Winter: Baby, It's Cold Outside!

There's a difference: Social media is only dangerous to people who worship social media. Climate change will kill everybody equally.

True enough. This does not mean that we collectively need to morph towards a one-world "democratic" government that markets itself "for the good of all people". People are fickle. There should always be at least a two-party system.

No one is saying that we need a one-world democracy to reduce carbon emissions.All we are asking is that we follow the facts instead of misleading people with misinformation.

Who other than fringe people are calling for this? Who? Where has anyone of note equated the two things? You are the only person I know that has even brought up such a ridiculous idea.

You're the only one who's talking about One World Government.

One is about tradition and common sense, the other is about authoritarianism. I showed the definition of it in Message 61. It's very simple. False. No federal laws denying auto registration due to any type of mechanical inspection. Maybe a few liberal states, but not federal.

When they're promoted and enacted by special interests, rather than the legislative process. Or when the legislators are corrupted.

quote:

---

Authoritarianism ; the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

---

Some people believe we already have enough IRS agents. That we could better use 87,000 more border patrol police.

quote:

---

So the Green New Deal imagines a great leap forward, from a slow, voluntary shift to electrified transportation to a swift, mandated one.

---

The Green New Deal: What It Would Mean for Transportation - The Greenlining InstituteMandates, mandates, mandates. By authoritarians.

Free people should have enough sense to know a lot about danger. Sometimes they have to be warned, when the warnings make sense to them, when they can see the danger. We can't see danger in things like global temperatures, when we can't directly sense it. When it's promoted by special interests.

Not the right wing view, not what the definition says. Not the right wing view. If pollution happens to the extent that people can sense it for themselves, then it's taken care of by the legislative process. Not things like slight changes in global temperatures that people can't sense, that they only hear about from special interests. Far better than watching a show would be to open a history book.

ringo writes: nothing could be further from the truth. The poorest countries will pay the lion's share as usual. then in order up to the Elon Musks hiding in their orbiting satellites.

Of course there is no "tradition" about global warming. We haven't understood it long enough to develop any tradition. And of course preventing global warming IS common sense. It's common sense to prevent (by laws or any other means) anything that threatens to destroy our way of life.So you have shown no difference. In Message 61, you quoted:

quote:

---

Authoritarianism ; the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

---

ALL laws put the common good before personal freedom. You're pretending that ALL laws are authoritarian, which is ridiculous.Again, you have failed to show any difference between laws about global warming and any other laws. Who said anything about "federal" laws? I'm talking about ANY jurisdiction with a responsible, first-world government, not just those Republiclowns in Washington who try to obstruct everything sensible. So you admit that what I said was true.

Yes, as I said, "There are good reasons to warn people about dangerous things."There is nothing "alarmist" about it. REAL alarms are not alarmist. We can't sense danger in a fire at the other end of the building when we can't directly sense it. Your plan is to turn off the fire alarms and wait for people to "directly sense" the fire. You have it backwards. The "special interests" are trying to downplay the danger. "Don't worry, the fire will never make it to THIS end of the building. How could it?"The special interests are trying to sell more petroleum products, more gas=guzzling cars, etc.

You're right. I have to be careful about thinking in bumper-stickers myself.

That's not authoritarianism. Wow, you really don't know what it is. Can you name a non-authoritarian law that has passed?