|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States40776 Posts
On October 20 2017 08:26 Danglars wrote:Obligatory: Her name is Kathleen Hartnett White, you sexist troglodytes. Show nested quote +Fossil fuel energy is the lifeblood of the modern world. Before the Industrial Revolution, humanity depended on burning wood and candle wax. But with the ability to harness the energy in oil and other fossil fuels, quality of life and capacity for progress increased exponentially. Thanks to incredible innovations in the energy industry, fossil fuels are as promising, safe, and clean an energy resource as has ever existed in history. Yet, highly politicized climate policies are pushing a grand-scale shift to unreliable, impractical, incredibly expensive, and far less efficient energy sources. Today, "fossil fuel" has become such a dirty word that even fossil fuel companies feel compelled to apologize for their products. In Fueling Freedom, energy experts Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White make an unapologetic case for fossil fuels, turning around progressives' protestations to prove that if fossil fuel energy is supplanted by "green" alternatives for political reasons, humanity will take a giant step backwards and the planet will be less safe, less clean, and less free. Excellent job Trump. Let's see if you can follow through on the likely policy suggestions. You're not stupid enough to not see the obvious fallacies in that argument, are you? The debate isn't between the people who like the vast amounts of free chemical energy coming out of the ground and the environmentalists who hate civilization, it's between the scientists who are saying "we checked and although fossil fuels are great we have to stop using them because it's fucking up the planet" and idiots.
|
On October 20 2017 09:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 08:07 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 07:44 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:54 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:47 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2017 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
They made room for a cheater on the RULES committee but not longstanding members who happened to support Sanders/Ellison. Ain't nobody got time for that nonsense. Do you know if the bylaws allow them to kick her off without some sort of due process? What is the process? Because each state is different. So what if they kick her off for cheating and she files a lawsuit to stay on the ticket? My understanding of the bylaws is limited, but she should have been cast out of leadership when CNN fired her. Let's not pretend she was temp chair after they knew she cheated because of some sort of process complications or that it would be a sensible explanation of this. GH, lets assume she is trash and you are right on that subject. Do you know if the Florida DC could eject her from the process? Because my understanding of most primaries is that it is almost impossible to do so without overwhelming evidence of election fraud. So much so that it would hold up in court. Because that move ends with a lawsuit. If you want open primaries, she is one of the costs of that system. They can’t get rid of her if Florida democrats keep voting for her. I mean, fuck, Rhode Island could only keep the Mayor of Providence out of office by sending him to jail. And then he was still elected after he got out. I'm saying the Democratic party and the infighting we're talking about can be summed up pretty well by the scenario you're describing anyway. I mean we could nitpick around and try to play games like ticklish or we can confront the issue head-on and Democrats can stop losing. My point is/was Democrats continue to go down the losing route. GH, all we are trying to say is that this isn’t the hill to die on. You have this grand narrative about the DNC and how shit that are they you feel the need to keep driving, but most people have sort of come to Jesus on that subject. There are not a lot of Clinton voters in this thread that think the DNC needs to pull their head out of their ass. This stuff is just House committee drama and Florida being a dumpster fire of a state. But they haven't though. Otherwise the DNC wouldn't still have their heads so firmly planted. I can concede the degree with which these last two headlines are examples could be exaggerated, but the worst interpretation of these most recent stories is still well below how bad the DNC actually is or how in denial so many still are. I've sort of said this before, but progress is a grind. This isn't a movie, there is no sweeping victory and everyone pats you on the back and says you're right. It is a slow, terrible grind against the banal and those who prefer things staying as they are. You don't have to win everyone over, just the majority. And that can't be done by primarying everyone out of office. And they can keep choosing losing over admitting they are wrong. But I'm going to remind people frequently that they were perfectly capable of knowing better before it happens (like Hillary's campaign intentionally elevating Trump). Ironic coming from someone who can't admit he's wrong. "Are you such a loser you can't even tell when you've won?"
|
On October 20 2017 10:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 08:26 Danglars wrote:Obligatory: Her name is Kathleen Hartnett White, you sexist troglodytes. Fossil fuel energy is the lifeblood of the modern world. Before the Industrial Revolution, humanity depended on burning wood and candle wax. But with the ability to harness the energy in oil and other fossil fuels, quality of life and capacity for progress increased exponentially. Thanks to incredible innovations in the energy industry, fossil fuels are as promising, safe, and clean an energy resource as has ever existed in history. Yet, highly politicized climate policies are pushing a grand-scale shift to unreliable, impractical, incredibly expensive, and far less efficient energy sources. Today, "fossil fuel" has become such a dirty word that even fossil fuel companies feel compelled to apologize for their products. In Fueling Freedom, energy experts Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White make an unapologetic case for fossil fuels, turning around progressives' protestations to prove that if fossil fuel energy is supplanted by "green" alternatives for political reasons, humanity will take a giant step backwards and the planet will be less safe, less clean, and less free. Excellent job Trump. Let's see if you can follow through on the likely policy suggestions. You're not stupid enough to not see the obvious fallacies in that argument, are you? The debate isn't between the people who like the vast amounts of free chemical energy coming out of the ground and the environmentalists who hate civilization, it's between the scientists who are saying "we checked and although fossil fuels are great we have to stop using them because it's fucking up the planet" and idiots.
Questioning about wether we should let tons of people starve to death in the third world, have access to electricity, and generally have shorter lives, in the off chance we can stop the temperature of the world from rising a few degrees, but will most likely not anyway (and the world will not explode a few celcius warmer over a 100 year span). Those idiots.
At what point would you consider that maybe global warming (yes they changed the name) was not what they said it was? You know, like the Al-Gore movie which predicted everything wrong. Like, if in 10 or 20 years, if the world was essentially the same, like 20 years ago when the world was supposed to explode, would you even question that maybe the "consensus" was not accurate?
|
On October 20 2017 10:33 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 10:01 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2017 08:26 Danglars wrote:Obligatory: Her name is Kathleen Hartnett White, you sexist troglodytes. Fossil fuel energy is the lifeblood of the modern world. Before the Industrial Revolution, humanity depended on burning wood and candle wax. But with the ability to harness the energy in oil and other fossil fuels, quality of life and capacity for progress increased exponentially. Thanks to incredible innovations in the energy industry, fossil fuels are as promising, safe, and clean an energy resource as has ever existed in history. Yet, highly politicized climate policies are pushing a grand-scale shift to unreliable, impractical, incredibly expensive, and far less efficient energy sources. Today, "fossil fuel" has become such a dirty word that even fossil fuel companies feel compelled to apologize for their products. In Fueling Freedom, energy experts Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White make an unapologetic case for fossil fuels, turning around progressives' protestations to prove that if fossil fuel energy is supplanted by "green" alternatives for political reasons, humanity will take a giant step backwards and the planet will be less safe, less clean, and less free. Excellent job Trump. Let's see if you can follow through on the likely policy suggestions. You're not stupid enough to not see the obvious fallacies in that argument, are you? The debate isn't between the people who like the vast amounts of free chemical energy coming out of the ground and the environmentalists who hate civilization, it's between the scientists who are saying "we checked and although fossil fuels are great we have to stop using them because it's fucking up the planet" and idiots. Questioning about wether we should let tons of people starve to death in the third world, have access to electricity, and generally have shorter lives, in the off chance we can stop the temperature of the world from rising a few degrees, but will most likely not anyway (and the world will not explode a few celcius warmer over a 100 year span). Those idiots. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death if they become less able to farm because of climate change as well. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death no matter what.
Can you provide evidence which indicates that in the long run more people will starve, die of curable diseases, etc. if climate change is addressed than if it is not?
At what point would you consider that maybe global warming (yes they changed the name) was not what they said it was? You know, like the Al-Gore movie which predicted everything wrong. Like, if in 10 or 20 years, if the world was essentially the same, like 20 years ago when the world was supposed to explode, would you even question that maybe the "consensus" was not accurate? What exactly is the prediction that was made 20 years ago that you are claiming was profoundly wrong? I am pretty sure nobody predicted the literal explosion of the world. Again, it's pretty difficult to discuss this without specifics.
|
On October 20 2017 09:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 08:34 Nevuk wrote:Chuck D: Why Donald Trump Is a White Supremacist Trump is a bloated mess—and a weapon of mass distraction. Many people are so turned off and perturbed by the whole Trump-POTUS charade that they fail to understand that there are other things in motion behind the scenes. On our track “Hail to the Chief,” we decided to focus on the seriousness of Vice President Mike Pence, who basically ran a regime in the state of Indiana that was a disturbing throwback rife with political and administrative bias. The wheels are now in motion for an eight-year regime that will prove very difficult for a lot of people to swallow. The music video to “Hail to the Chief” isn’t an attack on Pence, but rather lays bare who this guy is while posing the question: Why is everybody not paying attention to this guy in the background? It’s important not to trivialize this dude. There’s an underlying layer to this administration that is very sinister. To me, David C-Doc Snyder is the greatest videographer of all-time. He’s been Public Enemy’s videographer for the last decade, and is able to brilliantly hone in on a subject. On the topic of Charlottesville, when you can’t condemn live and actual racists, you might as well be doing the Nazi salute, like Trump does in the video. He’s a 70-year-old white alpha male who looks down on other peoples, and bullies others to get what he wants. If that’s not supremacy, then what the fuck is? He’s the epitome of a white supremacist. He’s not about sharing the world; he’s about taking. He has no concern for the future of the world because he’s selfish, and is only going to be around for 10, 15 more years. Trump also didn’t condemn those racists who marched on Charlottesville because he doesn’t want to lose his base. Everything has turned into entertainment to the point where we think politicians actually have “fan bases” now. They’re not rock stars—even though Trump’s calling Kim Jong Un “Rocket Man.” Everything cannot be popularized, and we’re in a society now that popularizes everything within a system of “popular” versus “unpopular.” Whatever happened to a person wanting to do the dirty work and not get any points for it? We don’t need the person who governs our country to have a freestyle, too. Obama wasn’t trying to be cool; he was just a cool black dude. All this trying to be cool has gone too far. It boggles the mind. So this toxic mindset reached the point where the country voted for a TV-star president. Donald Trump, some asshole television personality, as president of the United States? Get outta here. The other day I was half-asleep in front of the TV and overheard a news report that said, “Trump and his generals.” As a sports fan, I immediately had a flashback to 1984 when he owned the New Jersey Generals of the USFL. Then I woke up and realized, oh, this guy’s in charge of real generals. It’s a crazy thing. So, Trump with a Nazi salute? Why not. But we have to remember that Donald Trump’s rhetoric resonated enough to get him in the White House, and to actually get votes against the other candidate, Hillary Clinton, who wasn’t a pretty picture either. Because really, who wanted a monarchy? So, with all this mass distraction going on, there’s something that lies in the background that’s going to be a stench that will stink for the next 40 years, long after these people are gone. If you really give a damn about what world your children are going to inherit, you have to rail against these regimes now. It’s our duty. The lynching images in the music video for “Hail to the Chief” are from America’s past, and used symbolically to represent what’s been happening in this country over the past decade. There was racial animosity towards the Obama administration that was completely uncalled for. If they had a chance to kill him, they would have. What I mean by “they” is, if the adversarial, far-right wing of society got away with what they wanted to get away with, President Obama would have been hanging from a tree. And that is the truth. I recorded the track “Rebel Without a Pause” in 1987, and strangely enough, that song’s lyrics were in part inspired by Biz Markie who, in “Nobody Beats the Biz,” had one of the great political hip-hop lines that’s been largely overlooked: “Reagan is the Pres but I voted for Shirley Chisholm.” That line is so powerful that it inspired me to write this entire song about Ronald Reagan. At that time, R&B stood for Reagan and Bush. There were a lot of policies that affected people of color that we’re still fighting to free ourselves of now. President Obama helped unthread some, but we’ve been thrust into a situation where these discriminatory policies are being revived by the Trump administration. There’s a reason why Trump stole Reagan’s slogan. “Make America Great Again” means that the white male will always reign supreme, and there’s no room for anybody else. Being black and taking on the term “radical” is all about survival. You must be radical to survive. Trump, after all, is the frontman for the rock group that is the United States of America. Trump has no moral scruples, no ethics, no knowledge of laws. Trump doesn’t know anything other than what he wants to know. But all the king’s men are different. Mike Pence is different. Jeff Sessions is different. How long will Trump be in office? Health-wise, I don’t think he’ll be there longer than two years, which is what inspired me to write “Hail to the Chief.” He’ll slide further and further into irrationality. If he doesn’t get impeached, he’ll come up with his own trumped-up reasons for why he can’t do the job. And then we’ll have to deal with the tyranny of Mike Pence. Welcome to the United States of America.
www.thedailybeast.com What a pretty silly piece in the outrage/WS genre. Show nested quote +Hillary Clinton, who wasn’t a pretty picture either. Because really, who wanted a monarchy? Pretty funny line. I've heard that tired perspective before and it simply fails in it's own analysis. He's a weapon of mass distraction ... then the author proceeds to get distracted by all the jazz and quaint memories of lyrics and video. I've been going heavy on my own opinion, so I guess it's deserved. But in keeping with the spirit, let's have some more overt satire instead of unintentional satire from the Daily Beast: Show nested quote +Key Democrats met secretly to confer about the party’s future as America approached the one-year anniversary of their stunning and hilarious humiliation by Donald Trump. The key question they sought to answer: “How can we Democrats appeal to those Jesus-loving, racist idiots who hate science and don’t live on the coast like everyone we know?”
After opening the seminar by refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance, Chuck Schumer gaveled the meeting to order, sparking widespread protests. “Hammers are violent tools of oppression that cause oppressed people to literally shake. We need a national conversation about assault gavels that use automatic high-capacity clips,” sputtered the 112 year-old Senator Dianne Feinstein. “Sure, we should be able to have them, but not those, those … little people out there. They don’t need gavels.”
The assembly quickly agreed that in 2018 Democrats must prioritize sensible hammer control, including gavel background checks and ending the tool show loophole, and to enlist Lawrence O’Donnell in their campaign to stop the hammering.
This vital issue settled, Schumer continued: “Remember, we’re here to freely exchange ideas in an atmosphere of openness and unlimited inquiry. With that in mind, your program has a list of the things you can’t say, like ‘illegal alien’ and ‘Christmas.’ It also has a handy cheat sheet of everyone’s preferred pronouns. Mine are ‘he’ and ‘him,’ while Senator Menendez’s are ‘convict’ and ‘Number 675973.’ Also, be sure to observe the rule about not mansplaining, which should not be a problem with this group.”
He then turned it over to 105 year-old Nancy Pelosi, who asked, “Where am I?”
After Schumer whispered in her ear, she began: “With the economy booming, the stock market setting records, and America defeating ISIS, things have never been worse. That’s why we need to keep The Resistance going, because it’s been a huge success so far in my district in San Francisco and, I’m sure, in your districts in Manhattan, Chicago, and Havana. And we need to expand our party, which means we need to convince dirty, stupid, transphobic normal Americans to come to grips with their own failings and join us.”
“We could tell them they’re stupid even more often,” suggested Al Franken.
“And racist,” suggested Maxine Waters.
“Also, Islamophobic,” said Keith Ellison.
“In my state, I can go potty with girls!” said California’s Gavin Newsom.
“Clearly, there’s something wrong with these people, so we need to consult with someone with a genuine connection with normal Americans,” Pelosi said. “Sadly, Hillary Clinton isn’t here to help us. If anyone connects with Middle America, it’s her. Unfortunately, she’s fallen and she can’t get up.” Pelosi made the “drinky drinky” gesture, and the crowd nodded.
Townhall Chuck D is an old school political rapper (like, really old). I've always liked his music and thought that his essay was a nice change of pace for being from an obviously different point of view - he despises the democratic establishment as well, I believe.
That satire is... almost funny, which makes it more painful than it would otherwise be. There's a LOT ripe to be mocked about the democratic party and it gets some aspects right, but it just misses the mark in some areas. Namely the tone of speech is wrong - the cadence is off for Pelosi, making it feel more like a vitriolic attack on her rather than a satirical parody. Franken is one of the few democrats who has never come close to suggesting that, Gavin Newsom is an odd choice for that quote, unless I'm missing something about california. Pointing out the age of only the women gives it a bit of a misogynist feel - Chuck schumer, Sanders, et al are also really old. Feinstein is on point in mocking her philosophies, though I'm not quite sure if she sounds like that (would be possible to literally copy + paste a speech of hers and change rifle -> hammer). Chuck Schumer is a lot more dead-on than the other impressions.
Gavin also isn't a clear idiot - that sort of joke works with Louis Gohrmert or Brian Kilmeade because they're goddamn morons and no one would raise an eyebrow if they showed up to work and forgot how to use a computer or speak intelligibly. If there's not really an obvious seed of truth to a joke it rings hollow. I'm sure there's idiotic democrats out there to work with, though they may be less high profile than Gohrmert/Kilmeade. Maybe DWS? But she's just massively incompetent. Would probably need to be a lesser known representative from NC or something.
Also missed some easy jokes about Bob Menendez + corruption trials, the uranium one deal, and keeping Sanders locked outside in the cold looking in from the window and taunting him with health care bills. Keeping Hillary, one of the most easily mockable people out of the story for a tired, worn out joke about her drinking was also a poor choice. Also, havanna? Who has a district in cuba?
|
As a former general, who almost never publicly engaging in petty feuds, Trump doing that must have sucked. Maybe he and Obama didn't get along at a personal level and Obama knew the Kelly wouldn't appericte the call. It sucks that the new normal is all things private are public because the President has made Washington a reality show.
|
On October 20 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 10:33 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 20 2017 10:01 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2017 08:26 Danglars wrote:Obligatory: Her name is Kathleen Hartnett White, you sexist troglodytes. Fossil fuel energy is the lifeblood of the modern world. Before the Industrial Revolution, humanity depended on burning wood and candle wax. But with the ability to harness the energy in oil and other fossil fuels, quality of life and capacity for progress increased exponentially. Thanks to incredible innovations in the energy industry, fossil fuels are as promising, safe, and clean an energy resource as has ever existed in history. Yet, highly politicized climate policies are pushing a grand-scale shift to unreliable, impractical, incredibly expensive, and far less efficient energy sources. Today, "fossil fuel" has become such a dirty word that even fossil fuel companies feel compelled to apologize for their products. In Fueling Freedom, energy experts Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White make an unapologetic case for fossil fuels, turning around progressives' protestations to prove that if fossil fuel energy is supplanted by "green" alternatives for political reasons, humanity will take a giant step backwards and the planet will be less safe, less clean, and less free. Excellent job Trump. Let's see if you can follow through on the likely policy suggestions. You're not stupid enough to not see the obvious fallacies in that argument, are you? The debate isn't between the people who like the vast amounts of free chemical energy coming out of the ground and the environmentalists who hate civilization, it's between the scientists who are saying "we checked and although fossil fuels are great we have to stop using them because it's fucking up the planet" and idiots. Questioning about wether we should let tons of people starve to death in the third world, have access to electricity, and generally have shorter lives, in the off chance we can stop the temperature of the world from rising a few degrees, but will most likely not anyway (and the world will not explode a few celcius warmer over a 100 year span). Those idiots. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death if they become less able to farm because of climate change as well. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death no matter what. Can you provide evidence which indicates that in the long run more people will starve, die of curable diseases, etc. if climate change is addressed than if it is not? Show nested quote +At what point would you consider that maybe global warming (yes they changed the name) was not what they said it was? You know, like the Al-Gore movie which predicted everything wrong. Like, if in 10 or 20 years, if the world was essentially the same, like 20 years ago when the world was supposed to explode, would you even question that maybe the "consensus" was not accurate? What exactly is the prediction that was made 20 years ago that you are claiming was profoundly wrong? I am pretty sure nobody predicted the literal explosion of the world. Again, it's pretty difficult to discuss this without specifics.
To start, I thank you for wanting to argue in good faith.
I've esentially seen 2 scenarios:
a) The world is warming up at an atonishing rate, and we need to halve carbon emissions to avoid a huge part of the world's coast from flooding due to rising temperature and correspondant sea level.
b) The world's temperature is rising a few degrees in the next 100 years, with very little influence of human nature.
For a), cutting emisssions in the current way is worthless. Literally worthless and costs and unimaginable amount of money. Might as well have more resources to deal with problems later. Or, we could cut emissions to 50%, which is essentially going back to the stone age, and destroying the lives of millions people (billions?). Should we do that? are we sure ? Is it worth it?
I see no benefit in cutting emissions trough government mandates on dubious ways as it works now, for either scenario.
A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death if they become less able to farm because of climate change as well. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death no matter what.
Crops yield increase with higher carbon content on the air, it's plant's "oxigen". Cheap electricity (no restrictions) increases access to required supply, machinery and water transportation also allow for better farming.
What exactly is the prediction that was made 20 years ago that you are claiming was profoundly wrong? I am pretty sure nobody predicted the literal explosion of the world. Again, it's pretty difficult to discuss this without specifics.
In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.
Gasoline was supposed to be $9 per gallon. Milk would cost almost $13 per gallon. Wildfires would rage, hurricanes would strike with ever-greater intensity.
In reality, I respect the wild-eyed rapture-pastors far more than the climate hysterics. They merely ask me to believe, they don’t use the power of government to dictate how I live. Pastors aren’t circumventing the democratic process to impose dangerous and job-killing environmental regulations. Draconian fuel-economy standards have actually cost American lives. And now the coal industry is reeling in part because of stringent EPA standards. Overall, the EPA’s climate-change regulations are set to impose enormous economic costs.
|
Still guilty, doesn't serve the sentence. Presidential pardons can't rewrite the facts.
|
too bad there isn't a mechanism for reversing a pardon; because arpaio really should be in jail. ah well, more things to put in a fix for.
|
On October 20 2017 11:30 zlefin wrote: too bad there isn't a mechanism for reversing a pardon; because arpaio really should be in jail. That completely defeats the purpose of a pardon. It is designed to be final and remove the ability of the states power to punish.
|
On October 20 2017 08:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 08:22 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 08:07 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2017 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 07:44 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:54 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2017 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
My understanding of the bylaws is limited, but she should have been cast out of leadership when CNN fired her. Let's not pretend she was temp chair after they knew she cheated because of some sort of process complications or that it would be a sensible explanation of this. GH, lets assume she is trash and you are right on that subject. Do you know if the Florida DC could eject her from the process? Because my understanding of most primaries is that it is almost impossible to do so without overwhelming evidence of election fraud. So much so that it would hold up in court. Because that move ends with a lawsuit. If you want open primaries, she is one of the costs of that system. They can’t get rid of her if Florida democrats keep voting for her. I mean, fuck, Rhode Island could only keep the Mayor of Providence out of office by sending him to jail. And then he was still elected after he got out. I'm saying the Democratic party and the infighting we're talking about can be summed up pretty well by the scenario you're describing anyway. I mean we could nitpick around and try to play games like ticklish or we can confront the issue head-on and Democrats can stop losing. My point is/was Democrats continue to go down the losing route. GH, all we are trying to say is that this isn’t the hill to die on. You have this grand narrative about the DNC and how shit that are they you feel the need to keep driving, but most people have sort of come to Jesus on that subject. There are not a lot of Clinton voters in this thread that think the DNC needs to pull their head out of their ass. This stuff is just House committee drama and Florida being a dumpster fire of a state. But they haven't though. Otherwise the DNC wouldn't still have their heads so firmly planted. I can concede the degree with which these last two headlines are examples could be exaggerated, but the worst interpretation of these most recent stories is still well below how bad the DNC actually is or how in denial so many still are. I've sort of said this before, but progress is a grind. This isn't a movie, there is no sweeping victory and everyone pats you on the back and says you're right. It is a slow, terrible grind against the banal and those who prefer things staying as they are. You don't have to win everyone over, just the majority. And that can't be done by primarying everyone out of office. And they can keep choosing losing over admitting they are wrong. But I'm going to remind people frequently that they were perfectly capable of knowing better before it happens (like Hillary's campaign intentionally elevating Trump). people won't admit they were wrong if you don't provide proof they were. and you don't. (in addition to you rarely admitting you're wrong, or admitting to the considerable flaws with bernie, or own up to your own part in causing losses, yet you expect others to act better than you) lol, yup intentionally elevating Trump was a brilliant decision. I've always said Bernie was far from perfect, but most of the critiques (from the center-left) are dumb or inconsequential. No idea wtf you're talking about with my part in causing losses (not that I don't take responsibility where appropriate, just no idea wtf you're talking about) as far as acting better, I actually expect them to not want to lose, I don't expect them to be better people (the political-professional crowd). you're proving my points here, and fully justifying my description. so there's nothing more to say to you. you're no better than the DNC.
That's funny, because I thought you proved mine. "You're no better than the DNC" is hilariously nonsensical and either a compliment to me or an insult to the DNC.
I mean you guys can think what you'd like, and explain away failure after failure for the DNC and Democrats, and convince yourselves Democrats aren't losing because they are trying to be the socially decent version of the Republican party and that's not what people want.
Y'all should have known better in 2016, you should know better in 2018, and hopefully before 2020 you guys can recover your heads.
P6 gets some slack because he's made some real progress.
|
On October 20 2017 11:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 11:30 zlefin wrote: too bad there isn't a mechanism for reversing a pardon; because arpaio really should be in jail. That completely defeats the purpose of a pardon. no it doesn't. and when the pardons are abused to oppose justice and actively destroy the country, it's necessary to have countermeasures put in.
|
On October 20 2017 11:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 11:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2017 11:30 zlefin wrote: too bad there isn't a mechanism for reversing a pardon; because arpaio really should be in jail. That completely defeats the purpose of a pardon. no it doesn't. and when the pardons are abused to oppose justice and actively destroy the country, it's necessary to have countermeasures put in. Counter measures are abused. Now the entire thing is worthless, nicely done. One more worthless time waster.
Elect better people to avoid abuse of power.
|
On October 20 2017 11:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 11:32 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 11:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2017 11:30 zlefin wrote: too bad there isn't a mechanism for reversing a pardon; because arpaio really should be in jail. That completely defeats the purpose of a pardon. no it doesn't. and when the pardons are abused to oppose justice and actively destroy the country, it's necessary to have countermeasures put in. Counter measures are abused. Now the entire thing is worthless, nicely done. One more worthless time waster. Elect better people to avoid abuse of power. I did elect better people; others did not. your claim that the entire thing is necessarily worthless because countermeasures to abuse are put in has no basis. plenty of things have counter measures, and are still quite worthwhile to have.
gh -> you can think what you like, but that doesn't mean you're correct or that we should pay any attention to what you say. a lot of people believe things that simply aren't true. fervently held belief is not an indicator that the belief is correct. Your assertions mean nothing because it's been shown time and again that they are not well constructed, so much like the boy who cried wolf, your words and your assessments aren't worth anything.
|
I wonder how many pardons would be overturned if they needed a supermajority.
|
On October 20 2017 11:09 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 20 2017 10:33 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 20 2017 10:01 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2017 08:26 Danglars wrote:Obligatory: Her name is Kathleen Hartnett White, you sexist troglodytes. Fossil fuel energy is the lifeblood of the modern world. Before the Industrial Revolution, humanity depended on burning wood and candle wax. But with the ability to harness the energy in oil and other fossil fuels, quality of life and capacity for progress increased exponentially. Thanks to incredible innovations in the energy industry, fossil fuels are as promising, safe, and clean an energy resource as has ever existed in history. Yet, highly politicized climate policies are pushing a grand-scale shift to unreliable, impractical, incredibly expensive, and far less efficient energy sources. Today, "fossil fuel" has become such a dirty word that even fossil fuel companies feel compelled to apologize for their products. In Fueling Freedom, energy experts Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White make an unapologetic case for fossil fuels, turning around progressives' protestations to prove that if fossil fuel energy is supplanted by "green" alternatives for political reasons, humanity will take a giant step backwards and the planet will be less safe, less clean, and less free. Excellent job Trump. Let's see if you can follow through on the likely policy suggestions. You're not stupid enough to not see the obvious fallacies in that argument, are you? The debate isn't between the people who like the vast amounts of free chemical energy coming out of the ground and the environmentalists who hate civilization, it's between the scientists who are saying "we checked and although fossil fuels are great we have to stop using them because it's fucking up the planet" and idiots. Questioning about wether we should let tons of people starve to death in the third world, have access to electricity, and generally have shorter lives, in the off chance we can stop the temperature of the world from rising a few degrees, but will most likely not anyway (and the world will not explode a few celcius warmer over a 100 year span). Those idiots. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death if they become less able to farm because of climate change as well. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death no matter what. Can you provide evidence which indicates that in the long run more people will starve, die of curable diseases, etc. if climate change is addressed than if it is not? At what point would you consider that maybe global warming (yes they changed the name) was not what they said it was? You know, like the Al-Gore movie which predicted everything wrong. Like, if in 10 or 20 years, if the world was essentially the same, like 20 years ago when the world was supposed to explode, would you even question that maybe the "consensus" was not accurate? What exactly is the prediction that was made 20 years ago that you are claiming was profoundly wrong? I am pretty sure nobody predicted the literal explosion of the world. Again, it's pretty difficult to discuss this without specifics. To start, I thank you for wanting to argue in good faith. I've esentially seen 2 scenarios: a) The world is warming up at an atonishing rate, and we need to halve carbon emissions to avoid a huge part of the world's coast from flooding due to rising temperature and correspondant sea level. b) The world's temperature is rising a few degrees in the next 100 years, with very little influence of human nature. For a), cutting emisssions in the current way is worthless. Literally worthless and costs and unimaginable amount of money. Might as well have more resources to deal with problems later. Or, we could cut emissions to 50%, which is essentially going back to the stone age, and destroying the lives of millions people (billions?). Should we do that? are we sure ? Is it worth it? I see no benefit in cutting emissions trough government mandates on dubious ways as it works now, for either scenario. Show nested quote +A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death if they become less able to farm because of climate change as well. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death no matter what. Crops yield increase with higher carbon content on the air, it's plant's "oxigen". Cheap electricity (no restrictions) increases access to required supply, machinery and water transportation also allow for better farming. Show nested quote +What exactly is the prediction that was made 20 years ago that you are claiming was profoundly wrong? I am pretty sure nobody predicted the literal explosion of the world. Again, it's pretty difficult to discuss this without specifics. In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.
Gasoline was supposed to be $9 per gallon. Milk would cost almost $13 per gallon. Wildfires would rage, hurricanes would strike with ever-greater intensity.
In reality, I respect the wild-eyed rapture-pastors far more than the climate hysterics. They merely ask me to believe, they don’t use the power of government to dictate how I live. Pastors aren’t circumventing the democratic process to impose dangerous and job-killing environmental regulations. Draconian fuel-economy standards have actually cost American lives. And now the coal industry is reeling in part because of stringent EPA standards. Overall, the EPA’s climate-change regulations are set to impose enormous economic costs.
As someone who owns farmland in southern California, the drought in recent years has been pretty scary. In fact, there is still a moderate drought in my specific region. We've had to look for more groundwater, drill more wells, and consider replacing our current crops due to a decrease in groundwater quality. All of this comes at a cost. It has not been fun. The state came out from the drought ok with little if any loss, but it required a lot of pumping of groundwater at a scale that is totally unsustainable. If climate change ends up causing more frequent and more severe droughts as predicted, my agricultural community, and perhaps the state itself is in for some rough times. This should worry you given that California is the agricultural powerhouse of the US. (nevermind you're from Chile apparently ;o)
|
On October 20 2017 11:50 Gahlo wrote: I wonder how many pardons would be overturned if they needed a supermajority. The whole point of the pardon is it is a single decision that cannot be overturned by the legislature. Challenge it's legality in the court, but putting limits on it pointless. It is so rarely abused to this extent. And even now, people knew what they were voting for. They knew he might pardon some unworthy people. The real check on a pardon is impeachment, which requires almost as much effort as super majority.
|
On October 20 2017 11:52 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 11:09 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 20 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 20 2017 10:33 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 20 2017 10:01 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2017 08:26 Danglars wrote:Obligatory: Her name is Kathleen Hartnett White, you sexist troglodytes. Fossil fuel energy is the lifeblood of the modern world. Before the Industrial Revolution, humanity depended on burning wood and candle wax. But with the ability to harness the energy in oil and other fossil fuels, quality of life and capacity for progress increased exponentially. Thanks to incredible innovations in the energy industry, fossil fuels are as promising, safe, and clean an energy resource as has ever existed in history. Yet, highly politicized climate policies are pushing a grand-scale shift to unreliable, impractical, incredibly expensive, and far less efficient energy sources. Today, "fossil fuel" has become such a dirty word that even fossil fuel companies feel compelled to apologize for their products. In Fueling Freedom, energy experts Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White make an unapologetic case for fossil fuels, turning around progressives' protestations to prove that if fossil fuel energy is supplanted by "green" alternatives for political reasons, humanity will take a giant step backwards and the planet will be less safe, less clean, and less free. Excellent job Trump. Let's see if you can follow through on the likely policy suggestions. You're not stupid enough to not see the obvious fallacies in that argument, are you? The debate isn't between the people who like the vast amounts of free chemical energy coming out of the ground and the environmentalists who hate civilization, it's between the scientists who are saying "we checked and although fossil fuels are great we have to stop using them because it's fucking up the planet" and idiots. Questioning about wether we should let tons of people starve to death in the third world, have access to electricity, and generally have shorter lives, in the off chance we can stop the temperature of the world from rising a few degrees, but will most likely not anyway (and the world will not explode a few celcius warmer over a 100 year span). Those idiots. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death if they become less able to farm because of climate change as well. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death no matter what. Can you provide evidence which indicates that in the long run more people will starve, die of curable diseases, etc. if climate change is addressed than if it is not? At what point would you consider that maybe global warming (yes they changed the name) was not what they said it was? You know, like the Al-Gore movie which predicted everything wrong. Like, if in 10 or 20 years, if the world was essentially the same, like 20 years ago when the world was supposed to explode, would you even question that maybe the "consensus" was not accurate? What exactly is the prediction that was made 20 years ago that you are claiming was profoundly wrong? I am pretty sure nobody predicted the literal explosion of the world. Again, it's pretty difficult to discuss this without specifics. To start, I thank you for wanting to argue in good faith. I've esentially seen 2 scenarios: a) The world is warming up at an atonishing rate, and we need to halve carbon emissions to avoid a huge part of the world's coast from flooding due to rising temperature and correspondant sea level. b) The world's temperature is rising a few degrees in the next 100 years, with very little influence of human nature. For a), cutting emisssions in the current way is worthless. Literally worthless and costs and unimaginable amount of money. Might as well have more resources to deal with problems later. Or, we could cut emissions to 50%, which is essentially going back to the stone age, and destroying the lives of millions people (billions?). Should we do that? are we sure ? Is it worth it? I see no benefit in cutting emissions trough government mandates on dubious ways as it works now, for either scenario. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death if they become less able to farm because of climate change as well. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death no matter what. Crops yield increase with higher carbon content on the air, it's plant's "oxigen". Cheap electricity (no restrictions) increases access to required supply, machinery and water transportation also allow for better farming. What exactly is the prediction that was made 20 years ago that you are claiming was profoundly wrong? I am pretty sure nobody predicted the literal explosion of the world. Again, it's pretty difficult to discuss this without specifics. In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.
Gasoline was supposed to be $9 per gallon. Milk would cost almost $13 per gallon. Wildfires would rage, hurricanes would strike with ever-greater intensity.
In reality, I respect the wild-eyed rapture-pastors far more than the climate hysterics. They merely ask me to believe, they don’t use the power of government to dictate how I live. Pastors aren’t circumventing the democratic process to impose dangerous and job-killing environmental regulations. Draconian fuel-economy standards have actually cost American lives. And now the coal industry is reeling in part because of stringent EPA standards. Overall, the EPA’s climate-change regulations are set to impose enormous economic costs.
As someone who owns farmland in southern California, the drought in recent years has been pretty scary. In fact, there is still a moderate drought in my specific region. We've had to look for more groundwater, drill more wells, and consider replacing our current crops due to a decrease in groundwater quality. All of this comes at a cost. It has not been fun. The state came out from the drought ok with little if any loss, but it required a lot of pumping of groundwater at a scale that is totally unsustainable. If climate change ends up causing more frequent and more severe droughts as predicted, my agricultural community, and perhaps the state itself is in for some rough times. This should worry you given that California is the agricultural powerhouse of the US. (nevermind you're from Chile apparently ;o)
I obviously wish you the best, but this is simply anecdotal evidence. A greenland farmer could present an opposite experience. The world average crop yields could be rising (or lowering) while specific places have worse (or better) results.
Maybe you could research into drought statistics for your area, but I doubt you'll find enough data that allows you to claim that man made climate is making droughts more severe/frequent in California.
|
On October 20 2017 11:46 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 11:33 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2017 11:32 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 11:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2017 11:30 zlefin wrote: too bad there isn't a mechanism for reversing a pardon; because arpaio really should be in jail. That completely defeats the purpose of a pardon. no it doesn't. and when the pardons are abused to oppose justice and actively destroy the country, it's necessary to have countermeasures put in. Counter measures are abused. Now the entire thing is worthless, nicely done. One more worthless time waster. Elect better people to avoid abuse of power. I did elect better people; others did not. your claim that the entire thing is necessarily worthless because countermeasures to abuse are put in has no basis. plenty of things have counter measures, and are still quite worthwhile to have. gh -> you can think what you like, but that doesn't mean you're correct or that we should pay any attention to what you say. a lot of people believe things that simply aren't true. fervently held belief is not an indicator that the belief is correct. Your assertions mean nothing because it's been shown time and again that they are not well constructed, so much like the boy who cried wolf, your words and your assessments aren't worth anything.
Just to be clear on how delusional this post is, you are saying you think Hillary's campaign intentionally elevating Trump was good choice and there's no evidence contrary to that?
|
On October 20 2017 12:02 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 11:52 Tachion wrote:On October 20 2017 11:09 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 20 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 20 2017 10:33 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 20 2017 10:01 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2017 08:26 Danglars wrote:Obligatory: Her name is Kathleen Hartnett White, you sexist troglodytes. Fossil fuel energy is the lifeblood of the modern world. Before the Industrial Revolution, humanity depended on burning wood and candle wax. But with the ability to harness the energy in oil and other fossil fuels, quality of life and capacity for progress increased exponentially. Thanks to incredible innovations in the energy industry, fossil fuels are as promising, safe, and clean an energy resource as has ever existed in history. Yet, highly politicized climate policies are pushing a grand-scale shift to unreliable, impractical, incredibly expensive, and far less efficient energy sources. Today, "fossil fuel" has become such a dirty word that even fossil fuel companies feel compelled to apologize for their products. In Fueling Freedom, energy experts Stephen Moore and Kathleen Hartnett White make an unapologetic case for fossil fuels, turning around progressives' protestations to prove that if fossil fuel energy is supplanted by "green" alternatives for political reasons, humanity will take a giant step backwards and the planet will be less safe, less clean, and less free. Excellent job Trump. Let's see if you can follow through on the likely policy suggestions. You're not stupid enough to not see the obvious fallacies in that argument, are you? The debate isn't between the people who like the vast amounts of free chemical energy coming out of the ground and the environmentalists who hate civilization, it's between the scientists who are saying "we checked and although fossil fuels are great we have to stop using them because it's fucking up the planet" and idiots. Questioning about wether we should let tons of people starve to death in the third world, have access to electricity, and generally have shorter lives, in the off chance we can stop the temperature of the world from rising a few degrees, but will most likely not anyway (and the world will not explode a few celcius warmer over a 100 year span). Those idiots. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death if they become less able to farm because of climate change as well. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death no matter what. Can you provide evidence which indicates that in the long run more people will starve, die of curable diseases, etc. if climate change is addressed than if it is not? At what point would you consider that maybe global warming (yes they changed the name) was not what they said it was? You know, like the Al-Gore movie which predicted everything wrong. Like, if in 10 or 20 years, if the world was essentially the same, like 20 years ago when the world was supposed to explode, would you even question that maybe the "consensus" was not accurate? What exactly is the prediction that was made 20 years ago that you are claiming was profoundly wrong? I am pretty sure nobody predicted the literal explosion of the world. Again, it's pretty difficult to discuss this without specifics. To start, I thank you for wanting to argue in good faith. I've esentially seen 2 scenarios: a) The world is warming up at an atonishing rate, and we need to halve carbon emissions to avoid a huge part of the world's coast from flooding due to rising temperature and correspondant sea level. b) The world's temperature is rising a few degrees in the next 100 years, with very little influence of human nature. For a), cutting emisssions in the current way is worthless. Literally worthless and costs and unimaginable amount of money. Might as well have more resources to deal with problems later. Or, we could cut emissions to 50%, which is essentially going back to the stone age, and destroying the lives of millions people (billions?). Should we do that? are we sure ? Is it worth it? I see no benefit in cutting emissions trough government mandates on dubious ways as it works now, for either scenario. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death if they become less able to farm because of climate change as well. A lot of people living in third world countries will starve to death no matter what. Crops yield increase with higher carbon content on the air, it's plant's "oxigen". Cheap electricity (no restrictions) increases access to required supply, machinery and water transportation also allow for better farming. What exactly is the prediction that was made 20 years ago that you are claiming was profoundly wrong? I am pretty sure nobody predicted the literal explosion of the world. Again, it's pretty difficult to discuss this without specifics. In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.
Gasoline was supposed to be $9 per gallon. Milk would cost almost $13 per gallon. Wildfires would rage, hurricanes would strike with ever-greater intensity.
In reality, I respect the wild-eyed rapture-pastors far more than the climate hysterics. They merely ask me to believe, they don’t use the power of government to dictate how I live. Pastors aren’t circumventing the democratic process to impose dangerous and job-killing environmental regulations. Draconian fuel-economy standards have actually cost American lives. And now the coal industry is reeling in part because of stringent EPA standards. Overall, the EPA’s climate-change regulations are set to impose enormous economic costs.
As someone who owns farmland in southern California, the drought in recent years has been pretty scary. In fact, there is still a moderate drought in my specific region. We've had to look for more groundwater, drill more wells, and consider replacing our current crops due to a decrease in groundwater quality. All of this comes at a cost. It has not been fun. The state came out from the drought ok with little if any loss, but it required a lot of pumping of groundwater at a scale that is totally unsustainable. If climate change ends up causing more frequent and more severe droughts as predicted, my agricultural community, and perhaps the state itself is in for some rough times. This should worry you given that California is the agricultural powerhouse of the US. (nevermind you're from Chile apparently ;o) I obviously wish you the best, but this is simply anecdotal evidence. A greenland farmer could present an opposite experience. The world average crop yields could be rising (or lowering) while specific places have worse (or better) results. Maybe you could research into drought statistics for your area, but I doubt you'll find enough data that allows you to claim that man made climate is making droughts more severe/frequent in California. I am 100% sure we will be able to find sufficient data you will accept.
But at the end of the day, your argument against carbon restrictions has one flaw, it isn't worth the risk of being wrong. It's less risky to simply cut back and develop alternative power sources. Because this shit isn't binary. It's not: totally fine vs end of world. Even of you are 50% right, that is still trillions in economic damage and a potential food crisis.
|
|
|
|