User talk:HeartOfGold/The pernicious liberal swarm

HG, do you actually believe the shit that is coming out of your mouth -er- keyboard? ollïegrïnd 10:22, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, right now, in my city, in a state that could supply fresh clean water to the entire country, we have idiotic liberals concerned that we are using too much water, even though, in a 1 square mile region, we get over 500 million gallons of precipitation each year, thanks be to God, and use only about 83 million gallons. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of fact. Liberals in my state are so used to mimicing their counterparts in California that they are insane, applying water shortage strategies that California and Nevada probably need here, without backing it up with actual data (though the data exists, and shows that we don't have anything to worry about, short of falling acorns and communists). Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 10:31, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

"Communists hate human beings, and worship mosqitos, providing them with habitat (read: swamps) and outlawing DDT."

Yeah, never mind the ecosystem or the food pyramid... MiddleMan 10:32, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

No, I am talking about the swamps they force suburban and exurban developers to create, as well as (more necessary) storm water run-off ponds, next to the homes of those who choose not to live in soviet style yuppy condominiums (that are not subjected to the creation of new swamps). Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 10:35, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Well you kinda need a certain amount of plants and stuff to have breathable air, but I don't know the details in this case, maybe it used to be a wetland in the past and they want it restored, but at the same time allow a limited number of houses to be build there? It may also be a measure against erosion.

Anyway, to go along in your China equation, go drink some riverwater in China and see how long you'll live, or try catching a fish there (you'll have grandkids before you catch one). China is a country that does virtually nothing to protect its environment (yes, actual commies who don't care about the environment, just like the Soviets) and now their rivers are dead and the prevalence of cancer is skyrocketing. MiddleMan 10:52, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

To use syllogism terminology, HG, I may agree with your minor premise (that regulation in your community is failing) but extrapolating the major premise (liberals sux) is a major reach.αmεσG 11:12, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Moved

Moved to essay namespace. HG - please try to keep your personal essays/poems/rants/etc in the essay namespace. ollïegrïnd 12:15, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Hey, check out [[Contradictory bible quotes]], or just patrol other personal essays/rants/etc, and I won't feel so picked on. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 11:39, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

So... what's the point?

When there's an Evil Conservative Conspiracy (see: Iraq War), the point is usually to make money. What is the Worldwide Evil Communist "Consensus" supposed getting for all their hard work? Qui Bono? --Gulik 12:34, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Power to the intelligent ones, false sense of meaning for the stupid ones. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 11:40, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, the Liberals are doing SO WELL at getting power in the US right now. I wish there WAS a Liberal Conspiracy, if only to counteract the obscenely successful Conservative Conspiracy that propped up BushCo. --Gulik 14:01, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

It's not a conspiracy, it is a concensus (in the case of communists and their useful idiots). Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 15:13, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

It's funny how so many of facets of that "conspiracy" (or consensus if you will) are backed by mathematical proves... MiddleMan 15:27, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Figures lie, and liars figure. Thanks to "Silent Spring" 20,000,000 children died. Liberals whine and take power, innocents die. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 21:48, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Bejeebus! Liberals don't have a corner on that market! I don't think you can accuse libs or cons of being quite so horrible.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 22:00, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

DDT, 20,000,000 children, according to NIH officials as reported in July 2007 National Geographic. Mao, ~20,000,000. Stalin, ~27,000,000 if memory serves. Iraq? Too many, to be sure, but I do think libs have 6 out of 7 of the corners. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 22:43, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Ooookay. First of all, I'd like to see a cite for that 20million. Secondly, How many did Adolf Hitler (not a Liberal, no matter what Aschlafly says) and Ye Holy Inquisition (That great Liberal institution) kill off between them? And do you even pretend to comprehend that there is a difference, however slight, between voting for Democrats (or even Greens!), and being a Stalinist? And how many people has JHVH-1 personally killed, all by Himself? (Not that it much matters, since determining moral righteousness by comparing body counts is a game for idiots, and if you insist on playing it, I will have to insist you convert to Discordianism, whose adherents has only ever killed ONE person, possibly two; even if one was a President.)

Secondly, how does killing children in the Third World help the Evil Librul Conspiracy get power? More like, On Earth-Conservative, the Evil Librul Conspirators who ALREADY have power can only achieve sexual gratification through the deaths of small children. (This would explain SO MUCH.... fnord.)

Thirdly, considering how many children are dying RIGHT NOW in Third-World countries and hellholes like Iraq, maybe you could spare just a little indignation for the people creating the conditions that are killing them? (Hint: Not all Libruls.) --Gulik 00:14, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

"Ooookay. First of all, I'd like to see a cite for that 20million." I already gave a cite, July 2007 National Geographic. Fortunately, the article is already online in a public area, it seems. Check this out. (Note, I recounted the quote from memory, and did not think to realize that such a recently published article would already be available on line.)

“”The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children.

--Robert Gwadz, National Institute of Health, as quoted in July 2007 National Geographic article on Malaria

(It wouldn't surprise me if Gwadz is "Sternberged" after this, Smithsonian style--probably why he hedges with "may".)

"Secondly, how does killing children in the Third World help the Evil Librul Conspiracy get power?" Umn, who said it did? It is a reason to not let communists have power.

"Thirdly, considering how many children are dying RIGHT NOW in Third-World countries and hellholes like Iraq, maybe you could spare just a little indignation for the people creating the conditions that are killing them?" Children are dieing right now from Malaria. Liberal leaders and liberal policies kill more than "conservative" wars, and while you may not want to focus your attention where it is most needed, I do. BTW, I am against the war on Iraq, and was since before we invaded, Pat Buchanan style. I am not interested in singing on Iraq to the RW choir. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 07:43, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Liberal leaders and liberal policies kill more than "conservative" wars,

Can't really argue with that. Damn that evil Roosevelt, butting into World War 2! We should have just LET the Nazis enslave all of Western Europe! Compared to that, the paltry 100,000 or so Iraqis sacrificed to Bush's ego are a mere trifle, I'm sure you'll all agree.

Children are dieing right now from Malaria.

Sadly true. Let me quote the article you're mining:

Financing for the effort eventually withered, and the eradication program was abandoned in 1969. In many nations, this coincided with a decrease in foreign aid, with political instability and burgeoning poverty, and with overburdened public health services. What an insidious Liberal plot to install corrupt regimes! So, it ain't JUST due to the DDT ban, but if you want to keep blaming The Liberals for everything, don't let us stop you.

and furthermore... Soon after the program collapsed, mosquito control lost access to its crucial tool, DDT. The problem was overuse—not by malaria fighters but by farmers, especially cotton growers, trying to protect their crops. The spray was so cheap that many times the necessary doses were sometimes applied. The insecticide accumulated in the soil and tainted watercourses. Though nontoxic to humans, DDT harmed peregrine falcons, sea lions, and salmon. In 1962 Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, documenting this abuse and painting so damning a picture that the chemical was eventually outlawed by most of the world for agricultural use. Exceptions were made for malaria control, but DDT became nearly impossible to procure. "The ban on DDT," says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, "may have killed 20 million children." Yeah, those STUPID EVUL LIBRULS were entirely to blame. I'll bet Rachel Carson was PERSONALLY shpritzing the stuff all over Bangaladesh, just to make those poor honest farmers LOOK bad! And then they went and PERVERTED the purity of the Free Market, to make DDT hard to obtain, since nobody wanted to produce it! And that Gwadz fellow will be found floating face-down in the Ganges river, for DARING to blaspheme against The Ecology fnord. --Gulik 11:33, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

20 million children in the third world, not the first world. That's because there are alternatives but corrupt (non-liberal) third world politicians would rather spend money on weapons. One could also ask what this planet would look like had we continued using DDT... MiddleMan 09:47, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Hey, I'm sure the Free Market would have found a substitute for all the species it would have killed. The Free Market can do ANYTHING! For example, we could use Mexican laborers to pollinate plants once all the honeybees were dead! --Gulik 11:33, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

This should fall under "The 'Simpson's' did it!" Isn't the "bee" character of Hispanic origin? ~~ CЯacke® 11:36, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Middleman, your argument is akin to arguing that midnight alarms of Paule Revere et al was not a significant factor in the battle of Lexington. But the liberal scare mongering "Silent Spring" was in fact influentual, and in typical liberal fashion, was sent without thought to unintended consequences, such as people really becoming frightened, DDT becoming more expensives, and children dieing from Malaria. Liberals love scaring useful idiots with stories of environmental Armageddon, actual cost in human lives be damned. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 22:14, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Regarding Gulik's "...I'm sure the Free Market would have found a substitute for all the species it would have killed." Are you saying that the actual deaths of 20,000,000 children justify hypothetically saving malaria vectors from extinction? Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 22:17, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

“”Liberals love scaring useful idiots with stories of environmental Armageddon, actual cost in human lives be damned.

Actually, I think most "Liberals" would LOVE to stop scaring people with "stories of environmental Armageddon", but we are wrecking the planet is SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, it's kinda hard to stop. It's like eating potato chips.

And while we're making sweeping overgeneralizations, how about this? "Conservatives love scaring useful idiots with stories of the CommunistTerrorist Menace, actual cost in human lives be damned." Hm... has a nice ring of ugly truth to it, don'tcha think? --Gulik 23:02, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh Shit! My plan had been discovered...

As a liberal genius I have infiltrated the academic world and inserted numerous articles about molecular evolution into scientific journals making sure that they fit scientific regulatory guidelines so they would pass unhindered, had some help from more of my liberal genius cohorts. Several geologists, physicists, biologists, chemists, ecologists and physicians have been in on the plan as well. We number a little over a million strong. Coordinating this has been challenging but since Al Gore invented the internet we have had a liberal medium in which we could send our covert reports and made up findings in order to sway the weaker minds of those elected officials in the government. It truly is challenging to speak to someone with a lower IQ (sometimes 50 points) and get them to perform like trained monkeys when you want a bill to get passed in the US, however due to our superior intellect we have overcome the weaker minded ones so that our dastardly plan can prevail. To what ends you may ask? Well that is for us to know and you to just accept...--TimS 08:44, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Say it with me now, "consensus". Also, I think you should exclude chemists and biologists, as most of them are not atheist thumpers, as are most loud mouthed evolutionary biologists (read: bulldogs). Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 22:19, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Okey... "consensus". Now, how about explaining your paranoid ravings a bit further? --Gulik 23:03, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Hey, knock it off. There are plenty of chemist atheists out there! ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 07:34, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

We need an article on atheist thumper. Is it a bunny that doesn't believe in gods? Someone who beats up atheists? human^{be in} 23:57, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Sheesh. Paranoid Much?

There is not vast left wing communist conspiracy, there is a vast left wing communist consensus, composed of evil geniuses and their "useful idiots".

But how do the Frankenstein Communist Gangster Computer-God's brain-bank cities on the far side of the Moon fit into this? (See also Paranoia. Especially the part about it being the delusion that your enemies are organized.) --Gulik 23:08, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

If they were organized, it would be a conspiracy. They are effective, in the manner of a swarm of ants, and the results lead you to believe an overriding design exists, but studying individual cases leads one to believe it is more accurately characterized as a consensus than a conspiracy. Individual ants probably don't understand the big picture. Your ad hominem snarks aren't really addressing this point, but I AGF that you just thought I was spewing some conspiracy theory (as opposed to a possibly novel consensus theory). Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 23:26, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

"Evil geniuses" plotting to KILL BABIES and seize power? What part of that is NOT a Conspiracy Theory? --Gulik 00:53, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Gulik, did I say plot?. The geniuses are evil because they maintain and hold dear a failed world view, seek and wield various types of power, they have access to previous actions that have lead to catastrophe, and yet the continue making the same mistakes. They are evil in the same sense of an off duty police officer who kills somebody while driving recklessly even though he has had much more driver safety training than most. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 15:14, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

You know, that's an awfully good description of these guys. --Kels 15:59, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Not my party. And they have their faults (much of it having to do with being too liberal in the modern sense of the word). Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 20:59, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I think you're using "Liberal" as a synonym for "evil". Not very helpful, that. --Gulik 02:16, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

WHAT "Failed World View"? Communism? Dead as a manhole cover outside of Cuba and North korea, neither of which are exactly big world players. Environmentalism? Yeah, that "let's NOT leave the planet a burned-out husk" propaganda sure is a terrible idea. What exactly are you fulminating against? --Gulik 02:18, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

You say that, Golik, but do not establish that. Let me give you one example. Communism creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Which country does not have an income tax scheme that does not take more the more you earn? (Aside, even the so-called "flat income tax", which really means flat percentage, is still communist, as the more you make, the more you pay.) That communists haven't quite worked out the "to each according to his need" part of the creed doesn't mean much. Every country that has income taxes is more than half way to communism (per the creed referenced) with their income tax systems. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 13:45, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Soooo... if we are to eliminate the Vile Scourge of Communism completely, the only alternative is...what? Total anarchy and no social support structure at all? Sorry, Comrade, that don't sound too good to me. --Gulik 15:46, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Is this cheating?

This essay begins with:

"This is a collaborative essay. However, if you don't concur with the premise, please do not undermind the essay with edits in the essay itself...but you may attempt to snark, debunk, and/or do whatever on the talk pages. Whether or not you concur, you are welcome to improve the essay itself, but please avoid parody, however tempting that might be to you latent communists, who seem to operate as a swarm, with no individual understanding the direction or purpose of the group's efforts."

Which - as it says - limits contributors to those who agree with the premise. (Presumably while staying withing RW's avowed objective of: "Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people" and "Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas.")

Now, to be fair, something similar happened with http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Sam_Brownback:_What_I_Think_About_Evolution which was bounced between mainspace and essay. To me this rather looks like a backdoor method of protecting articles.--Bob_M (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

"Latent communists" is a barely disguised ad hominem attack. It assumes that everyone that disagrees with the essay is a communist. It is name-calling, and it is using weasel words. It should be removed. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 13:35, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm less insulted at being called a communist than I am at being called a part of a 'swarm'. BZZ! --Gulik 17:03, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Silent Spring

It was a movie? I only knew of Rachel Carson's book. human^{be in} 14:18, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Also, in the description of your source about Silent Spring, you state that Silent Spring is..., but fail to actually say what it is Thunderkatz 14:21, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the tips! Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 15:04, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Have any of you heard of this before?

I often have ideas that I suspect are novel but have actually been previously articulated. I am running into this again, perhaps. Have my observations on the vast left wing communist conspiracy and the synchronized swarm behavior been described by others? Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 15:20, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, unfortunately. I've heard variations on them from PLENTY of Conservatives who can't seem to grasp the idea that someone might think that trashing the planet is a bad idea _without_ first having been assimilated into the Worldwide Communist Hivemind. Amusingly, the people saying this sort of thing the loudest are usually the people who communicate entirely in GOP talking points. --Gulik 15:42, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Apeshit crazy, but funny

"While some evil geniuses think they have an idea of where their actions are leading, largely, the vast communist consensus operates as a swarm. Sometimes, observed swarm synchronization leads some to conclude that there is a communist conspiracy. Such conspiracy theories are then gleefully denounced by members of the swarm."

Indeed there is a place fot humour on rationalwiki. Just one question, HG. How many times a day do you look over your shoulder? MiddleMan 06:04, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Zero (okay, except when I am backing up or looking in the rear view mirror while driving, or I hear somebody calling me, and the like). Why? More ad hominem. You confuse humor with profundity. If Einstein ever bothered to attempt to describe his oberservations and findings regarding relativity to his coworkers at the patent office, what do you think his coworkers thought of Einstein's theories at the time? (Hint: You're the patent clerk coworker). Either that, or I am insane. Note, for the simple minded, the Einstein refernce is an analogy, not to be confused by the simple minded as delusions of grandeur on my part. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 13:38, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

"They laughed at Pasteur! They laughed at Einstein-"

"And they laughed at Bozo the Clown, too." --Gulik 15:44, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

As soon as you show me the physical proof, written in mathematical equations, I'll stop laughing. In the meantime watch out for Hillary's hitmen, their watching this website! MiddleMan 13:49, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Who are hillary's hitmen? More ad hom. I suppose. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 13:54, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

DDT

HG, do you really believe that stuff? --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 13:58, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Since you created a section with the title "DDT", I assume your question is regarding that. Do I really believe that DDT kills mosquitos? Yes. Do I really believe that Mosquitos are the primary vector for Malaria? Yes. Do I really believe that by outlawing DDT for many uses, the economies of scale were reduced, and the price and difficulty of getting DDT suffered? Yes. Do I believe it is *likely* that millions of children died that would not have had DDT been more readily available and affordable? Yes. So does the guy at NIH, according to the National Geographic quote. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 14:02, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

But do you really believe that the benefits of DDT outweigh its detriments? --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 14:03, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I *really* believe that there are usually multiple solutions to any given problem, and that no attempt was made to optimize the solution to the DDT problem. Instead, assumptions were made, human worth diminished, and irrational reactionary laws and regulations enacted. I do value millions of children very highly. The DDT reaction was exactly that, a reaction, without due attention to unintended consequences. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 14:09, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

DDT is actually an incredibly good tool for controlling mosquitoes - a very dilute solution (it's very strong) is "painted" on the inside walls of dwellings. Mosquito lands, dies. Since that is what mosquitoes do, it works well, and this method keeps it out of the environment. The hard part is limiting its use to this method and this purpose. Oh, and then, feeding those 20,000,000 children, I guess. But at least they'd be alive to worry about. human^{be in} 14:11, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

"Oh, and then, feeding those 20,000,000 children, I guess." Classic and very typical way to diminish human worth and justify the sacrifice of children (even if you did not intend it this way, Human). Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 14:14, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

What on earth are you thinking, HG? And, no, I didn't mean it that way. human^{be in} 14:19, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Liberals think that it is better to never be born than to live a hard life in poverty. (See some liberal abortion arguments for example). Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 14:23, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Let me guess--you're a believer in the Doctrine of Infant Damnation? --Gulik 15:31, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

No. Why do you resort to intimating that I hold irrational beliefs? The swarm is unmoved by rational discourse. Gulik, please desist, or get serious. Just because you don't understand something does not mean it is not rational. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 16:51, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Um.... because believing that there's a secret cabal of Communist Masterminds controlling the world through their duped proxies strikes me as about one step more believable than David Icke. And that said Communist Masterminds have a fetish for infanticide. --Gulik 17:02, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

More false imputations. It's not a secret. It is latent or occult (occult in the sense not obvious). The more influential swarm members do have a penchant for advocating and implimenting policies that result in the deaths of millions. To the extent that more intelligent communists are capable of examining proposed actions before hand, by, for example, looking at similar actions and their consequences in their past, said "rational" leaders are in fact evil, guilty, at the least, of reckless weilding of power (by force or intellect), and possibly, infanticide. (Don't make me pull out some cp:Margaret Sanger quotations.) You mock what you do not understand, and, as such, do not belong on RW, as such consistent behavior is not rational. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 17:23, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually, I mock what I do understand. I think I understand you pretty well, and I'd like to point out that if you seriously think Liberals are the only ones who wield power recklessly, base policy on ideology rather than reason and ignore history, then you obviously have spent most of the last 50 years in a sensory-deprivation tank in Antarctica.

And feel free to quote anyone your little golden heart desires. --Gulik 18:53, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

...Gulik unashamedly states. Gulik, where did I say that Liberals were "the only ones who wield power recklessly"? The problem is that when liberals do it, millions die. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 23:58, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Always? Funny, I don't recall anyone having to dig mass graves when Congress passed more stringent seatbelt & emissions laws back in the 1960s. Must've skipped History class the days they covered the Great EPA Massacres, too.... --Gulik 00:13, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

(In case you hjaven't figured it out yet, PART of what makes this screed of yours so laughable is your total overgeneralization from the actions of Third-World revolutionary despots to the likes of Walter Mondale.)

I'm still not sure of the whole point here, but the DDT issue is at least important enough not to let it slip by. When DDT was being overused to spray crops, etc, it did grave environmental damage. When used as spot treatments, for example in small amounts to the walls of huts and houses in endemic areas, it can greatly limit the spread of malaria, one of the largest killers of children. That can be discussed rationally, without resort to conspiracy theory. Also, impregnated bed nets, which are cheap, do a bang-up job.162.82.215.199 15:52, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, "162.82.215.199", if that's your REAL name, your Deceitful Liberal efforts to inject "Facts" and "logic" into this shit-flinging session are NOT appreciated. Just head back to Soviet Wikipedia, and take your "Medical Knowledge" with you! God's Peed! --Gulik 16:01, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Classic liberal lie. Gulik, which facts have you injected into this DDT thread? Not a single fact that I recal. You're more interested in mocking that discussing. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 16:53, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

....It's taken you this long to figure that out?

What was I 'lying' about? Admittedly, the biggest "fact" I think I've added is that 3rd-world children are dying from a combination of greed and corruption in addition to anti-DDT hysteria. --Gulik 17:00, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Ok, now that I've got that out of my system, I don't doubt you're correct about topical DDT usage being affective. (How sure are we that DDT doesn't harm humans, again? I remember a LOT of things popular in the 1950s turning out to be not-so-safe.) However, since DDT apparently has a VERY long lifespan, we have to consider what happens when the DDT-laced paint walls are torn down or burned, and apparently, the UN, or the Worldwide Communist Council, or someone decided the answer was "nothing good".

As far as I can tell, nobody's arguing against any of THAT. There's some small debate about whether the benefits of DDT usage outweigh the risks, but what people are mostly arguing against here is Heart of Gold's rather bizarre assertion that all Liberals are robot drones of the Evil Communist Masterminds who are trying to Take Over The World. --Gulik 16:01, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, that's the part where it gets murky. I'm not sure about the whole conspiracy to kill 3rd world babies thing. But DDT, especially in the amounts needed to control malaria, has been shown harmless to humans...that's never been the big issue...its the accumulation in the food chain that's the problem, so if DDT is the safest (to humans) way to deal with malaria at present (other than permethrin-impregnated nets), how do we minimize environmental disaster. The answer, so far, is as above. Most malarial mosquitoes feed at night, then rest on an inside wall afterwards to chill out. A molecularly thin application of DDT to the inside wall kills em ded. It's a useful method, without the evidence of environmental harm that was so clear when used to, say, aerial-spray cotton crops.162.82.215.199 16:10, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Eh, sounds reasonable to _me_, but I'm not the one manufacturing pestecides. How about registering, so I don't have to refer to you as "162"? (And having said THAT, I forgot the sig. Figures.) --Gulik 16:42, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Just click on the IP and you'll see which lazy asshole i am...sorry.162.82.215.199 16:51, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Ah, I _thought_ your writing style sounded familiar. --Gulik 17:04, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Just click on the IP and you'll see which lazy asshole i am...sorry.162.82.215.199 16:51, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

The problem with debates of this nature is that, although the positive aspects of DDT use are visible now, the detrimental effects remain largely unknown and unquantifiable until such times as they manifest. Whilst mankind of any political stripe is blessed with 20:20 hindsight, we are somewhat less effective at determining cause and effect until the effects are known (thalidomide being the one example that readily springs to mind). Sometimes it is deemed prudent to take action ahead of seeing the ultimate outcome to avert what could turn out to be potentially dire consequences. Tangentially, whilst not being 100% convinced by arguments for or against, I take the same rational view to man made climate change. Small actions now may well mitigate against it with little harm (unless you really need to fill your house with junk and drive absolutely everywhere) whereas the potential outcome of doing nothing may well be unfortunate. Muchlike Pascal's Wager without the metaphysical. _prettydilettante^lies 17:20, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Trashbat, the problem is falling acorns causing fear and irrational policy changes. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 00:03, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I must admit to a certain curiousity...HG has stated objections to "coerced" public health measures like water fluoridation and vaccines, yet digs DDT. I don't get it really. I mean, I'm kinda into DDT in the right circumstances, but also the other public health measures...--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 19:29, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I am not for putting DDT directly into the water supply. PalMD, you don't get a lot, but if you keep trying, someday some of this might have an impact. But then again, maybe not. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 00:03, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

YOu're not being quite patronizing enough, dear.

I think PatMD was referring to the fact that you're apparently OK with Communist-Style State-mandated insecticide? Seems a bit....incongrouous. Unless, of course, you don't actually care about the POOR DEAD LITTLE CHILDREN, and are just looking around for a stick to beat all "Liberals" with, and this one was handy. --Gulik 03:01, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

The problem is--and if you feel like being responsive, great--I don't understand the apparent inconsistency (I may be misunderstanding) between objecting to public health measures like fluoridation and vaccination, but not others like DDT. Maybe you could parse that out for me.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 09:47, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Chairman Mao reference

I know it's only a header at the moment but why the inference that communist = liberal and liberal = communist? As a liberal who thinks communism is a crap idea (Seemingly great on all points. Flies in the face of human animal nature and the need to be the pack leader. Doomed to fail). I think this is a rather sad attempt to create an artificial black or white divide. Reminds me of a discussion I had doon't pub wi't father aboot t'football [/yorkshire]. Despite many attempts (indeed the US hosted the World Cup at one point) to popularise the beautiful game in the US, it has repeatedly failed. Rather light heartedly, we decided that the reason it failed is because the typical American cannot understand the concept of a drawn game, there HAS to be a winner and a loser. Or if you prefer, a patriot and a communist, a conservative and a liberal. Creating black and white where there are shades of grey seems to be de rigeur for the Right. And not all liberals are communists. Nor all communists liberal. _prettydilettante^lies 18:02, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

<conservative>Oh, sure. That's just what you BABY EATING STALINISTS WANT US TO THINK!!!!@!!!one!1!</conservative>

It's just more of the "either you're with us or you're against us" thinking that's depressingly popular in all political extremist groups. (And then they have the gall to act surprised when the vast majority of people turn out to be "against them"....)

And as you may have noticed, Heart seems to think that ANY taxation is the first sign of a government turning into the Khmer Rouge, so for him, "Liberal" seems to be a fairly LARGE category--and since SOME of the groups in it are Evil, they're ALL Evil. Or something. --Gulik 18:58, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Heh, taxation is another point I find laughable about the Right. Strictly speaking, I earn the sort of money that should make me firmly conservative were I a greedy (greedier?) bastard but I view taxes as the fee I pay to belong to the sort of society where I don't have to arm myself to the teeth (kind of hard in the UK) to protect me and mine. And, a few years ago, I needed our "socialised medicine" in a big way (unable to work for 18 months and I'm a freelancer). This has brought me to the point where I don't begrudge a penny of tax, not only to look after my interests but also those other unlucky people who, through no fault of their own, end up seriously ill or fall on hard times. Funny that the ones with the most animalistic selfish interests are the ones who argue the most that they are not descended from monkeys (or Yeti). And then there's the drug trade and the vice trade. Surely the PERFECT example of the free market at work and conservatism at it's finest - maximum return for minimum outlay. But apparently, we NEED government to save us from this sort of RAMPANT CAPITALISM. _prettydilettante^lies 19:14, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd be less upset about taxes myself if most of them weren't spent on useless military crapola. (The US spends more money on its military than EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH, and we STILL can't "win" a "war" in Iraq? How is this possible?) --Gulik 19:30, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Hehehehe, short of killing everything that moves in Iraq (probably Chimpy's plan B), it ain't gonna happen. I had a great discussion about this with a muslim friend of mine (a very cynical humourist) who basically said if you leave 2 people alive in the whole Middle East, they will STILL find a reason to fight each other. Imagine tribes of feuding hillbillies but with a LOT more time to really nurture a good grudge and a love of fighting and that's how he pretty much sums up the situation...XD 20:04, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Hello, it's me. I do rather regret interrupting you two, but, this is not the YMCA locker room, and the mess you're leaving on the floor is quite disgusting. You might want to go sing on each other's talk pages instead. Just a passing thought from the peanut gallary. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 00:34, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Is it just me, or has Heart stopped pretending to be polite, and gone straight to "You're OBVIOUSLY a mental defective for disagreeing with me!" mode? --Gulik 03:04, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

It is just you. As I see it you're so into the "helpful by annoyance" thing that ANYTHING Heart says will be taken by you as an attack.

I don't like what I've been seeing of late and (actually) since Heart first joined; though people around here say they're openminded what they really mean is they support another orthodoxy. If someone posts material that falls beyond the pale of this orthodoxy then the attack dogs go to work. This particular article was started in the mainspace and hounded into the essay namespace...but even though it is here, it's still being attacked. I believe Heart is writing this as serious parody, wherein the issues are real but the "people" instituting them are hackneyed jokes.
While it can be amusing to watch, I'm starting to find the constant harassment of Heart to be the very proof of the essay itself. CЯacke® 09:24, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I tried to be civil, but it didn't seem to be penetrating. Insisting that that the Sierra Club is just a front for the Khmer Rouge DESERVES mockery, in my not-even-remotely humble opinion. (And if this IS parody, Heart's doing a CP-worthy job of staying in character. He should post it ON CP--they'd love this.) --Gulik 12:49, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Ah, but you and Trash were having this little tete-a-tete on the page, about things not yet written. Kinda like you and Bob going over to Joe's garage (not his castle), and routing around in there having a good ol' time. Joe comes and says, "Hey guys, you know I love you in a brotherly fashion but this is my garage." And then Bob says, "Geez, Joe, you don't even say 'hi'?"
So, while you were polite before you weren't in this instance. Now kiss and make up.

~~ CЯacke® 13:10, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, this essay's going GREAT....

What's the ratio between discussion page and article text now? 50 to 1? --Gulik 19:00, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Bad habbit of mine....feeding the troll. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 00:03, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Mine, too, it seems. --Gulik 00:13, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

toilet talk

Oh, common'. There are pro-environment Republicans (in the conservative black-and-white mindset, "pro-environment conservatives."[1].) There are fundamentalists who care about the environment.[2] And your "citation" does not say anything about liberals mandating low-flow toilets. You are making a false dichotomy that all environmentalists are liberal, and that only environmentalists would want a low-flow toilet. (Even that syllogism wouldn't lead to the conclusion that all liberals want low-flow toilets.) Some people might just want to save water, too. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 09:55, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I will work on establishing the validity of the observation. Meanwhile, toilets do not destroy water. Nature recycles water on its own. And dillution is the solution to pollution. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 09:58, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

As a chemist, I object to the dilution solution (an irony, really, for a person who complains about fluoride in the water!). DDT and mercury are good examples where dilution is not the solution. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 10:07, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Sorry to sneak in Cracker...Sterile, umn, mercury, is that the stuff in thermisal? Nevermind. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 22:37, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Not all mercury compounds are created equal, and more importantly, not all dosages are equal. The amount of mercury compound in vaccines is too small to harm you. I read it's like eating a tuna. It's also in the form of methylmercury which is a lot more toxic than thiomersal. Mercury bioaccumulates, so if you eat a lot of tuna, then you are going to have a problem... Hence why we can't eat as much fish as we used too. (Havent't we been through this before.) Any mercury compound is lethal in high enough a dose. Heck, water is lethal in high enough a dose. But the world is not as black and white as you think it is. Do you object to all medicines? They are all not meant to be in your body, and will kill you in a high enough dose.

So, to answer your question. No, the "mercury" (an informal use of the word) in fish is not the same "mercury" as thiomersal. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 11:38, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

The quiet thing that environmentalists don't tell ya is: After major campaigns to get "low flow" toilets installed in major metropoli the sewerage treatment people found that they could not adequately sanitize the waste water with only the water from the low flow toilets. They found they had to supplement with (at first) water from the same source (i.e. public drinking water). This, to the professionals, seemed wasteful so they implemented a plan to use rainwater runoff to help with the sanitizing. They ran into problems though as people were using the rainwater sewers as garbage cans for used oil and chemicals and what not. (These chemicals et al. killed the various flora used to "eat" the bad stuff in waste water.) This meant they had to clean THAT water before it could be used to supplement the wastewater treatment. This is the reason for the campaigns to make sure people don't pollute via the storm sewers.

CЯacke® 10:12, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually, low flow faucets and toilets do help conserve water, esp in places like the SW, as waste water there is usually...wasted. Few places (some in Northern CA) have artificial wetlands for reclaiming wastewater.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 10:35, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

There is no single solution in every region, but it is hardly a vast conspiracy.!--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 10:36, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I once owned an "electric toilet". It used paper liners. "Flushing" merely dumped the waste into a metal crucible which heated up to burn away the...stuff. The resultant emissions were vented through a flexible aluminium cltohes dry tube to the outside and really didn't smell all that bad, (after the "boilage" was gone). We never had to use it for vomitus, so I cannot report on how that woulda worked. Manufacture's site.

~~ CЯacke® 12:49, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow. Likely more idiocy (that somebody would buy such a toilet for a home). 1800 Watts. Wish they had an energy rating (power * time). How long did you have to keep the thing burning? Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 22:37, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

We had a large house that only had one small full BR, the other wing of the house had no plumbing whatsoever in it and this seemed to be a quick fix solution until other arrangements could be made. The cycle ran for two hours, that reset each time the "flush" was made. The initial outlay was like 2k and we resold it @ 1.8k. CЯacke®

Meanwhile, toilets do not destroy water. Nature recycles water on its own.

True, but I'd rather not drink someone else's sewage, no matter HOW diluted, until it's been through the evaporation cycle at least once. I'm funny that way. And water might not be a finite resource where YOU are, but it is in a lot of places. (I live in Colorado--water usage is a BIG issue here.) --Gulik 13:01, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

You'll never be astronaut material. The expensive toilies on the space station and shuttle recycle one's urine into potable water. I do not know if they have separate tanks for each crew member's waste or it all swills about in one big tank, I think the latter due to cost/weight concerns. ~~ CЯacke® 13:20, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

True, but I'd rather not drink someone else's sewage, no matter HOW diluted, until it's been through the evaporation cycle at least once. Don't drink the water from the Mississippi. You'll get sewage (treated, diluted, and chlorinated, and flouridated) and post nuclear reactor cooling water. But it is safe. They say. In my city, they treat the municipal well water with some chemical to mitigate calcium build up in the infrastructure. I drink the stuff. I spoke with the man who puts the chemical in the water. He says he only drinks beer, or occasionally, filtered water. THIS IS THE GUY IN CHARGE OF THE WATER. Clearly, though, he is not a member of the swarm. He is a wage/debt/tax slave to the swarm. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 00:24, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

For your essay:

• "According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water, through the use of water efficient toilets in new construction and normal replacement, the U.S. is expected to save 7.6 billion gallons of water per day by 2020."[3]
• Washington, DC receives 1.07 billion gallons of water every time it rains 1 inch.[4]
• I still have not found anything linking liberals to the toilet conspiracy.

ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 16:25, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Sterile, Washington DC is about 68.3 square miles according to Washington, D.C. (wikipedia article) I get 1,186,968,132 gallons per inch, close enough for government work. At 41.8 inches of rain a year, this is 49,618,857,200 gallons per year, enough water to flush 9,923,771,440 five-gallon toilets each year, or, to put it another way, enough for each resident of Washington D.C. to flush a five gallon toilet 146 times every day of the year. Now, I have heard that politicians are full of .... never mind. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 22:55, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

You still have not proven the assertion, "Liberals came up with the idea of mandating low flow toilets," and your reference does not support it. But now excuse me, I have to go flush my toilet 146 times and think I'm not wasting water. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 08:31, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Sterile, in your case, your quota has been increased to 456 times each day in light of extenuating cirucmstances. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 09:55, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

<flush></flush> Whew! I'm glad about that! <flush></flush>.... ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 11:13, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

146 times if all the water could go to toilet use. What about washing machines, lawns, etc... And what about the vegetation in the area?

The truth is that the average American uses twice as much water as the average European, with the same living standard...

Look at it differently: you f*cking PAY money for every gallon you flush! MiddleMan 11:19, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

And again it's quiet out here, as soon as a liberal raises some good points, somebody's been watching too much Fox News... MiddleMan 10:11, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

So now you're a psychic, too?

Robert Gwaldz will soon be attacked as a pseudoscientist and closet believer in God for daring to suggest that DDT restrictions led to the deaths of 20,000,000 children. Nice prediction. I don't suppose you'd care to make a little bet on that? --Gulik 12:43, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Good point, I'll address this issue now. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 13:38, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

"fact" templates

I noticed that an IP inserted a bunch of {{fact}} tags that were then removed by the principal author. Since this essay is apparently a work in progress, perhaps something to that effect written somewhere would abate the nitpicking while it is being written. I am assuming that the footnotes will be forthcoming, and eagerly await them. Especially the one for this: "Margaret Sanger/Supported infanticide". But in the meantime, since the essay is being added to and updated every few hours, it is obviously not finished. Demanding footnotes at this point would be as silly as mocking the writer(s) for typos, which we all make and usually fix sooner or later. human^{be in} 12:45, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Human, check out cite on Margaret Sanger. Let me know if I was somehow quote mining. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 23:28, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

What page? Oh, wait, 63? Why can I see that in the edit but not in the footnote? Wiki crap I guess... I go read now. Thanks... human^{be in} 23:35, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, it's quote mining not to include more of the context about poor health and mortality (the next sentence). Maybe I'll read more, she may even be trying to out-Swift you there. human^{be in} 23:37, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

"Communists hate human beings, and worship mosqitos, providing them with habitat (read: swamps) and outlawing DDT."

Funny, I don't remember Marx OR Lenin saying anything like that, hence the desire for a cite. --Gulik 12:56, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

He might have been drunk when he said it. He said a lot of stuff. --Kels 13:01, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, me too. human^{be in} 13:17, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, I put a {{fact}} template in earlier, and the IPer must have thought it was a good idea. I just hate unsupported and/or unsupportable writing. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 13:14, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

On what assertion? Just curious. But as I said, maybe we should wait until HG et al are mostly done writing and footnoting this before worrying about what their sources are. human^{be in} 13:17, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I questioned the first independent clause of the low-flow toilet section (what is now referenced as "3." It has the feel of CP stupidity (no offense, HeartoG), and so I wanted a ref. See also toilet talk above.ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 13:23, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Ironic: Margaret Sanger alludes to a swarm

See page 4, where she comments after enumerating multitudenous sins of "woman" with:

“”Had she planned deliberately to achieve this tragic total of human waste and misery, she could hardly have done it more effectively.

Highly efficient, swarms are. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 23:58, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Thank Baal we have you to try to elevate us up out of the Swarm. One day, perhaps I will even learn to think for myself! human^{be in} 00:03, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

And when you do, you'll agree with Heart about EVERYTHING! (Funny how that works...) --Gulik 11:31, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

WTF

I still have no idea how this essay relates to "liberals", but it's an essay, so...

Anyway, I have to admit that sometimes HG makes more sense than any 3 other people, and sometimes he loses me in a haze of paranoid smoke and mirrors.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 16:51, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

"This may result in toilet price controls". I mean, you haven't even got any figures there, it's all 'TBD', unless a parodist added those. Which really just means it's what you think, and bugger the numbers. No no, I'm sorry, you are completely hatstand. Not a doubt in the world. Off to the Booby Hatch with you! Doggedpersistance 17:02, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

"...you are a complete hatstand" Does someone play RPG's? --Kels 17:13, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I am filling in the TBDs. I was writing from memory, and am backfilling now. Hope you enjoy. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 22:15, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Now with even more WTF! I'm sorry, I know from interacting with you that you are smart and have a good BS detector, but this article doesn't read like a critique of liberal thought...it reads like the rants of the former white rasta asking for butts in the Lower Haight.--DoxXox^-DawkT0wk 22:39, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Footnote 6 puts things into perspective, doesn't it. Please fact-check footnote six, and let me know if I made any mistakes. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 22:57, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Al Gore squandered about 4 billion gallons of water for a canoe trip/photo opportunity down the Connecticut River in 1999

Wow.... I knew people could get thirsty under the hot sun, but that's just ridiculous! (By the way, the 'link' in the footnote doesn't seem to work.) --Gulik 23:38, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Does this one work? Might be a cookie problem. I will try to figure out how to get it to work if you let me know it still does not. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 23:46, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

No, please get a link that doesn't try to take over my browser, k? By the way, that section read like a conclusion in search of a premise as you wrote it. Since I can't check the "link", are we to assume those 4 billion gallons would not have been flowing had Gore not demanded them for his personal use? You know that river flows even when no one is using it, right? Anyway, still trying to decide of you are just trying to write the Most Immodest Proposal Ever, or really mean this stuff. Let us know when it's mostly finished so we can tell. human^{be in} 23:55, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

The water was released by a dam. It was wasted from the farmers' perspective; farmers use the stuff. I'll maybe cut and past the article to the talk page. Going to sleep for now, though. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 00:00, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

No, I've changed my mind. You are a genius, and I was wrong. I bow down in front of your great work. Doggedpersistance 23:56, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. It's just a start. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 00:00, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

This link worked: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19990724/ai_n10526652. I was going to quote the last sentence/paragraph, but you did below (thanks). So the article/essay quote mines, but the talk page is honest. Night night HG! human^{be in} 00:15, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Article text

Gore's canoe gets a lift from opening of dam Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Jul 24, 1999

When Vice President Al Gore paddled a canoe along the Connecticut River for a photo opportunity, he had some help staying afloat.

Utility officials, saying they were acting on a request by the Connecticut River Joint Commission, opened a dam and released about 4 billion gallons to raise the level of the river so Gore's canoe wouldn't get stuck in low water during a campaign visit Thursday.

The Washington Times, which reported details of the water discharge Friday, quoted a state official who suggested that the presidential candidate received special treatment.

"They won't release water for the fish when we ask them to, but somehow they find themselves able to release it for a politician," John Kassel, director of the Vermont Department of Natural Resources, said, according to the Times.

But Kassel, who accompanied Gore on the canoe trip, said Friday that the quotes were not accurate. "We think it was absolutely appropriate to release those flows," Kassel said.

Gore spokesman Chris Lehane said no one on Gore's campaign staff asked for the water to be released. "In fact, earlier in the week, we specifically requested that the water flow not be altered in any shape, way or form because of our visit. Our understanding is that the increased flow has had nothing but a positive impact on the environment," Lehane said.

(May not be complete; couldn't get page 2 to load properly) (bolding added by Human) (further note by Human, page two contains no more text)

Comment on bolding: Didn't Gore invent the internet, and didn't a Bush spokesman once get laughed off the podium when he declared that there were no quid pro qous in the formation of the "coalition of the willing"? Why do you belive these guys (political spokesmen)? Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 00:30, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually, no. That noted Liberal Apologist, Newt Gingrich, has said that Al Gore NEVER claimed to have "invented" the Internet. Helped FUND the early DARPANET research that created it, and bragged about it, and had said bragging hopelessly twisted out of shape into a joke that's probably going to be carved onto his tombstone by Karl Rove's 12-year-old clone, sure.

But, hey--don't let the fact that it's blatantly untrue stop you from repeating it at every opportunity--that's how truly GREAT "swarm-based" smear campaigns keep running! BZZ! --Gulik 01:01, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

allegory, I think. (I was vaguely aware that the much repeated charge was exaggerated, but it is still illustrative.) Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 01:04, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh, it's definitely illustrating something. Just not what you probably think. --Gulik 11:39, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

"vast left wing communist consensus" linked to "WP:Democratic Party (United States)"

hahahahaha. As a leftist myself, and a liberal, I have to say that the Dems aren't. They're centrist, like many GOPers. human^{be in} 00:06, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Dood, they don't genuflect towards the nearest Halliburton office five times daily--that practically makes them Maoists by Earth-Republican standards! --Gulik 00:24, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

History

When was the swarm born? Which century, at least? And, who borned it? human^{be in} 00:06, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Good question, I am still trying to figure it out. I think it might have been Cain's wife. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 00:08, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Good one - was that Eve, one of his sisters, or an alien? ;) human^{be in} 00:17, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd say she was an alien, maybe even the same species that supplied the wives for Noah's grandchildren. MiddleMan 13:52, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Why is it so quiet in this section? MiddleMan 21:04, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Well HG, does God approve of incest or is exobiology not so liberal after all? I anxiously await your answer... MiddleMan 10:15, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

The Swarm in (ugh) other countries?

What about communist bastions like Sweden? Canada? Viet Nam? human^{be in} 00:06, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

You mean you've never heard about the Swedish Death Camps? Damn that insidious Liberal Biased Media for concealing The Truthiness! --Gulik 00:25, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

You think the Swedes are bad? The Dutch and the Danish have twice as many death camps! MiddleMan 10:23, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Confound it! Our secret has been revealed! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:49, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

The French concentration camps were, from my understanding, so bad that the Nazis had to come down and reprimand the gung ho French lest they create an epidemic with the atrocious conditions. But then again, france has a low per capita soap consumption. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 10:55, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

If we're talking historically, we did have what could easily be called concentration camps for German refugees after WW2. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 11:12, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

What does Vichy-France (Vichy-France was the name of the fascist puppet-state in France during WWII) have to do with liberals? MiddleMan 11:15, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

On Planet Ultra-conservative, Hitler Was A Liberal. Let me guess--the Swarm LIED to you in history class, right? BZZ! --Gulik 11:35, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Why is it so quiet in this section? I can almost hear the crickets. MiddleMan 21:04, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Come on HG, I'm still waiting to hear what a fascist government, 60 years ago, has to do with today's liberals. MiddleMan 10:14, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Birth Control

HG, are you really against birth control? Or are you against abortion, because the two are defo not the same. MiddleMan 10:21, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

I am for some forms of birth control, against 99.99999% of abortions. What is defo? INIMD. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 10:24, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Defo = short for definitively, so do you have a problem with condoms and the pill? MiddleMan 10:44, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Prefer abstinance, but thanks for asking. Since we're asking such questions, which do you prefer, preperation H or some other product? Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 10:53, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Jeeze, I was just asking how you feel about birth control such as condoms and the pill... MiddleMan 11:03, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good..." --Gulik 11:35, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't think anyone was asking what form you personally use, HG!162.82.215.199 15:19, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

8% of world's water used for the home

According to one statistic I just came accross...will have to investigate. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 10:25, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Is that 8% of total human consumption (not that bad), or 8% of the planet's available fresh water supplies (would be really bad, especially if you add agricultural and industrial use to this.) MiddleMan 10:46, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Not entirely sure, implication was of human consumption. If true, agricultural and industrial use would be the more logical place to direct conservation efforts, assuming conservation efforts were warranted. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 10:51, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

In that case, agricultural and industrial use would be logical places to direct conservation efforts at, but all bits help, even 8% bits. And I'm pretty sure someone would call regulation for industrial water use a government intrusion into the free market. When will they learn that there's more to the world than making profit, such as ensuring our grandchildren will have a liveable planet. You see, humans need living oceans and large forests on this planet to have breathable air, while vegetation is needed to prevent erosion, and all those things need clean water. MiddleMan 11:07, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

But none of them need us! yeah, think about that.... ollïegrïnd 11:42, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

<libertarian>Ah, but corporations, the TRUE dominant species on Earth, need none of these fripperies. (And SCREW our grandchildren. What have those little unborn bastards every done for US?)</libertarian> --Gulik 11:37, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Do libertarians *really* support corporations (as opposed to owned and managed businesses)? Corporations have special treatment under the law, and I am not sure that true libertarians are for corporatism. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 11:54, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

If "True Libertarians" ever somehow take over, their reign will last about ten seconds before the Corporate Overlords stage a coup. --Gulik 14:31, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

HG, you might wanna read: http://home.comcast.net/~theyellowdog/joerepublican.htm and http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0309-03.htm MiddleMan 12:57, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Anybody with access to Journal Science?

I need the following Science (magazine) editorial (requires subscription). Thanks. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 13:42, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Are you sure you want to be exposed to the liberal practice of science? What if you get infected by the swarm? MiddleMan 13:49, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Come now, I have been out arguing the scientists for days now. I understand science better than most of the liberal swarm, and I think you realize this, so quit with the cheap shots already. I'd like the Science Volume 257, Issue 5067, pp. 143 editorial mentioned above. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 13:53, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

There you go. http://www.villaluisarecords.com/Science.pdf --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:26, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Outarguing scientists for days? Not only do you have a tenuous grasp on reality but delusions of grandeur as well? ollïegrïnd 14:37, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Bzz! --Gulik 14:39, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Olli, did you follow the disucssions on gravitation? Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 15:16, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks AK, I just read it. The last paragraph is a real fizz.

“”...The following appears in two places in the legislation: "The Secretary [of Energy], in consultation with the Administrator of the General Services Administration and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, will conduct a study of...the life cycle costs and benefits to the Federal Government of replacing all existing toilets, urinals, shower heads and faucets in buildings owned by the Federal Government.. .."

Really went out with a bang, didn't he. I thought an editorial was supposed to take a position. I am not quite clear what Philip H. Abelson makes of it, except, perhaps, that the bill did not go far enough. I was hoping he was going to comment on low flow toilets. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 15:23, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

So when...

Do we start the Essay:The pernicious conservative swarm ? After all, Liberalism can not exist without Conservatism! For what it is worth I am sure there is an equal action on the conservative side. A point to make when it comes to listing these people, "By what indicator are these people considered liberal?” Is it because the pushed for something to change the norm? Is it because of their religious conviction? Is it because of their party affiliation at the time of their actions? Who is grading these folks as "Liberal"? Compared to Rosie O’Donnell these folks are as conservative as the pope, it is all pretty relative.--TimS 13:44, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Go ahead and start it. You'll find that you'll have to rename it "The relatively benign conservative swarm". See essay for details and hints. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 13:47, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

I have seen no criterion that defines neither what a liberal is nor how these folks are confirmed liberals. Perhaps Heart you may wish to define this somewhere. By the generalizations of the essay I could say that Bush was a liberal since he is going off his own agenda and refusing to toe the line with congress.--TimS 09:02, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Funny vandalism?

This is funny enough to keep. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 14:08, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

When..

...will this end??? It's very confusing, because HG seems to be bright and have a good sense of humor, but his writing is horrible difficult to penetrate. Is it parody?162.82.215.199 15:21, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Are you having difficulting following the logic? E.g., do I need to fill in the gaps between sentences with other sentences? Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 15:25, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Also, whatever it is, it is akin to hitting a bee hive with a baseball bat...just look at this page. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 15:26, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

If it is a parody, Heart is doing a fantastic job of staying in character. --Gulik 15:28, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

I suspected ♥ of being--er--someone here a bit ago... There are certain patterns when he acts like someone--er--else. But it's been fun learning about toilets... ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 15:34, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Wait, lib'ruls stole your toilet water, and Mao Zedong is representative of all liberals? Interesting.-αmεσ (!) 20:44, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Umn, I spent more time than I wanted on the Toilets, but it was challanged with {{fact}} tags. It is also representative of the way liberals work, especially with Al Gore's Canoe trip that cost 4,000,000,000 gallons of water, at $0.2X / 1000 gallons. Mao, it turns out, tried many of the ideas the modern swarm push for and promote, so yes, Mao is important to the article. I am waiting for some damning source material, should be fun. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 20:53, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Maybe you should read about current Chinese environmental initiatives (good luck finding any), or that of the Soviets (search for nuclear waste sites out in the open.) MiddleMan 21:03, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

You mean like "The Green Development Institute"? Or are you pointing to the irony that the worst polluters were in fact communists? This has more to do with their lack of affluence due to pursuing an evil ideology (it is hard to worry about the environment when you're starving) than the ideology itself. China is communist now in name (and party) only, but the Chinese are fickle, and are just as suseptable to swarm behavior as in the West, if not more so (see Cultural Revolution). Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 21:12, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

I mean like the Soviet Party top leaders (who were hardly starving) not giving a shit about the environment. MiddleMan 21:25, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

The Al Gore thing doesn't make sense either. How does a canoe trip cost water? And, assuming arguendo that liberals do take some cues from Mao, they don't take any of the cues that you talk about. No liberal has suggested genocide or slagging equipment for shells... no, wait, revolutionary war heroes did, to make bullets for the Americans during the war. Hmmmm. Maybe Mao messed it up, but goods-->equipment seems to have worked before. But further, Mao isn't really a liberal at all. He loops around on the spectrum to be really a fascist... or a far-right dictator. Command economy, etc? Come on.-αmεσ (!) 21:16, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Let me try to respond. It doesn't cost water to water my lawn either, but the useful idiots at the natural resources department believe it does. They are into "conservation pricing" in a state that has more than enough water. The campaigns in the U.S. and U.K. during the war to turn kitchen pans into combat helmets was a public relations/morale boosting farce. I can dig up the cite if you really insist, but it is fairly good. (The metal was too poor). It was sort of like the blood drives after 9/11. More blood was donated than could possibly be used, but it made the stunned masses feel like they were doing something. It was better than beating a Muslim. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 21:20, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow, that's.... disgustingly cynical. First, the Revolutionary War effort actually helped. Maybe it didn't in WW2, but the government didn't make people donate... Mao did. The two are plainly distinuguishable to anyone who's not looking for a link that isn't there! And you still failed to make sense of the Al Gore claim. Please make sense.-αmεσ (!) 21:23, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Sorry for the boorish description, but fluffing up the vocabulary would have taken more time with no added information transfer. It is my estimation of how the powers that be thought on 9/11-9/12. Al Gore, umn, he's a liberal, right? And an environmentalist, right? And, though his political spokesperson stated that Gore had nothing to do with it, 4,000,000,000 gallons of water were released just in time to help Gore's photo opportunity/canoe trip, right? And all for about $800,000 in earmarks, right? Sounds like the Soviet leaders MiddleMan just spoke of...the communist leaders really don't give a crap about the environment, but in the U.S., they cynically feign concern for other swarm objectives. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 21:34, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

I still have no idea how Al Gore's "stunt" consumed money. I don't get what you're driving at. Two more things. First, you seem to concede that actually caring about the environment would be good (since you condemn fake caring). That's good. So surely Al Gore's done more good than harm, if we concede your crazy-ass example for the minute. Second, environmental problems are real, and really bad, too. One of the partners from my firm just got back from a trip to Beijing, and according to him, the skies are gray all of the time (gray with soot) and when it rains, the streaks your white business shirts grey. GROSS. Not to mention Russia's glowing green lake. Environmental problems are real, and really mismanaged by industrial overlord tactics (which are foreign to American liberalism).-αmεσ (!) 21:52, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

The Soviet Union and China are the two best examples for why environmentalists should eshew communism. But, Russia and China, China first, will eventually get their version of the EPA, and environmental laws with teeth. Even PBS recognizes this, that countries go through transitions during industrializations. Poverty->Wild West Industrialization->Affluence->The ability to actually afford pollution reduction. But arguing that humans use too much sunshine or that nuclear fussion would be like giving a toddler a machine gun shows what the environmental leaders really think: They literally hate humankind. Environmentalists are real sickos. Instead of Prince's "If I were anything else, I'd be the water in your bath" they are "If I were anything else, I'd be a uncurable plauge to wipe our 4/5ths of the world's population." You'll laugh at this until I find a cite. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 22:04, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

You're building a straw man. Your theoretical environmentalist is a jackass, but doesn't exist. You yourself admit that the sunlight thing is the brainchild of only one whacko researcher, and we already know that whacko researchers are often wrong (look at intelligent design). I don't think you'll find a real environmentalist who "hates humankind," but you might find some who think that humankind could be nicer to animals, and that humankind could better ensure its survival by not making the sky rain grey.-αmεσ (!) 22:11, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Death toll thingy

You might wanna refrain from using this. For example, had Mao led Cuba instead of China, he could never have been responsible for 50 million deaths. Had the Spanish Inquisition taken place in the 20th century there would have been a lot more victims because the population grew significantly since the dark ages. MiddleMan 21:09, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

ROTFL. Wow. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 21:12, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

He's right. If the Spanish had had more people to kill, they would've killed 'em-αmεσ (!) 21:16, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

I'll think about it. The spanish may help you guys out in the table, depending on which swarm they are classified as. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 21:36, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Does this schizophrenic episode really count as an "Essay"?

As Conservapedia is to encyclopedias, as Fox News is to journalism, so is this... thing is to Essays. There's no structure of argument, there's no support for the premise, and the sources do little more than provide evidence that the people he's talking about actually exist. This isn't an "Essay" anymore than "Git er done!" is haiku. This ranting "Consensus Theory" is amusing, does it really deserve to be grouped with essays? Garble 21:27, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Well put. I have a great deal of respect for Heart, which is what makes me question this essay so much.-αmεσ (!) 21:28, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

As much as I disagree with much of the essay, I have to say that I find that far too much criticism is being directed against HG himself, and not against the actual concepts presented in the essay. And I too have a great deal of respect for HG, which makes me ponder this essay more carefully. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 21:37, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

thanks Linus. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 21:49, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Garble, Fox News is Fair, Balanced, and let's you decide. I appreciate the compliment. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 21:49, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

<---It was right aroudn this point that the satire became too thick for me to ignore. I have to admire Heart's ability to stay in character at all times. --75.71.78.212 12:56, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Gulik, wasn't satire, it was a poke. I know how liberals, who think the liberal media is objective, convulse when they here that Fox News is actually fair and balanced. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 00:28, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Fox News fair and balanced? Hahaha! Yeah, that's why their hosts give their own opinion during the broadcast, if you think that's how the news works, you might wanna try some non-American stations. In some countries the news is still about the news, not sensationalism and pointless debates that get cut off as soon as a liberal comes up with some good arguments. MiddleMan 06:59, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Another victim of the liberal media!!!22 ollïegrïnd 07:02, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Playing 500 with the hives...

Wow, with that last Jim Jones addition, it's like playing a game of 500 using bee hives instead of baseballs. Let the swarm begin. Let's see if they can take it as well as they dish it out. (To be honest, they're doing pretty well so far). Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 23:22, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Interesting, I would not think of Jim Jones as a liberal. I believe that this may be a case of a conservative twisting the POV, LOL. Communist does not equal liberal.--TimS 08:58, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

You might not consider him a liberal, but Willie Borwn (and other liberal San Francisco politicians) certainly did. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 00:26, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Sanger

Eugenics and racism are not classical liberal values. They go against the most basic precept of liberalism, which is, egalitarianism. The fact that someone aided or abetted a liberal cause (that is, access to technology to allow one to control her reproductive future) does not make them a liberal and taint the entire cause. Unless you want to impute the faults of Eric Rudolph to the pro-life movement, or the faults of Dr. Dino to the creationist "movement," or Newt Gingrich, Foley, and Vitter to the "family values" movement.-αmεσ (!) 07:34, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Very true. I assume that Eugenics is brought up as a liberal trait based on creationists' attempts to link it to evolution. However, it should be noted that Eugenics is antagonistic to evolution, not to mention to the concept of liberal (considering that Eugenics involves the conservation of traits which in principle is a conservative view).--TimS 08:54, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

TimS, I assume you're wrong unintentionally. You should study Eugenics more. It is more than merely "conserving" traits, it is artificial selection to change the frequency of those traits, as well as the frequency of "undesireable" traits, through either negative or positive selective pressures. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 09:16, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

AmesG, we're not talking about some cherry picked strawman with Sanger, and I haven't really brought up Sangers' personal moral shortcomings (ala Gingrich--aside from noting the fact that her two occidental sons survived infancy). Her work and statements with women's and reproductive rights are fair game. While many liberals do not understand the alarming faults with their intellectual forerunners (and Sanger is not the only such swarm leader directly linkable to millions of deaths), when they are educated, they do, at least for a time, attempt to rationalize it away. Most (but not all--you'll soon see) modern liberal swarm intellectuals have learned to keep such thoughts to themselves. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 09:16, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Heart, artificial selection is antagonistic to natural selection. I am well read on eugenics. I taught about it in my ethics class a couple of years ago. It is antagonistic to evolution since the concept of evolution is one where the natural environment is the source of the selective pressures. Eugenics perverts that through artificial means and interactions. It is definitely not supported by evolutionary biologists much like abortion is not supported by evolutionary biologists. There is a considerable ethical debate about the use of Eugenics but the debate rests on ethics of designing humans which once again is antagonistic to evolution. Just to define, evolution is not engineering, eugenics is. There is a fine line, yes, but there is a line never the less. Think of the difference of a Molecular Biologist and a Molecular Bioengineer. One studies the mechanisms while the other shapes and uses the processes to create something else. Even though they use similar approaches the aspect of their sciences is changed on the level that the biologist wishes to understand the natural processes while the engineer wishes to change the processes. This one of the many differences you can see at the fundamental level of eugenics vs. evolution. Studying helps us understand while engineering helps us control, once again writing to the fundamental level of Liberal vs. Conservative, who seeks control? Considering that liberals are about providing information and allowing people to make their own choices it would seem to me that the conservative is the one seeking control.--TimS 09:35, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

TimS, selection is selection, artificial or natural. Did not Darwin breed dogs? Do not biologists use artificial selection on fruit flies in their efforts? The intentional modification of selective pressures for human beings is a valid ethical question, but the scienctific method says nothing on the ethics of such application. And, in the case of sexual (and other) selection, artificial selection has been occuring in human beings for some time. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 09:43, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

True, selection is selection but not when it comes to defining evolution. Evolution is not based on artificial selection, which is bioengineering; it is based on natural selection. As for the breeding and artificial selection used by scientists, yes it happens but it is not the base science it is engineering. There is a difference. Scientist use engineering to study certain aspects. Let’s use knock out mice for an example. Knock out mice have certain parts of their genome not expressed. This allows for the scientist to understand how the gene affects the remaining pathway in the mouse. Scientists do not make knock out mice as a method of creating a new species, just use the artificial selection as a tool for understanding what is already there. Manipulation is engineering not science. Science is about observation not manipulation outside of what would naturally occur. Have you ever read a report about the science of a tropical lizard being studied in the artic? That is an extreme example but it provides a basic understanding of how science is based on natural, physical interactions. You would never find a tropical lizard in the artic nor would it be scientific to subject the tropical lizard to an extreme change outside of their normal environment, unless there were some indicators that the lizard could live in the environment (something derived from nature). To change the lizard's genome and provide it with antifreeze proteins, like those found in fish in the artic, that would be engineering once again. And with the case of evolution, eugenics is not the same thing but an application of engineering derived from evolution. Much like the A bomb was derived from nuclear physics. So to summate this lengthily paragraph, eugenics is antagonistic to the theory of evolution due to it being artificial selection based on a desired outcome not through natural selection due to environmental pressures nor through random mutation through generations of offspring (although I believe more in the environmental aspect of causing the mutations and not that they are wholly random). As for artificial selection going on in humans, that "some time" has only started with the introduction of plastic surgery. Before then, human procreation was governed by natural selection. Because plastic surgery changes the physical characteristics of the human without changing the genome it truly is artificial selection, what you see is what you will not get.--TimS 10:23, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Also, mate selection is a whole separate area of study. Eugenics also doesn't work, as originally formulated, as the original ideas were based primarily on a Mendalian view of traits, but most "desired" or "undesired" human traits are not Mendalian.User:PalMD10:34, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Nobody is disputing the engineering and science are different. But science does not get to control the genies it releases.

Getting back to Sanger, 1. She advocated development of a super race through birth control. 2. She considered abortion and infanticide as ethical. 3. She *founded* the organization that became planned parenthood, who provide abortions disproportionately to the "Negro race" she wanted to exterminate. See Black Genocide and 14,000,000 African American Babie aborted. If you ask me, all relevant.

My prediction: The liberal swarm will attempt to fix the inequality of abortion rates by mandating abortions for Caucasians. I just hope Nancy Pelosi doesn't get the idea from here. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 12:28, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Mao doesn't belong here, I think...

Going along with the joke, your basic idea is that the Evil Liberal Geniuses come up with bad ideas, and the Lumpenproletariat hear them and think "Hey, what a great idea!", right? In that case, the actions of guys like Mao and Stalin just don't belong here, as their disastrous policies came about mainly through good old-fashioned authoritarian coercion (As in "If we don't do this, we'll get shot."). --Gulik 03:31, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Preemptive attack to prevent the inclusion of Stalin? No matter. Mao, like Hitler, and perhaps Stalin, was much loved, at least in the beginning. It takes more than a gun to make one man a leader. Mao had many followers. Another thing I do need to work into this liberal swarm model, however, is the fact that the swarm does not always follow the leader. Sometimes (or often?) the swarm changes direction, and the leader turns less quickly, but quickly gets back in front of the swarm. (Ever see swarming masses of birds in Africa?) This is part of the reason why the "evil geniuses" and swarm leaders aren't really in charge, and don't really control where they are going. But it does not remove responsibilty. For example, Mao opened up a can of worms with the Cultural Revolution, and though he missed any punitive consequences, the wp:Gang of Four did not. But even after that, ala Animal Farm, China remained communist (things changed but things remained the same). Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 00:25, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Uh, you're insane. No offense ;). But that made no sense whatsoever. This "essay" is just a list of everything you hate, with, a barely tenalbe thread to join them all. Sorry, ain't coherent yet. human^{be in} 00:39, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow, and I had thought you were friendly. No offense, but you're an assholemean. Heart♥Gold^{Show me your intolerance} 10:26, 21 July 2007 (CDT)