html
This website URL below displays an area of Mars where a liquid is flowing and spurting out of a hillside. Please notice the darker areas where the ground material is wet, as opposed to the lighter areas that are dry. Also, in some of the pictures, the liquid is flowing as in a creek and spurts out in "drops" through what appears to be an embankment. This is geology.Further down on the same page are pictures providing proof of large life forms that are semi-transparent. Those are NOT geology and are not a trick of light and shadow. Mars has life.
www dot marscritters dot blogspot dot com
Socks_is_Pirouette
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 30, 2013
@Skultch. . . .semi-transparent, not translucent. We also have independent, PROFESSIONAL verification as to the existence of the humanoids in the Mars pictures. You and your "people" need to either get your eyes checked out and possibly purchase reading glasses, OR take a class in facial recognition at your local police precinct. You might also want to play the "Where's Waldo" game and/or take a picture of a crowd during New Year's Eve and try to find your girlfriend, boyfriend or spouse in it without being told first where he/she is. There are many humans who have a hard time recognizing faces. You would not be the only one with that handicap. That is why, in a court of law, many testimonies are declared inadmissible because the "witness" could not correctly identify a human face in the courtroom or in a picture.YOUR irrationality begs for similar company in others, and you have attempted to transfer a part of your irrationality to me and others to help your troubled mind.
Socks_is_Pirouette
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 30, 2013
See lol, finding alien life is as easy as "Where's Waldo?".

http://phys.org/n...ars.html
Have a magnifying glass available, please. The humanoid life forms are semi-transparent and they are huge, with human-like faces. It is possible that they live underground which is why they are not readily seen by the HiRise cameras.
FrankHerbert2
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2013
So where is that evidence that Obama is a socialist?
aroc91
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2013
Jesus Christ. I could have sworn this article was about cats. How did I miss the seemingly obvious political undertones?
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (18) Jan 31, 2013
It's hard to move forward on any topic when 'conservatives' suffer from such pervasive Obama derangement syndrome.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (39) Jan 31, 2013
@Everythings

Obama's intention is to destroy the rule of Law...using the procedures in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"
Obama doesn't care if the economy collapses totally. From the ashes, he intends to form a Socialist nation.
Evidence?


What has he done that is so Socialist?
Simple, he's black.


I don't think Obama's a socialist myself, although he sympathizes with the far left and is idealistic, I think he believes in the free market, albeit regulated more than I would prefer,..... but because someone else thinks he is a socialist or disagrees with him, does not imply they're racists. I think it is a disgusting and degenerate mentality that would pull the race card when there is zero basis for. I don't expect anymore sophistication from a specimen like though.

In contrast, EverythingTheory posts rational thought out arguments for which it is possible to learn another perspective although respectfully di
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (28) Jan 31, 2013
@Skultch. . . .semi-transparent, not translucent. We also have independent, PROFESSIONAL verification as to the existence of the humanoids in the Mars pictures.
Bwaahaaahaaahahaha! Thanks for the memories.
You and your "people" need to either get your eyes checked out and possibly purchase reading glasses, OR take a class in facial recognition at your local police precinct.
Perhaps we can consult with these same authorities about Obama.
FrankHerbert2
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2013
I don't think Obama's a socialist myself, although he sympathizes with the far left and is idealistic, I think he believes in the free market, albeit regulated more than I would prefer,..... but because someone else thinks he is a socialist or disagrees with him, does not imply they're racists. I think it is a disgusting and degenerate mentality that would pull the race card when there is zero basis for. I don't expect anymore sophistication from a specimen like though.
Just because you are a somewhat reasonable conservative doesn't mean all conservatives are as reasonable. There is a large minority of conservatives that race plays at least a minor role in their thinking. That is racist. Period. There doesn't have to be hate behind it, but yeah there's a lot of that too.

Congratulations on not being a complete tool!

although he sympathizes with the far left
That is untrue. By far left, I'm assuming you mean communism. He's never advocated such a system.
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2013
It's hard to move forward on any topic when 'conservatives' suffer from such pervasive Obama derangement syndrome.
There can be no progress with a collectivist, be they far left (feral bolshevism) or far right (feral capitalism) wing. Both are in opposition to the well researched understanding of natural, biological growth
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (39) Jan 31, 2013
There is a large minority of conservatives that race plays at least a minor role in their thinking. That is racist. Period. There doesn't have to be hate behind it, but yeah there's a lot of that too.


What's a "large minority"? That's like saying you're the worlds tallest midget. Well, at least you didn't say "most" or "half" although you tried to stretch "minority" as far as you could. I do actually commend you for at least attempting to be reserved in your estimate.

We don't agree on whats considered racist. I think that term is abused and so diluted in significance.

Just having a natural reaction to or acknowledging unique statistics of behavior of an identifiable group, is not being racist. For example me as a white guy stating that blacks have a problem with a thuggish sub-culture resulting in disproportionately high crime rate,... is not racist. If I used those facts as evidence for inferiority, that would be racists.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (38) Jan 31, 2013
,...

Also, there is a large minority of white liberals (and a significant number of blacks) who are racist, if only in subtle ways. For example, the mainstream media is run primarily by white liberals. The mainstream media actively avoids reporting on black crime.

It took a few singular mass shooting rampages for the mainstream media to politize into a gun control issue,... all the while in Chicago more young black males died shooting each other than died of the coalition forces in afghanistan in 2012. It is subtle, but implicit racism, to regard such behavior as expected or to lower the bar of acceptable behavior because they're who they are.

Another example of liberal racism albeit again subtle, is their mantra of victimization culture, implying failures are due to, not you, but the white man and intrinsically racist society. How racistly condescending to lower the bar like this. Why are not black leaders and white liberals voicing outrage at the savagery in places like Chicago?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (37) Jan 31, 2013
Why didn't the MSM use the crisis level of gun related deaths in Chicago to call attention to the problem. Because they're disingenuous and reactionary; Chicago already has tough gun laws, which would have been exposed, and also, they may have had to address the real problem. The avoidance of that is implicit racism of the liberal kind.

recently, TheDrudgeReport was asked to "stop reporting on black crime",... not realizing that the reason TheDrudgeReport links to local reports of it is to showcase the mainstream media's ignorance, lack of concern, expectance, and acceptance of it, ...even though it is at crisis levels!
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Jan 31, 2013
although he sympathizes with the far left
That is untrue. By far left, I'm assuming you mean communism. He's never advocated such a system.


That can't be it, as I just said that I think he believes in the free market. What I mean is that he sympathizes with the social progressives,... meaning social engineering, redistribution of wealth, and implementing various social psychological government controls to change human behavior,. i.e. Cass Susstein's book "nudge". All of that can be subtly implemented in a capitalist society slowly over generations.
Caliban
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2013
Nay, you must learn the hard way, and learn it you will.

The stupidiosity of your stupidiosness leaves no doubt as to your
idiotry.

We can all see that you consider yourself to be a bit of a raconteur, which only serves to underscore the delusional condition in which you exist, ob.wan.suckhole.

Now piss off, maroon.

-Taliban of Caliban

What is a "suckhole?


"Suckhole" refers to that appendage in the lower part of your face, which you so fervidly and assiduously apply to the engorged member of the RepCon LiberteRandite body politic, in the hope of "receiving" the reward for which you so desperately yearn.

You make no sense, as usual, but thanks anyway for the compliment: Raconteur = person who tells anecdotes in a skillful and amusing way. That is acceptable.


--ob.wan.suckhole

I repeat: The stupidiosity of your stupidiosness leaves no doubt as to your idiotry. QED.

Keep workin' that suckhole, maroon.

Caliban
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2013
[[[Taking this to its natural conclusion, one can see that government would have to regulate all aspects of human affairs. This implies a far left government, and loss of liberty]]]

It does nothing of the sort. It implies only a larger, more invasive government -


That's exactly what I said in that quote. What do you think "loss of liberty means", you imbecile? Answer: government invasiveness. It's clear that you agree with me wrt the end result of trying to "fix" the multitude of anthropogenic effects,... bigger government and loss of liberty.


Just when I think that you've reached the zenith of deliberate obtuseness, nonoUNme, you astonish me by re-setting the bar with another, even more extreme demonstration.

I wasn't agreeing with your poltical theorizing. I was pointing out that, even taking your assumption as stated, that your conclusion was entirely without merit, and far too ludicrous to even seriously entertain.

A symptom of your pathology.

Caliban
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013


of the totalitarian-- of the RightWing type.


You're utterly ignorant of politics. Libertarianism and conservatism proper, expose a SMALLER and less evasive government while OBVIOUSLY, liberal and socialist mentality expose LARGER more invasive government. Not a debate.


Most assuredly there is no debate. You, nonoUNme, are wrong. I already pointed out your deliberate obtuseness, so why not highlight your completely ideologically-driven dishonesty?

Expanded and/or invasive government in no way equates with far left government.

Not all republicans follow libertarianism and proper conservatism, and not all democrats are far left. You're just ignorant of political ph...


Care to point out to me where I ever made this claim?

Oh -that's right- I didn't.

The magnitude of your stupidity is matched only by your dishonesty.

The fact that you aren't so shamed by this that you can no longer comment here bears ample witness to the magnitude of your sociopathy.

obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2013
..... but because someone else thinks he is a socialist or disagrees with him, does not imply they're racists. I think it is a disgusting and degenerate mentality that would pull the race card when there is zero basis for. I don't expect anymore sophistication from a specimen like though.
Just because you are a somewhat reasonable conservative doesn't mean all conservatives are as reasonable. There is a large minority of conservatives that race plays at least a minor role in their thinking. That is racist. Period. There doesn't have to be hate behind it, but yeah there's a lot of that too.

although he sympathizes with the far left
That is untrue. By far left, I'm assuming you mean communism. He's never advocated such a system.
-FrankH/Blotto

Who are these "large minority of conservatives" that you claim to have race in their thinking? Do you have any names? How have you managed to reach into their mind to extract such information?
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (18) Jan 31, 2013
What's a "large minority"?
I was thinking double digits.
We don't agree on whats considered racist.
That's apparent. Even seemingly positive remarks can be racist. "He's so well spoken." "Black people sure can dance!"
I think that term is abused and so diluted in significance.
This wouldn't matter if people weren't so invested in not being labelled as such. You see it as diluted; I see it as no other term is adequate. There is no word for sort-of-racist, or benignly racist. That's what the adjective is for. People get too offended at having it pointed out that they may have said or done something racist. I honestly think nearly everyone, including myself, is at least a little racist. That isn't a problem necessarily. The problem is when you try to restrict the words people can use to discuss such things. You have to acknowledge a problem in order to fix it, essentially. Without the necessary language, it is impossible to acknowledge. In essence, it's Newspeak.
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (18) Jan 31, 2013
For example me as a white guy stating that blacks have a problem with a thuggish sub-culture resulting in disproportionately high crime rate,... is not racist. If I used those facts as evidence for inferiority, that would be racists.
Diminishing the role white people played in creating that culture, is racist. Denying 400 years of institutionalized racism, is racist. And not benignly. Even the term "thug" is becoming a dogwhistle. However, I don't believe you intentionally use it as such.

Also, there is a large minority of white liberals (and a significant number of blacks) who are racist,
I would say a smaller minority and more benignly so. I'm assuming when you mention blacks you mean voting habits. They vote based on party, not race. If Romney were black he still would have lost the black vote.
obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013

What is a "suckhole?


"Suckhole" refers to that appendage in the lower part of your face, which you so fervidly and assiduously apply to the engorged member of the RepCon LiberteRandite body politic, in the hope of "receiving" the reward for which you so desperately yearn.

You make no sense, as usual, but thanks anyway for the compliment: Raconteur = person who tells anecdotes in a skillful and amusing way. That is acceptable.


--ob.wan.suckhole

I repeat: The stupidiosity of your stupidiosness leaves no doubt as to your idiotry. QED.

Keep workin' that suckhole, maroon.

-Taliban

Thank you...for a while, I thought you were queer, and now I am convinced that you are, given your "coming out" with your open reference to Theghostofotto's sucksuck activities. Perhaps your own requirement of that nature would be better met by contacting Ritchieguy01 so that you may offer your own suckhole and get your reward. Enjoy the engorged member and do keep it up.
FrankHerbert2
2 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2013
if only in subtle ways. For example, the mainstream media is run primarily by white liberals.
Whites, yes. Liberals? Only if you define the "mainstream medies" (whatever that means) as exclusively liberal. There are plenty of "mainstream" conservative news sources.
The mainstream media actively avoids reporting on black crime.
Lol, this isn't even true of the liberal media, let alone the conservative media. I mean really, what are you basing this on?
all the while in Chicago more young black males died shooting each other than died of the coalition forces in afghanistan in 2012. It is subtle, but implicit racism, to regard such behavior as expected or to lower the bar of acceptable behavior because they're who they are.
I've seen not one person claim that. And had they done so, it wouldn't have been subtle or implicit.
FrankHerbert2
2 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2013
Another example of liberal racism albeit again subtle, is their mantra of victimization culture, implying failures are due to, not you, but the white man and intrinsically racist society.
I agree somewhat. One race stoking a culture of victimization in another would be racist and does happen. However, blaming the victim is worse. Denying 400 years of institutionalized racism is blaming the victim. Acknowledging the existence of a victim is not per se victimization. Like I said earlier, how can you fix a problem without the ability to acknowledge it?

Why didn't the MSM use the crisis level of gun related deaths in Chicago to call attention to the problem. Because they're disingenuous and reactionary;
Disingenuous? I doubt it. Reactionary? Hell yeah. That's what for profit news gets you. It's man bites dog journalism.
FrankHerbert2
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 31, 2013
Chicago already has tough gun laws, which would have been exposed, and also, they may have had to address the real problem. The avoidance of that is implicit racism of the liberal kind.
It's simplistic to say the gun problem in Chicago is due to its tough regulations. The reason illegal guns are able to make it to Chicago in the first place is because they were LEGALLY purchased elsewhere. Most illegal guns are initially bought legally.

What I mean is that he sympathizes with the social progressives,... meaning social engineering,
You only consider it social engineering if you are against it. It's like the term "activist judge", which is code for "a judge I don't like."

redistribution of wealth,
Same deal.
FrankHerbert2
2 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2013
and implementing various social psychological government controls to change human behavior,. i.e. Cass Susstein's book "nudge".
The government has a monopoly on violence (the broad definition not just physical violence, i.e. the ability to coerce people). That is part of the social contract. The government is well within its rights (yes it has them) to regulate behavior. The entire existence of laws is to regulate behavior. What is the government for if not regulating behavior?

All of that can be subtly implemented in a capitalist society slowly over generations.
It's a natural process. Just like Moore's Law has sustained itself across multiple paradigms (mechanical, electromechanical, thermionic, solid state, integrated circuits) human progress sustains itself across different frames of government. Capitalist institutions will slowly be replaced with socalist ones. Will it be entire? Probably not, but it's going to continue in that direction for sometime.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2013
For example me as a white guy stating that blacks have a problem with a thuggish sub-culture resulting in disproportionately high crime rate,... is not racist. If I used those facts as evidence for inferiority, that would be racists.
-Noum

http://www.theatl...7/61562/

Mugabe threw out the White landowners from their farms in Zimbabwe that were very profitable and contributed greatly to the Zimbabwean economy, (an act of racism against Whites), then Mugabe proceeded to stroke his culture of corruption while enhancing and enlarging his big government and at the same time allowing cruel and inhumane treatment of his people.

Quite possibly, Zimbabwe will get financial assistance from China, unless they regard Asians as inferior and throw them out too.
FrankHerbert2
2 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2013
Capitalism can only work while there are enough jobs to quell a critical mass of the population. Automation will reach a point, likely by the end of the century, that will render idealistic capitalism untenable. You can ignore the problem and watch the system implode when enough people become fed up with it, or you can patch the system as it fails in area after area.

Capitalism has been great, and will be for sometime. It is running out of steam though. It will eventually be superseded by some other ideology, like all the others. We have not reached "the end of history" as Fukuyama put it.

What is ironic to me is I really believe if Adam Smith were alive today he would be the first person to recognize all of this. In the Wealth of Nations he specifically says the only qualification of capitalism is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If he thought capitalism wasn't achieving that, he'd be the first to scrap it.

At least we can be polite to each other.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013
@FrankHerbert/Blotto

You still haven't provided any evidence that I have ever claimed belief in 900 foot invisible martians or lead boomerangs. I have requested your proof several times and you still haven't produced the link.
When do you plan to provide your proof?

Oh BTW, there is no such thing as absolute Capitalism anywhere in the world. It doesn't exist.
Caliban
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2013

What is a "suckhole?


"Suckhole" refers to that appendage in the lower part of your face, which you so fervidly and assiduously apply to the engorged member of the RepCon LiberteRandite body politic, in the hope of "receiving" the reward for which you so desperately yearn.



I repeat: The stupidiosity of your stupidiosness leaves no doubt as to your idiotry. QED.

Keep workin' that suckhole, maroon.

-Taliban

Thank you...for a while, I thought you were queer, and now I am convinced that you are, given your "coming out" with your open reference to Theghostofotto's sucksuck activities. Perhaps your own requirement of that nature would be better met by contacting Ritchieguy01 so that you may offer your own suckhole and get your reward. Enjoy the engorged member and do keep it up.


Keep working your suckhole, maroon.

FrankHerbert2
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 01, 2013
Thanks Caliban. Now we can look forward to seeing the term "engorged member" in every other Obama_socks post :\
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2013
Thanks Caliban. Now we can look forward to seeing the term "engorged member" in every other Obama_socks post :\
-FrankHerbert2 aka Theghostofotto1923

How nice of you, Blotto, to approve Caliban's choice of words.

But you still haven't provided your evidence that I have ever expressed a belief in your "invisible 900 foot glass headed martians OR lead boomerangs.

Either produce the link or admit that you're a stupid liar. In which case, I win.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (25) Feb 01, 2013
But you still haven't provided your evidence that I have ever expressed a belief in your "invisible 900 foot glass headed martians OR lead boomerangs.
Keep denying it brainless. The chance that 2 or more intellects consistently capable of this sort of reasoning, including zero growth/zero birth etc, would show up on the same site, are diminishingly small.

The same stunted intellect would also think they could pretend to be a ufologist, a farmer, a nurse, or an engineer, on a science website, and get away with it.

The same wounded brain would flood a thread with vile insults instead of admitting they were wrong, and make up vile sickpuppets for the same purpose, and share their nicks with their relatives and bfs for the same purpose as well.

This IS conclusive evidence. You trying to deny it, is yet further evidence.

You are off the bell curve completely you dimwit.
kochevnik
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2013
@Noumenon For example, the mainstream media is run primarily by white liberals.
Zionists are not the same as white liberals, and the former control the US media to saturation

Another example of liberal racism albeit again subtle, is their mantra of victimization culture
Poor Noumenon always confusing appeasement with liberalism
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 02, 2013
..Libertarianism and conservatism proper, expose a SMALLER and less [invasive] gov while [..], liberal and socialist mentality expose LARGER more invasive gov.
You, [my superior], are wrong. [...] Expanded and/or invasive government in no way equates with far left government.


OK, Taliban,.. those aspects of government that conservatives and libertarians support, are in any case required in a society,... like in protection of private property, and national defense, etc., and are in SUPPORT of liberty.

Those aspects of government that the far left support are in transformation of existing society, with am aim to fix (natural) "social inequalities",.. which requires massive expanse of government in entitlements and redistribution of wealth. But that is just the tip of the ice-berg,... the 'social progressives' wish to use scientifically based social statistics to control and engineer human behavior to achieve their liberal utopian society,.. at the EXPENSE of liberty.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 02, 2013
I think that term is abused and so diluted in significance.
This wouldn't matter if people weren't so invested in not being [labeled] as such. You see it as diluted; I see it as no other term is adequate. There is no word for sort-of-racist, or benignly racist. That's what the adjective is for. People get too offended at having it pointed out that they may have said or done something racist. I honestly think nearly everyone, including myself, is at least a little racist.


The term racist is used as a political weapon. It is constantly ill applied. There is a difference between one merely having a natural reaction to aspects of an identifiable group, where other wise they would have to go out of their way to pretend didn't exist,.... and one actively proclaiming or using such aspects in support of inferiority.

It is the key component of the proclamation of inferiority, that defines racism, not one noticing the actual differences or states of a given race.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 02, 2013
For example me as a white guy stating that blacks have a problem with a thuggish sub-culture resulting in disproportionately high crime rate, is not racist. If I used those facts as evidence for inferiority, that would be racists.
Diminishing the role white people played in creating that culture, is racist. Denying 400 years of institutionalized racism, is racist.


Please reread my quote in full, ...the last sentence of which implies that, had I diminished the role played by history, I would have been racist,.. so rather than being guilty of it, I had already pointed that out.

The reverse can also be stated, diminishing the role played by subsequent generations of white people in fighting a brutal war to free the slaves and supported increasing recognition of equality, is racist.

It can be taken as racists if one specifically implies that racism is peculiar to white people, when historically Arabs, Persians, and Africans themselves had a cultural history of slavery
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (38) Feb 02, 2013
The government has a monopoly on violence (the broad definition not just physical violence, i.e. the ability to coerce people). That is part of the social contract. The government is well within its rights (yes it has them) to regulate behavior. The entire existence of laws is to regulate behavior. What is the government for if not regulating behavior?


Fundamentally, that is true of course. However, the difference between libertarianism and 'social progressivism' is in the struggle to limit encroachment of government to the minimum necessary and allow a natural state of inequality, or whether to expand its influence to correct social inequalities. Liberty is inversely proportionate to the liberal-progressive cause, while directly in proportion to the libertarian cause.
FrankHerbert2
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2013
OK, Taliban,.. those aspects of government that conservatives and libertarians support, are in any case required in a society,... like in protection of private property, and national defense, etc., and are in SUPPORT of liberty.
Liberals by definition support protection of private property. Remember, liberals founded this nation with its private property protections. Before you say, "but today's liberals aren't the same," remember that opens up the door to me saying "today's Republican party is not the party of Lincoln."

The fact is, without going so far as to fall into a No True Scotsman fallacy, liberals de facto believe the government should protect private property. It would be a mischaractarization to claim a liberal didn't support that.

Remember that liberalism isn't the entire left. That's the Newspeak (Rushspeak) definition of liberalism.

(natural) "social inequalities",..
Would you elaborate?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 02, 2013
Capitalism can only work while there are enough jobs to quell a critical mass of the population. [.*..] Capitalism has been great, and will be for sometime. It is running out of steam though. It will eventually be superseded by some other ideology, like all the others. We have not reached "the end of history" as Fukuyama put it. What is ironic to me is I really believe if Adam Smith were alive today he would be the first person to recognize all of this. In the Wealth of Nations he specifically says the only qualification of capitalism is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If he thought capitalism wasn't achieving that, he'd be the first to scrap it.


I can't disagree with any of this ultimately,... but the ability of freedom / capitalism to employ 90%+ of the population in remarkable comfort, is such an astounding success, it can only be because it is in line with human nature in some fundamental way,... and so is far from degenerating, imo.
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2013
the 'social progressives' wish to use scientifically based social statistics to control and engineer human behavior to achieve their liberal utopian society,.. at the EXPENSE of liberty.
Conservative ideologues have the same goal. They use fairy tale economics to socially engineer and redistribute wealth to their hearts content. They want to restrict everything from the bedroom to the womb, at the EXPENSE of liberty.

There is a difference between one merely having a natural reaction to aspects of an identifiable group
This is just a euphemism for racist behavior. You've defined racism so narrowly only the most abhorrent examples would qualify. Like I've said before that's what adjectives are for.

Your euphemism depending on how it's applied could encompass everything from benignly racist to all but the most blatant examples. It lumps the decent people in with the real jackasses, making the jackasses seem much more normal.
FrankHerbert2
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2013
Please reread my quote in full, ...the last sentence of which implies that, had I diminished the role played by history, I would have been racist,.. so rather than being guilty of it, I had already pointed that out.
Because I've said it before I thought it was implied that I meant "denying 400 years of institutional racism [and that it still negatively impacts people today] is racist." I wasn't trying to be misleading. Respond to that instead.

The reverse can also be stated, diminishing the role played by subsequent generations of white people in fighting a brutal war to free the slaves and supported increasing recognition of equality, is racist.
It's more important to focus on the existence of slavery rather than how it was ended, because it should never have happened in the first place. I'm pretty sure most history books mention Abraham Lincoln and the exclusively white government and military leadership that executed the war.

How is the role of whites diminished?
kochevnik
2 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2013
@Noumenon Liberty is inversely proportionate to the liberal-progressive cause, while directly in proportion to the libertarian cause.
Because Noumenon says. Are you moving in with ryggie? You two have so much to talk about!
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 02, 2013
*Automation will reach a point, [..], that will render idealistic capitalism untenable. You can ignore the problem and watch the system implode when enough people become fed up with it, or you can patch the system as it fails in area after area.


It's impossible to predict life a hundred years from now. The history of the industrial revolution consists of things becoming valuable and then become worthless, and occupations coming into being and occupations becoming obsolete.

This does not occur over night so its a false premise to image all of a sudden everything is run by robots. If an economy can not be sustained while everything tangible is made by robots, then such a state will not come to be in the first place.

If an economy is sufficiently natural, ...by which I mean if those forces which make it work are not watered down by government regulation for the sake of "fairness",.... it will self correct. Capitalism operates on Value which will not go obsolete.
FrankHerbert2
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2013
It can be taken as racists if one specifically implies that racism is peculiar to white people, when historically Arabs, Persians, and Africans themselves had a cultural history of slavery
Of course any person of any race is capable of racism. The point is in the history of United States the white race has been the only one capable of institutionalizing its racism. It is not fair to create a false equivalency with black and white racism because black racism has never had the force of law behind it. That's the difference.

Also, historically those nations you mention did not base their slavery exclusively on race.

However, the difference between libertarianism and 'social progressivism' is in the struggle to limit encroachment of government to the minimum necessary and allow a natural state of inequality, or whether to expand its influence to correct social inequalities.
This is simply my control is better than your control.
FrankHerbert2
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2013
I can't disagree with any of this ultimately,... but the ability of freedom / capitalism to employ 90% of the population in remarkable comfort, is such an astounding success, it can only be because it is in line with human nature in some fundamental way,... and so is far from degenerating, imo.
And social programs are the glue that binds it all together. What about the other 10%? Capitalism doesn't account for them. With increasing automation, that percentage will only increase. This needs to be accounted for laissez-faire capitalism doesn't even attempt to address it.

This does not occur over night so its a false premise to image all of a sudden everything is run by robots.
I said by the end of the century. That is hardly overnight.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (38) Feb 02, 2013
Liberals by definition support protection of private property. Remember, liberals founded this nation with its private property protections. Before you say, "but today's liberals aren't the same," remember that opens up the door to me saying "today's Republican party is not the party of Lincoln."


I already pointed out how the term "liberal" is used wrongly today in the USA;.... I think in this thread somewhere.

Liberals, as the term is used today in the USA, ...play class warfare and support redistribution of wealth, so clearly it depends on who you are whether they support private property.

(natural) "social inequalities",..

Would you elaborate?


That all should be treated equal, does not imply equal results. It is a state of nature that some will do better than others (not racial),.. and it is an unnatural state that all be forced to be equal irrespective of ability, effort, circumstance, etc.
FrankHerbert2
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2013
If an economy can not be sustained while everything tangible is made by robots, then such a state will not come to be in the first place.

If an economy is sufficiently natural, ...by which I mean if those forces which make it work are not watered down by government regulation for the sake of "fairness",.... it will self correct. Capitalism operates on Value which will not go obsolete.
Social programs are part of those self corrections. Capitalism needs to account for those who are incapable of working, correct? Historically, able bodied people were always capable of finding work. This will not be the case forever, and may all ready ended.
Automation WILL reach a point where a significant and ever-increasing number of able bodied people will be INCAPABLE of finding work. This will need to be accounted for. No ideological version of capitalism would be able to deal with this. Only a realistic mixed economy works. The version practiced by modern American conservatives cannot.
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2013
I already pointed out how the term "conservative" is used wrongly today in the USA;.... I think in this thread somewhere.

Conservatives, as the term is used today in the USA, ...play class warfare and support redistribution of wealth, so clearly it depends on who you are whether they support private property.

That all should be treated equal, does not imply equal results.
I've never heard of anyone claiming that. People can look historically and see that the "results" were more equal in the recent past. We are simply striving for the best outcome, not the perfect outcome. In comparison, you are burying your head in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist.
It is a state of nature that some will do better than others (not racial),.. and it is an unnatural state that all be forced to be equal irrespective of ability, effort, circumstance, etc.
Few people in the US would disagree with that. I know I agree.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 02, 2013
[..] stating that blacks have a problem with a thuggish sub-culture resulting in [.] high crime rate, is not racist. If I used those facts as evidence for inferiority, that would be racists.
Diminishing the role white people played in creating that culture, is racist. Denying 400 years of institutionalized racism, is racist.
Please reread my quote in full, ...the last sentence of which implies that, had I diminished the role played by history, I would have been racist,.. [..]
[.] I thought it was implied that I meant "denying 400 years of institutional racism [and that it still negatively impacts people today] is racist."[.] Respond to that instead.


I was not speaking of root causes. You brought that up, though I never implied such denial. That being said, those historical events had as much to do with the thuggish sub-culture as the perpetual victimization mentality administered by the democratic party in scoring political points. Personal accountability.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 02, 2013
There is a difference between one merely having a natural reaction to aspects of an identifiable group
This is just a euphemism for racist behavior. You've defined racism so narrowly only the most abhorrent examples would qualify.


Nope, I've defined it according to its core fundamental meaning, ..."to believe one race is inferior to another",... to prevent its misuse as a weapon,... and in so doing to increase the impact of its meaning. The race baiters have diluted its meaning such that one cannot help but be racist merely by existing. How convenient.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 02, 2013
The reverse can also be stated, diminishing the role played by subsequent generations of white people in fighting a brutal war to free the slaves and supported increasing recognition of equality, is racist.
It's more important to focus on the existence of slavery rather than how it was ended, because it should never have happened in the first place. I'm pretty sure most history books mention Abraham Lincoln and the exclusively white government and military leadership that executed the war. How is the role of whites diminished?


Very interesting and telling. If you were not a 'racist' yourself, by your own standards, you wouldn't be so obviously desirous in incriminating "whites" as you would be in incriminating humanity generally. Blacks have enslaved other blacks, and even committed racial genocide against other blacks (racism is relative), and I already pointed out other historical cultures of slavery.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (39) Feb 02, 2013
It can be taken as racists if one specifically implies that racism is peculiar to white people, when historically Arabs, Persians, and Africans themselves had a cultural history of slavery
Of course any person of any race is capable of racism. The point is in the history of United States the white race has been the only one capable of institutionalizing its racism. It is not fair to create a false equivalency with black and white racism because black racism has never had the force of law behind it.


Except in Affirmative Action and like policies.

One can not validly blame "whitey" perpetually,... The democrats have feed blacks the poison of perpetual victimhood and lowering of the bar of standards, in lieu of personal accountability. In some ways they're worse off then they were in the sixties, because of this. Liberal racism is subtle which is why it is more dangerous, and is equally institutionalized.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (39) Feb 02, 2013
Automation WILL reach a point where a significant and ever-increasing number of able bodied people will be INCAPABLE of finding work. This will need to be accounted for. No ideological version of capitalism would be able to deal with this. Only a realistic mixed economy works. The version practiced by modern American conservatives cannot.


The fallacy of this argument is in a) projecting an evolution of technology in an economy, but holding today's ideological version of capitalism as a constant, and b) in the assumption that automation implies permanent loss of jobs.

As has always been the case, technological evolution changes the form of jobs, not the need for jobs. Two hundred years after the industrial revolution, over 90% of the population is still employed.
Pkunk_
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2013
New Zealand cats to be unreplaced and euthenazed out of existence in favor of the flightless kiwi?

Surely getting rid of many more animals to save much fewer of another kind of animal just because some humans think uniqueness is more important than numbers, is fairly debatable in its morality. Nature isn't an entity which has thoughts and feelings on this, so it really comes down to us, and whether we like cats more than kiwis.

Cats are not an endangered species , and getting rid of millions of them will barely get them to replacement levels since they breed like mad.
Kiwi's on the other hand are endangered and once they're gone they aren't coming back.
Everything comes down to numbers, in the end. Except humans since we can comprehend their importance.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2013
@Noumecon Liberals, as the term is used today in the USA, ...play class warfare and support redistribution of wealth, so clearly it depends on who you are whether they support private property.
Whereas conservatives prefer open warfare. In 1933 the heads of Chase Bank, GM, Goodyear, Standard Oil, the DuPont family, and Senator Prescott Bush tried to lead a military coup against president FDR & install a fascist dictatorship in the United States http://www.libera...oup.html
Sinister1811
1.8 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2013
New Zealand cats to be unreplaced and euthenazed out of existence in favor of the flightless kiwi?


I don't think that's even possible. They've already become established. And they do tend to breed like rabbits. They cause problems wherever they've been introduced outside their native range (which was thought to be Africa/Europe), and conservationists hate them as they're constantly trying to remove them from the wild and nature reserves, but they keep returning, and causing extinctions of certain birds, mammals and reptiles. I think wildlife will have to adapt in the long term. It's not all bad as they do control other introduced pests (like rabbits, rats and mice).
Whydening Gyre
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2013
Dang... Somebody paid good money for research on what my cats do almost everyday... Wish I would have thought of it first...
canuckit
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2013
Unfortunately cats don't kill dogs :(
SleepTech
3 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2013
I keep a collar with a bell on my cats so when they go to hunt all the animals can hear them coming. That's two less cats that this statistical estimate needs to account for.

What I'm saying is that this statistical estimate is probably bs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (26) Feb 03, 2013
I keep a collar with a bell on my cats so when they go to hunt all the animals can hear them coming. That's two less cats that this statistical estimate needs to account for.

What I'm saying is that this statistical estimate is probably bs.
Not many pets have bells. Not many feral and stray cats do either.

My cat used to pry open my bedroom window with his claws when I was a kid and bring me presents when I was asleep. Half-dead baby rabbits, mice and the like. You could tell he was quite proud of this.
MandoZink
4 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2013
Finally! We're back on cats and their murderous ways again. For 5 days people here got way off topic. Somehow environmentalists, progressives, capitalists, libertarians, congress, Obama, etcetera took center stage. How does this happen?

In the meantime, over those 5 days possibly up to 50 million birds and 283 million mammals met their demise based on these researcher's estimates. That works out to 117 birds and 656 mammals a second! I did the math.

I don't think I want to live with this anymore. Doesn't anybody care? It's not natural for these... Whoa!

Hang on a minute...,

I think Mittens and Gizmo are fighting.. and I'm sure Fuzzbutt wants outside again. Gotta go take care of my little sweetie-pies. Be back later.., I guess. Sheesh.
Dummy
1 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2013
Cats kill mice. Another triumph of modern science.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (38) Feb 04, 2013
In the meantime, over those 5 days possibly up to 50 million birds and 283 million mammals met their demise based on these researcher's estimates. That works out to 117 birds and 656 mammals a second! I did the math. I don't think I want to live with this anymore. Doesn't anybody care? It's not natural for these... Whoa!


Did they estimate how many more birds and other such mammals exist on account of flourishing in human populated areas, and subtract that number? It seems inaccurate to count feral cats and at the same time discount the increase of urban birds benefiting in the wake human society.

Its just yet another manufactured "activist cause" to be give justification for more bed-wetting.

BTW, Fox news has a conservative slant, yes, but no more so than MSNBC, NBC , CBS, etc etc have a liberal slant, and live affair with Obama. In fact Fox news would never have been such a fast success had it not been for the obvious liberal bias of the bulk of the main stream media
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 04, 2013
I wonder how many birds should be equated in concern, to one foetus, in the mind of a liberal.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2013
About as many as dollars equate in concern to a conservative.

Read: Red herring/strawman.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 04, 2013
Actually I asked a rational question, ....probably.

The same group of people that would support regulations for such a minutia problem as birds being killed by cats, are the same ones that have no problem with over one million babies being aborted each year just in the USA alone. How many birds does it take to equal one foetus? A foetus is alive and is certainly closer to being a human than a bird.
FrankHerbert2
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2013
The same group of people that would support regulations for such a minutia problem as birds being killed by cats, are the same ones
It's clear you are only interested in arguing with strawmen and not actual people.

A foetus is alive and is certainly closer to being a human than a bird.
I dunno... for the first few weeks they look pretty much the same to me. http://home.honol...are.html

You're playing with definitions again. A fetus is not a baby. That's why we have different words for embryo, fetus, and baby.

Also, in the US we spell fetus without the 'o'.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2013
A foetus is alive and is certainly closer to being a human than a bird.

A foetus till the age where abortion is legal is just a clump of cells.
Any cell is 'alive'. That's a strawman. What it means to be human is an entirely different issue.

But what human foeti have to do with cats and birds issue really escapes me. You're really comparing apples and oranges, here.
And I'm not seeing where the article advocates any kind of regulation.

(And when all is said and done: humans aren't an endangered species - but some birds are. We make regulations to ensure that an endangered species doesn't become an extinct one. not based on 'comparative spiritual worth'. Your country (and mine) aren't theocracies, yet.)
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 04, 2013
I ask for a number. (I said foetus in that question, not baby)

Of course that a foetus is no more than a "clump of cells", like a fungus or something,... while a bird is somehow More than a, for-all-probability, developing human, is absurd.

Which life is of more value,... how many foetuses equate to one bird?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 04, 2013
has called for cats there to be eradicated- above article


A gov regulation.

Scientifically sound conservation and policy intervention [are] needed to reduce this impact - above article


Another call for gov regulation.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (39) Feb 04, 2013
And when all is said and done: humans aren't an endangered species - but some birds are. We make regulations to ensure that an endangered species doesn't become an extinct one. not based on 'comparative spiritual worth'. Your country (and mine) aren't theocracies, yet


I'm an atheist.

So you're saying that abortion is ok because humans aren't a "endangered species", so we can afford to dispose of some? Neither were jews in Germany in the 1930's. The point is resounding respect for human life.

@FH, can I say developing human, or potential human? Is it because foetuses can't talk and think? Should be give everyone an IQ test and base value upon that ?
FrankHerbert2
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2013
A potential human is not a human. A fetus can't take an IQ test for the same reason a rock can't. It's not a human.

abortion laws


Another call for gov regulation.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (39) Feb 04, 2013
A potential human is not a human. A fetus can't take an IQ test for the same reason a rock can't. It's not a human.


I don't like "potential" human either, because it doesn't do justice to the high degree of probability that it will become, what you even acknowledge as, a person. What about "developing human" then?,... as opposed to a developing tomato.

Yes, a foetus can't take an IQ test. I didn't mean to imply it should. I meant, if the measure of humanity, is a measure of thinking capacity, then why not generalize this concept and make everyone take an IQ test to measure their worth as a human and then treat them accordingly?

abortion laws


Another call for gov regulation.


There are already laws for murder, so such laws would be redundant and unnecessary.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (36) Feb 04, 2013
I dunno... for the first few weeks they look pretty much the same to me [supplies an image]


But most abortions occur during the 14th week and some even as late as 24 weeks. Here is a picture of a 14 week old "lump of cells" . If you look closely you may even be inclined to give it a name.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (24) Feb 04, 2013
Did they estimate how many more birds and other such mammals exist on account of flourishing in human populated areas, and subtract that number?
Flourishing? Junkbirds like starlings and pigeons and cowbirds and gulls and crows flourish around humans. The problem is the decline of songbirds.
http://biology.un...93CB.pdf

-And no it is not because they are having abortions. Did I miss something? Eagles were laying soft eggs due to DDT which is somewhat related.
you may even be inclined to give it a name.
Gary Lockwood?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (26) Feb 04, 2013
As far as ABORTION goes, nou fails to appreciate how family planning has saved the human race through the institution of family planning programs worldwide and the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS which have occurred in the last 100 years. Not to mention the 100s of millions more prevented through contraception.

They and their descendents to 3 and 4 generations never born, never to grow up and suffer and starve and die on irradiated battlefields. Nou would rather these people be born and the world to have collapsed in nuclear conflict as an unavoidable result.
http://www.johnst....html#SU

That just wasnt going to happen.
kochevnik
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2013
@Noumecon A foetus is alive and is certainly closer to being a human than a bird.
You're proof to the contrary
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (36) Feb 04, 2013
As far as ABORTION goes, nou fails to appreciate how family planning has saved the human race through the institution of family planning programs worldwide and the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS which have occurred in the last 100 years. Not to mention the 100s of millions more prevented through contraception. They and their descendents to 3 and 4 generations never born, never to grow up and suffer and starve and die on irradiated battlefields. Nou would rather these people be born and the world to have collapsed in nuclear conflict as an unavoidable result.


What sci-fi book is this from? But it is wild speculation which is usually wrong. It has been estimated that global population, which has already begun to decelerate,.. will actually begin to decline.

EDIT: I think my statement about most abortions being 14 weeks was wrong,... my source was poor, I think the average is 9.5 weeks, and up to 24 weeks. It doesn't change the image much though so the point still is valid.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (36) Feb 04, 2013
Global population Decline is believed to be likely because of a "demographic transition" which is a "shift between two very different long-run [population growth] states: from High Death Rates and High Birthrates, [typical of underdeveloped nations], to Low Death Rates and Low Birthrates. [typical of developed nations]".

More and more nations are becoming more developed around the world. This is occurring because of Capitalism and the resulting increase in standards of living,.... not because of nuclear wars, pestilence/ liberals, and abortions.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2013
Global population Decline is believed to be likely because of a "demographic transition" which is a "shift between two very different long-run [population growth] states: from High Death Rates and High Birthrates, [typical of underdeveloped nations], to Low Death Rates and Low Birthrates. [typical of developed nations]".

More and more nations are becoming more developed around the world. This is occurring because of Capitalism and the resulting increase in standards of living,.... not because of nuclear wars, pestilence/ liberals, and abortions.


While true, it's largely irrelevant. There is no shortage of room or resources on this planet. Supposed scarcity of resources is a direct function of under development and technology. Nothing more or less. Population level and (more importantly) capacity is a direct function of technical level.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (37) Feb 04, 2013
you may even be inclined to give it a name.
Gary Lockwood?

Was that a 2001: A Space Odyssey refference? Not bad.

The problem is the decline of songbirds.


Why is that a problem? Thousands and maybe millions of species have gone extinct over the eons. I think the general tree hunger mentality that "we" need to "fix" nature and not cause a negative imprint upon it is naiveté of the peta'esque variety, and actually politically dangerous in the far left.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (24) Feb 04, 2013
What sci-fi book is this from? But it is wild speculation which is usually wrong. It has been estimated that global population, which has already begun to decelerate,.. will actually begin to decline.
What, on its own? This has NEVER been the case. How can you disregard the FACT that fully 1/5 the worlds population has been artificially PREEMPTED?

Russians abort 40% of all pregnancies, and prevents many more. In the beginning of the 20th century they had excess young males enough to wage 2 world wars as well as a monsterous revolution. Since then they have had upwards of 300M abortions in the course of 4 gens.

The ONLY reason that the region is peaceful, is because of this. And of course the imposed economic hardships, and things like holodomor and the gulags.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (25) Feb 04, 2013
Global population Decline is believed to be likely because of a "demographic transition" which is a "shift between two very different long-run [population growth] states
You CANT IGNORE the big fat elephant in your living room. Humans reproduce faster than their ability to provide for themselves. This is the ground state.

Industrialized ABORTION is the only thing that has saved us from extinction. Those sources which have shaped your opinions on the matter were disinformation meant to disguise this HUGE demographic Operation, paid for by the rockefeller foundation and others.

They are the same sources which tried to convince us that we were born blank slates instead of being the animals that we are. What philobabble nonsense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (26) Feb 04, 2013
It has been estimated that global population, which has already begun to decelerate,.. will actually begin to decline.
Correct. Because of the artificial reduction of the birthrate in western countries via family planning and ABORTION. Almost 1/4 of all pregnancies in the US are ABORTED each year. How many more are prevented outright?
EDIT: I think my statement about most abortions being 14 weeks was wrong,... my source was poor
Your sources are typically poor.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (25) Feb 04, 2013
"This week, the United Nations Population Division made a radical shift in its population projections. Previously, the organization had estimated that the number of people living on the planet would reach around 9 billion by 2050 — and then level off. Now everything has changed: Rather than leveling off, the population size will continue to grow, reaching 10 billion or more at century's end...fertility rates. Across much of the world, women are having fewer children, but in African countries, the decline is far slower than expected...even Uganda — with one of the highest numbers of AIDS cases in sub-Saharan Africa — is projected to almost triple its population by 2050."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (25) Feb 04, 2013
"Consider this: In the first five months of this year, the world population grew by enough to equal all the AIDS deaths since the epidemic began 30 years ago."

"When a modest investment was made in family planning in Kenya in the 1980s, for example, the average family size fell from eight to five. When the focus was taken off family planning, this decline stalled and even started rising again. In 1990, demographers had predicted the population of Kenya in 2050 would be 53 million. But now, the population in 2050 is predicted to be 65 million. This extra 12 million people is equivalent to twice the total population of the whole country in 1950."

-This was the sort of growth rates prevalent in the late 19th century throughout northern eurasia.

Even if western cultures can maintain their reduced growth rates, their borders are overrun by refugees from those cultures which cannot. And they are drawn into dangerous conflicts among those cultures CAUSED solely by their rampant overgrowth.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (40) Feb 04, 2013
It has been estimated that global population, which has already begun to decelerate,.. will actually begin to decline.
Correct. Because of the artificial reduction of the birthrate in western countries via family planning and ABORTION. Almost 1/4 of all pregnancies in the US are ABORTED each year. How many more are prevented outright?
EDIT: I think my statement about most abortions being 14 weeks was wrong,... my source was poor
Your sources are typically poor.


Wrong. Abortion has actually little to do with the global deceleration in population rate. It is purely a function of standard of living, as I mentioned above.

In fact the number of abortions actually declines with increase in standard of living and economic stability. Here is some stats that back that up,...

"In 2004, the rates of abortion by ethnicity in the U.S. were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women, 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, and 11 abortions per 1,000 white women"

.....
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (38) Feb 04, 2013
.... These are astonishing statistics and resoundingly indicate abortions and birth rate are in inverse proportion to economic stability. As the standard of living increases there will be less and less need for abortions, and so will play less and less role in global population decline.

As you can see in the above stats, the more economically sophisticated, the more personally responsible, the more stable in family life, more access and use of birth control pills, more likely to afford birth control surgery, and therefore less likely in need of abortions.

Instead of being a form of "family planning", abortion is the epitome of a failure to plan.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (24) Feb 04, 2013
Wrong. Abortion has actually little to do with the global deceleration in population rate. It is purely a function of standard of living, as I mentioned above.
Youre not even guessing. Youre making things up. Your opinions are a few generations out of date.

You forgot the rest of that quote:

"Note that this figure includes all women of reproductive age, including women that are not pregnant."

-Thats kind of an odd way of looking at it? My source states that 22% of all pregnancies in the US, are ABORTED. This is how many more people would be born without ABORTION.

Here is a nice graph of what you are trying to say:
http://www.johnst...ate.html

-And here is the list of countries listed by % of abortions:
http://www.johnst...4pd.html

-As you can see, the rates are generally higher in communist countries. But western nations are high on the list.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (40) Feb 04, 2013
Why are you still posting about this? My previous several posts effectively ended that debate. Every syllable a masterful exposition of truth and reason, yet instead of taking notes, you continue posting with irrelevancies.

Abortions are not about planning, they represent chaos and unplanning, the number of which are a function of a lack of economic sophistication. The stats prove this. So in time global population will likely decrease but not because of increase in abortions,... which will actually decrease for the same reason that birth rates decrease!

Abortions are higher in lower economic conditions as are higher birth rate. This is pure logic and reason, how can you argue with this?
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (39) Feb 04, 2013
If a higher economic demographic's lower birth rate could be accounted for do to a higher abortion rate, then you would make sense,... but that is NOT the stats. A lower economic demographic has more abortions for the same reason that they have a higher birth rate,.... while the opposite is true for higher economic demographic.

The global trend, which is the basis for the projection of a deline in world population, is increased average economic conditions. This means abortions are not the driving force.

QED.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2013
A well fed house cat is less likely to kill birds as a source of food when it is outdoors, but the cat will attack a bird in motion and play with it until it is dead and motionless...for the purpose of honing its hunting skills. People are sometimes a threat to birds and their eggs also.

http://www.bbc.co...20066126

http://esciencene...er.birds

http://rarewildli...en-bird-
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (24) Feb 05, 2013
A lower economic demographic has more abortions for the same reason that they have a higher birth rate,.... while the opposite is true for higher economic demographic.
But the very poorest cultures have the lowest abortion rates and the highest birthrates. Overpopulation CAUSES poverty.

You will note on the graph I supplied, which you didn't look at, that abortions surged and peaked after roe v wade. This happened in all countries when abortion was legalized. This enabled economies to recover and westernization to begin.

Japan, that chronically-overcrowded island nation which, like Britain, was forced to export excess people in the form of conquering armies, was the first to legalize ABORTION. It quickly became the most peaceful, and the most prosperous, nation in the region.

S Korea and Vietnam followed, soon after the religionist cultures which resisted family planning, were destroyed. Westernization and declining birthrates could not happen until this takes place.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (39) Feb 05, 2013
We will just have to disagree then. I think you are attributing waaaaaay to much significance to the effect of abortion on economics and population there. Also, again, abortion is utterly counter to the notion of "family planing".,.... it represents a unstable life, not a stable family one,.. which is more typical of the lower class.

The stats and logical show that high birth rates and high abortion rates are both in proportion to each other, not inversely proportional to each other, which means low birth rate is NOT due to high aborton rate.

But the very poorest cultures have the lowest abortion rates and the highest birthrates.

If thats true its because abortion is not available to the poorest cultures. If your argument is that abortion is a major factor in world population decline you must de facto count those cultures that have it available,.... in which as standards of living increase, so the need for abortions decreases.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (23) Feb 05, 2013
"Even though most women of reproductive age now use contraception, we are far from a world in which all births result from intended pregnancies. Based on survey data, approximately 40 percent of pregnancies are unintended in developing countries, and 47 percent in developed ones.
More than one in five births worldwide result from pregnancies women did not wish to occur."

Evidence trumps 'logic'.

-Seems like education increases unintended pregnancies?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (24) Feb 05, 2013
"Averaged over the 73 countries for which data exist, and comprising 83 percent of the world's births, just under ten percent of births result from pregnancies occurring among women who never wanted to have another child. Even under the most conservative scenario—extrapolated globally, with all births from pregnancies that are merely mistimed considered equivalent to births from intended pregnancies—a hypothetical world population in which women only become pregnant when they want to would reduce today's global total fertility rate to 2.29 births per woman. That figure is slightly below today's global replacement fertility rate"

-But in the meantime, abortion remains a necessity.
The stats and logical show that high birth rates and high abortion rates are both in proportion to each other
No, highest birthrates occur in countries with the LOWEST abortion rates. Africa. Islamist countries. Israel has a high abortion rate AND a high birthrate. Like I say your logic is asskewed .
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (25) Feb 05, 2013
The US has a low birthrate and a HIGH abortion rate at 22%. Russia has a low birthrate and a HIGH abortion rate. 44% of all pregnancies in Russia are aborted. Apparently because, in either case, they were unintended.

Without abortion or one child-per-family laws, growth rates would skyrocket. China has a very high abortion rate even with this law. Because a large percentage of pregnancies there are unintended.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (13) Feb 05, 2013
Germany has an abortion rate of 7.6%, and a birth rate of 8.18%.

See I can cherry pick statistics too...
Whydening Gyre
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2013
Nature requires BALANCE. She finds that by whatever means possible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (24) Feb 05, 2013
Enough of everything for everybody MM? Lets make a list off the top of our heads:

-Chinese air pollution making japanese sick

-90% of large ocean food fish gone

-global warming

-disappearing clean water will soon begin to kill millions

-new pesticides only a few years ahead of pest adaptations

-pops in much of africa set to double in 15 years

-many species of african animals on the verge of extinction

-Forests Disappearing At Rate Of 36 Football Fields Per Minute (I looked that one up)

-Arable land [desertification] estimated at 30 to 35 times the historical rate...Due to drought and desertification each year 12 million hectares are lost (23 hectares/minute!), where 20 million tons of grain could have been grown. (that too)

...The single greatest factor in all these problems is that of populations which exceed the carrying capacity of the regions where they exist. This is called 'overpopulation'.
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2013
The single greatest factor in all these problems is that of populations which exceed the carrying capacity of the regions where they exist. This is called 'overpopulation'.


That's a highly questionable opinion, but for the sake of argument let's say I allow the premise. Your statement is still false on its own terms. The very word overpopulation is an oxymoron.

Technology allows for greater volume, but by definition people can never exceed the carrying capacity of the systems they depend upon. Just as a 400 ml container can't hold 401 ml....

You can create an 800 ml container, but it still only holds 800 ml. This is the relationship of technology to population levels. It's so self evident that you couldn't sustain a population of 9 billion people using hunter gatherer technology that it really isn't worth debating....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (25) Feb 05, 2013
80 percent of Gazans now rely on food aid...Population growth rate: 3.108% (2012 est.)...60% of gazans are adolescents...
http://en.wikiped...wth_rate

-And I suppose MM would seek to solve this problem through massive population redistribution, foreign aid, and the forced imposition of such measures?

And when these cultures who cannot support themselves double and triple their numbers in 30 years while food and clean water supply shrink, How do we prevent the collapse of the civilization that can no longer support them?

How do we prevent the ruination of a world in which they no longer FIT?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (24) Feb 05, 2013
Technology allows for greater volume, but by definition people can never exceed the carrying capacity of the systems they depend upon. Just as a 400 ml container can't hold 401 ml.
You want an image of overpopulation? Shake a warm bottle of soda.

ANY SPECIES will produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity. Humans evolved in the tropics. Our repro rates and the associated desire to maintain them, have not had time to adjust.

Technology has enabled us to eliminate all the traditional environmental factors which had kept our numbers in check. Each advancement causes a corresponding spike in rate of growth.

Technology makes pop growth WORSE without an associated adjustment in cultural mores. This unfortunately must often be done by FORCE.

People will continue to produce babies past the threshold of instability because, well, theyre not starving NOW are they? This last gen quickly does begin to starve. But before then they will choose to fight.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (24) Feb 05, 2013
"80 percent of Gazans now rely on food aid...Population growth rate: 3.108% (2012 est.)...60% of gazans are adolescents..."

-Gazans have quite obviously outgrown their container. This is happening throughout the third world. Refugees are swimming across the mediterranean. The west is being inundated.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2013
I obviously hit a nerve and I'm sorry you're having difficulty with what I said. However, AS I said, it's a point that is so crystal clear it's not worth debating. I'm sure you'll find someone else to indulge you, but nothing you said added anything to the discussion.

Perhaps you're having difficulty with differentiating the two concepts of population capacity, and fluctuation of population?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (25) Feb 05, 2013
The economic problems of places like spain, greece, italy, and even california are due in large part to this overflow. Hispanics will become the majority in California by next year.
I obviously hit a nerve and I'm sorry you're having difficulty with what I said. However, AS I said, it's a point that is so crystal clear it's not worth debating. I'm sure you'll find someone else to indulge you, but nothing you said added anything to the discussion.
In other words you lost (AGAIN) because you cannot back your opinions with evidence. You say you have given up on god but I see you still have a problem with faith. Too bad.
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 05, 2013
In other words you lost because you cannot back your opinions with evidence.


My opinion is that you can't sustain a planetary population in the billions using stone knives and bear skins as your means of survival. Do I need evidence to back that?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (24) Feb 05, 2013
Perhaps you're having difficulty with differentiating the two concepts of population capacity, and fluctuation of population?
Perhaps you have a problem with the inexorable ruination of the planet? Economic Cycles proceed thus: Growth, Decay, Collapse, and Rebirth. Collapse is rarely pleasant. Collapse has traditionally entailed famine, war, and revolution. This is ALREADY happening throughout the ME.

This represents populations which have surged past the carrying capacity of the regions in which they live, falsely blaming their leaders for their misery, and leaders desperately trying to steal what their people need from their neighbors.
My opinion is that you can't sustain a planetary population in the billions using stone knives and bear skins as your means of survival. Do I need evidence to back that?
You wont be able to sustain it given the current decline of the environment and the imminent failure of pesticides, fish populations, and the water supply.
Modernmystic
Feb 05, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (25) Feb 05, 2013
"Scores of countries are overpumping aquifers as they struggle to satisfy their growing water needs, including each of the big three grain producers—China, India, and the United States. These three, along with a number of other countries where water tables are falling, are home to more than half the world's people.

"For fossil aquifers—such as the vast U.S. Ogallala aquifer, the deep aquifer under the North China Plain, or the Saudi aquifer—depletion brings pumping to an end. Farmers who lose their irrigation water have the option of returning to lower-yield dryland farming if rainfall permits. In more arid regions, however, such as in the southwestern United States or the Middle East, the loss of irrigation water means the end of agriculture.

"Falling water tables are already adversely affecting harvests in some countries, including China, the world's largest grain producer...the water table under the North China is falling faster than earlier reported...largely depleted."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (25) Feb 05, 2013
How you gonna fix THAT MM? You think god might actually come through for once? Ever read about joseph and pharaoh?? Their god only told them to accept the Inevitable; and lo, after the traditional 7 years a great Collapse was visited upon the land.

And god had absolutely nothing to do with it.