Are you posting just to keep up your post count? This statement does not even address my post.
I’ll type slowly so you can follow:
FXM noted that if RICO was used in a particular way, it would lead to an abuse of that law by attacking people not involved with organized crime.
I noted that the abuse that concerned him was already a recurring phenomenon.
He challenged my post.
When I did not check in on this thread with sufficient haste, he whined that I had “still” not provided evidence.
I provided support for my contention that RICO has been used to attack people and organizations that are clearly not associated with organized crime. In that post, I explicitly noted that the people might be guilty of crimes, although not of being part of organized crime.
You now wander in to say that those attacked might have been guilty of something. So what? I never claimed tat they were innocent. The claim was that RICO was being used to attack people who were not members of or associated with organized crime.
This inability to follow actual discussion does explain about 80% of the rest of your posts, however.
Which of the examples you give in post #4985 involves a lone operator? Or just leave it, it’s obvious you’ve never been involved in racketeering so anything you say about it will make you look like some tutti-fruity liberal.
Your response was further evidence that you are intellectually disabled.
No, trying to sway public opinion is not organized crime, and is not even illegal, you insufferable moron. The fact that you can’t understand that helps to explain this entire thread.
Either that, or this is pages and pages of trolling for which you ought to be bounced.
Let’s be clear on this. Even if it’s true (which it probably actually is), even if a bunch of people are trying to cast doubt on climate change, and it’s to prevent higher taxes, or something, it doesn’t make that RICO, because it opens the door to go after anyone for any reason, using RICO laws, and now trying to sway public opinion is organized crime.
Really? Evidence?
In case you somehow can’t see it, I agreed in principle, that there probably is a group of people, who are trying to cast doubt on climate change science, and then said “if it’s true”, so it’s not about the skeptics behavior (or fossil fuel companies, whomever), it’s about the law, and what is considered illegal.
You claim it has already been happening. What’s the evidence of this?
RICO is about going after the boss man, the person ordering others to commit crimes, while they keep their hands clean. The issue in this case, is “what is the crime?”, not the issue of some wealthy fuckhole paying and ordering others to go forth and do something illegal. There is no doubt that is RICO, and should be prosecuted.
What is the “illegal” part here? What is the criminal activity?
And, as the example of the Italian scientist jailed, is the US now going to go after scientist and researchers as criminals, for not predicting the future right? For not warning of future events?
Actually, I speifically noted the point to which I was responding and asked whether that was what you meant. You claimed to have understood my point without clarifying that (you now claim) you meant something different.
Nonsense. I am trying to get you to support what you claimed.
But since you seem unable to simply do this, let me help you out. You claimed the Feds have already abused the RICO laws to target groups. The only example I can find is Big Tobacco.
I’m not sure what it all means, but certainly one thing they sued a company for basically telling big lies about their product. And a conspiracy to do so. Is that an abuse of the law in your opinion? (it’s the only example I can find, which is really strange)
If not, then how does this apply to the letter demanding we go after anyone talking about climate in a manner that differs from what the Government says about it? And how is it not a 1st Amendment issue?
Don’t get me wrong, if a big company, or government agency is deceiving us about risk, about actual damage from something they are doing, that should be illegal. It’s the presumption that it’s a crime for anyone to say something that differs from the alarmist predictions we hear all the time, from government and organizations, researchers and experts, that is the part that seems onerous in the extreme.
If it’s just about going after coal pollution, that’s another matter. One could seek the same damage against anyone who lied about risks from all kinds of things.
I’m sure the libtards will call it cherry-picking, but with the crypto-Kenyan Alarmists predicting that “Climate [del]warming[/del] change” will increase storms and rainfall, I think the ongoing drought in South Carolina helps prove that the whole madness is just Al Gore’s wet dream.
And BTW, I live in the tropics and sometimes it gets so cold here I have to get up and change the thermostat setting on my A/C.
I was pretty sure he was being funny, but I also remembered that joke from the first time he used it. It took seconds to check all his other posts in the topic, and sure enough he also used the Kenyan joke as well before. Obviously he is using irony, or sarcasm, to make some point. What the point actually is, that will remain a mystery.
But the quicl check on past behavior also reminded me he claims to be using the filter on my post, which means he saw only the quoted response above, so in his limited view of the Universe, the only thing he sees is a comment about how he is recycling his jokes.
Here, once more, are some scientific papers that attempt to explain why NH winters are trending colder, and note that the winter trend (centered on February) does not match global warming theory, or the consensus models about winter warming.
While it seems repetitive, certainly a newcomer to the topic can’t be expected to read 5000 posts to try and make sense of the topic. The gist of the recent science concerning the obviously colder winters and record snowfall,** is that it is due to an unexpected response to warming**, and melting arctic sea ice. Early and heavy snowfall, mostly in Siberia, leads to a negative feedback effect from increased water vapor, resulting in a persitant Siberian high pressure system, which influences the entire Northern Hemisphere (NH) winter.
The trend starts roughly in 1988, and is actually visible in the GISS maps, though none of this is considered consensus science yet. The cooling trend is centered on February, where it shows up easily using all data sources. Because of the extreme cold, there is more snow, and this acts as a feedback to make it colder.
NH spring and summer show the reverse trend, with warming and much less snow.
To complete the topic, you have to grasp several other points.
One) this was not predicted by the IPCC/consensus science
Two) If it’s true, it means global warming is causing the extreme winters
Three) If that is so, then complaining about record cold and snow, means you are sick of this global warming
My knowledge and ability to know what is actually going on with big tobacco, the government, and what is really happening between them and the courts, is very small. I tend to just believe whatever the MSM tells me.
I mean, it’s not like anyone in business or the government ever would lie about anything
I believe they have "… coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance of a shared objective — to . . . maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for [oil products] through a scheme to deceive the public.”
No. They have been using the RICO laws.
And I realize I fell for your grasp for attention here, and you remain a useless troll we would all be better without. I wish you would go fuck a weather related disaster.