Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How much will it take for you to shut the fuck up and never post here again Mis Raz'r Jib? That was fun.

One of the few things you posted I agree with.  It is however the only (legal) entity that has the power to send people with guns to bend you to it's will.

Posted Images

On 4/5/2019 at 12:36 AM, AJ Oliver said:

A tip of the hat to AOC for standing up to defend Chelsea Manning 

Where are the establishment Dems, the freedom loving Right, the human beings ??

 

Whistle blowers usually have a point.  Chelsea just grabbed everything he could and dumped it.  No thought involved.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Whistle blowers usually have a point.  Chelsea just grabbed everything he could and dumped it.  No thought involved.

Which doesn't preclude there having been a point. You're highlighting the short-sighted nature of how Chelsea blew the whistle, not demonstrating that he/she wasn't one.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that Chelsea should face the consequences of that stupid act, I just don't have to pretend that he/she wasn't trying to blow the whistle on actions that were illegal at the same time. It is possible to do the wrong thing for what one thinks is the right reasons, to throw the baby out with the bath water, and all that. The world isn't as black and white as you keep wanting to make it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Whistle blowers usually have a point.  Chelsea just grabbed everything he could and dumped it.  No thought involved.

As usual, you are entirely and completely mistaken. 

Everything Manning released was reviewed, and nothing revealed was classified above "Confidential" 

The American people (rest of the empire too) had every right to get that information . . 

especially the nauseating "Collateral Murder" video. 

Jeebus, you are a vain ignoramus. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

Which doesn't preclude there having been a point. You're highlighting the short-sighted nature of how Chelsea blew the whistle, not demonstrating that he/she wasn't one.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that Chelsea should face the consequences of that stupid act, I just don't have to pretend that he/she wasn't trying to blow the whistle on actions that were illegal at the same time. It is possible to do the wrong thing for what one thinks is the right reasons, to throw the baby out with the bath water, and all that. The world isn't as black and white as you keep wanting to make it.

No, but stupid irresponsible actions are not nuanced.  They are just stupid and irresponsible.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

As usual, you are entirely and completely mistaken. 

Everything Manning released was reviewed, and nothing revealed was classified above "Confidential" 

The American people (rest of the empire too) had every right to get that information . . 

especially the nauseating "Collateral Murder" video. 

Jeebus, you are a vain ignoramus. 

So, they were stupid, irresponsible and ineffective.

What a hero(ine) you have there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

No, but stupid irresponsible actions are not nuanced.  They are just stupid and irresponsible.

Good thing I was talking about the intent, rather than the action then. Whistleblowing is defined by the intent as well as the action. You can do something both stupid and irresponsible in order to blow the whistle on illegal actions; the actions will still be stupid / irresponsible AND still be whistleblowing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

So, they were stupid, irresponsible and ineffective. 

Of course, you will never explain any reasons why the releases were "stupid, irresponsible, and ineffective" 

Because if you did, you would lose little righty points 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

As usual, you are entirely and completely mistaken. 

Everything Manning released was reviewed, and nothing revealed was classified above "Confidential"

So it is acceptable to post "confidential" docs to the internet? I'm quite sure security clearances don't work like that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

Of course, you will never explain any reasons why the releases were "stupid, irresponsible, and ineffective" 

Because if you did, you would lose little righty points 

Oooohhh, more labeling because you can't express yourself effectively.

OK.  Here is my psych evaluation of Manning (interestingly he/she seemed more interested in unmanning)

You claim to be a vet so I'm sure you know the guys who joined or were pushed to join to "make a man of them".  I think Manning fell into this category.  Someone with ambiguous or non-existing goals in life but lacking the ambition to go to college and major in some critical skill like Political Science.  I think she really kinda sorta maybe wanted a PhD in physics but wants and farts carry equal weight without real ambition and drive.

I'll just go to Wiki as a source because this doesn't merit much real research.

Manning's father spent weeks in late 2007 asking her to consider joining the Army. Hoping to gain a college education through the G.I. Bill, and perhaps to study for a PhD in physics, she enlisted in September that year. She told her Army supervisor later that she had also hoped joining such a masculine environment would resolve her gender identity disorder.

So, what the fuck was he doing in the US Army in the first place?  Just an aimless soul who couldn't find any direction in their life.  The kind of people who have no concept of service to others or the nation.  They have no goals, ambition, or internal motivation.  In civilian life they usually end up asking soul searching questions like "do you want fries with that?"

Was she a whistleblower?  Apparently she shopped her goodies around to the Post and the Times.  It was apparently sufficiently dull and worthless that they couldn't be bothered.  That whistle must have been really tiny.

Manning contacted The Washington Post and The New York Times to ask if they were interested in the material; the Post reporter did not sound interested, and the Times did not return the call. Manning decided instead to pass it to WikiLeaks, and on February 3 sent them the Iraq and Afghan War logs via Tor. She returned to Iraq on February 11, with no acknowledgment from WikiLeaks that they had received the files.

So, it really doesn't appear that there was any great moral or political motivation in his actions.  Just a neurotic shit flinger.

I guess her bite of fame was catching though.  She began to believe the bullshit of her supposed motivation and decided to run for the Senate.

If we hear of her again, I don't suppose it will be good news for her.  Her moment of fame lasted for about as long as the candle on a birthday cake.

You may have a more romantic view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

So, it really doesn't appear that there was any great moral or political motivation in his actions.  Just a neurotic shit flinger.

That's not what your "evidence" shows. Your evidence shows that one reporter, with no reason given, "appeared" not to be interested in Manning's view and the other paper didn't return a call (again, with no reason given). That, at best, reflects the view of two journalists - not Manning's thoughts on the morality or political motivations of his/her actions.

That would be like me pointing to two people here who think you're a troll (not hard to find) and saying that proves you have no morality or political motivations to your post; showing instead you're just a neurotic shit flinger. Do you accept that view of yourself? If not, why should we accept your argument?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, back to the OP:

Nancy Pelosi just trolled Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Again.

Pelosi said this: "While there are people who have a large number of Twitter followers, what's important is that we have large numbers of votes on the floor of the House."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-twitter/index.html

AOC keeps poking the cat.  The cat pokes back again.  How much longer can AOC poke the cat before a full-blown cat-fight breaks out?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, J28 said:

Meanwhile, back to the OP:

Nancy Pelosi just trolled Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Again.

Pelosi said this: "While there are people who have a large number of Twitter followers, what's important is that we have large numbers of votes on the floor of the House."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-twitter/index.html

AOC keeps poking the cat.  The cat pokes back again.  How much longer can AOC poke the cat before a full-blown cat-fight breaks out?

 

AOC is disruptive to the ruling class like President Trump is disruptive to the ruling class.

You cannot possibly think President Trump is smarter than AOC.

Funny how you side with one and fear the other.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J28 said:

Meanwhile, back to the OP:

Nancy Pelosi just trolled Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Again.

Pelosi said this: "While there are people who have a large number of Twitter followers, what's important is that we have large numbers of votes on the floor of the House."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-twitter/index.html

AOC keeps poking the cat.  The cat pokes back again.  How much longer can AOC poke the cat before a full-blown cat-fight breaks out?

 

LOL...the naive AOC....the establishment DNC will take her out at the knees...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

AOC is disruptive to the ruling class like President Trump is disruptive to the ruling class.

You cannot possibly think President Trump is smarter than AOC.

Funny how you side with one and fear the other.

 

OH...I'd love a public Q&A between AOC and Trump on basic American history and working economics , not the fluff headed economics  AJ the professor oozes,  on national TV....

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:
8 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

AOC is disruptive to the ruling class like President Trump is disruptive to the ruling class.

You cannot possibly think President Trump is smarter than AOC.

Funny how you side with one and fear the other.

 

OH...I'd love a public Q&A between AOC and Trump on basic American history and working economics , not the fluff headed economics  AJ the professor oozes,  on national TV....

Like you, I would LOVE to see them square off.  I have a hunch AOC would make mincemeat out of President Trump.

She does say silly stuff.  He just lies.  

Big difference.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

OH...I'd love a public Q&A between AOC and Trump on basic American history and working economics , not the fluff headed economics 

Yeah, me too -  one of us will be severely disappointed and depressed.   That would be you in case it's too complicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Well it is more important to be morally correct than factually correct. (purple font)

That too is debatable...please note the Libgressive tactic of seizing the high ground in any conversation resulting in many suckers replying as if that perch is someone granted as correct and that all replies are confronting established truth....:D:D:D...hence my presence here in PA

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:
21 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Like you, I would LOVE to see them square off.  I have a hunch AOC would make mincemeat out of President Trump.

She does say silly stuff.  He just lies.  

Big difference.

Well it is more important to be morally correct than factually correct. (purple font)

You cannot possibly be associating the word "moral" with President Trump.

They are polar opposites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BillDBastard said:

But that's politics. No need to be correct as long as you are perceived as right.

What's that old saying, "The first casualty of war is truth."

Agreed.

This is why I make the assertion that the Republican Party is basically at war with the United States, and is well on it's way to conquering.

Why bother governing when you can loot? Why bother discussing policy when you can gather potential voters into a mass shouting " Build Tha Wall... Lock Her Up!!!"

-DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agreed.

This is why I make the assertion that the Republican Party is basically at war with the United States, and is well on it's way to conquering.

Why bother governing when you can loot? Why bother discussing policy when you can gather potential voters into a mass shouting " Build Tha Wall... Lock Her Up!!!"

-DSK

 

delus.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:
13 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

You cannot possibly be associating the word "moral" with President Trump.

They are polar opposites.

See this is what happens when you pigeon hole people. You think everything is framed as Team Left v. Team Right.

It has nothing to do with the fact that President Trump currently identifies as a Republican. 

If he were still identifying as a Democrat, I would find him just as offensive, boorish, immature, and amoral. 

It has nothing to do with "Team Left v. Team Right".

It has to do with Right v. Wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:
2 hours ago, BillDBastard said:
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

You cannot possibly be associating the word "moral" with President Trump.

They are polar opposites.

See this is what happens when you pigeon hole people. You think everything is framed as Team Left v. Team Right.

It has nothing to do with the fact that President Trump currently identifies as a Republican. 

If he were still identifying as a Democrat, I would find him just as offensive, boorish, immature, and amoral. 

It has nothing to do with "Team Left v. Team Right".

It has to do with Right v. Wrong.

Well, there you go.

Any criticism of Trump, the great hero, -must- be dismissed as the deranged jealousy of The Left.

Facts don't matter. The point is WINNING!!

It looks to me more and more that a couple of generations of damaged children are gathered to express their spite and hatred, and their delight in punishing the rest of the nation whom they blame for their unhappiness. I'm a little surprised at how many of them there are, but perhaps since Rush Limbaugh revealed what a huge market for irrational hatre-spew the USA contains, it should have all been easily foreseen.

Republicans are in the process of voting themselves into serfdom, which they see as the natural and right order of the world. Unfortunately they are dragging the rest of us along.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, there you go.

Any criticism of Trump, the great hero, -must- be dismissed as the deranged jealousy of The Left.

 Facts don't matter. The point is WINNING!!

 It looks to me more and more that a couple of generations of damaged children are gathered to express their spite and hatred, and their delight in punishing the rest of the nation whom they blame for their unhappiness. I'm a little surprised at how many of them there are, but perhaps since Rush Limbaugh revealed what a huge market for irrational hatre-spew the USA contains, it should have all been easily foreseen.

 Republicans are in the process of voting themselves into serfdom, which they see as the natural and right order of the world. Unfortunately they are dragging the rest of us along.

-DSK

If that's the truth - then perhaps some additional introspection is in order to consider *why* you think so many people feel that way?  Answer that - objectively, and not just dismissively blaming it on brain dead ditto-heads, and you might be on the road to helping figure out a fix.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

If that's the truth - then perhaps some additional introspection is in order to consider *why* you think so many people feel that way?  Answer that - objectively, and not just dismissively blaming it on brain dead ditto-heads, and you might be on the road to helping figure out a fix.  

Because they are programmed to FEEL that voting for the correct social order is far far more important than voting for policies that they'd like to be governed by.

This has been a sizeable voting block since the beginning, in fact possibly a majority with competing views of the "correct social order" for example the only reason why the US does not have a state religion is that the Founding Fathers could not agree on WHICH religion it should be, and there were -just- enough agnostics in the group to let the matter die unresolved for the sake of union. Within a generation, the common ideal was a seperation of Church of State (and most of the surviving Founders embraced that concept, then) and that's how most of us envision it today.

Of the ones who STILL refuse to accept religious freedom, and want to use the dadgum gubbermint to force their religion on everybody else, they invariably vote lockstep Republican.

Add in the gun nutz, and you've got a nice advantage.... especially for by-elections

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Why? Because they've chosen to believe garbage propagated by losers. In the case of this thread, they like reading all kinds of stupid clickbait "AOC is stupid" garbage, and they like forwarding it, and they like saying "lol, kidz are dumb".  There's no there there. There's nothing to defend. They feel that way because they want to feel that way; it's easier to believe that shit than reality. The hate gives them something to focus on.

Stupid like eliminating fossil fuel and nuclear power in 12 years?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Yup, stupid like seizing on to one thing and never letting it go, hammering over and over with your little simpleton knowledge.

Now bitch - how's your fucking cancer cure pump n' dump? They leave you like your last trick?

Yeah, one small thing like wrecking civilization and creating massive poverty.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Why? Because they've chosen to believe garbage propagated by losers. In the case of this thread, they like reading all kinds of stupid clickbait "AOC is stupid" garbage, and they like forwarding it, and they like saying "lol, kidz are dumb".  There's no there there. There's nothing to defend. They feel that way because they want to feel that way; it's easier to believe that shit than reality. The hate gives them something to focus on.

So, do you believe that the Republicans amended the constitution to prevent FDR from re-election?

Everybody knows that would have been ex post facto and he could have run again under certain conditions.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Yup, stupid like seizing on to one thing and never letting it go, hammering over and over with your little simpleton knowledge.

Now bitch - how's your fucking cancer cure pump n' dump? They leave you like your last trick?

He can let it go when she does, can't he? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The larger issue that all the attention to AOC illustrates is the coming schism in the Democrat Party.  The primary fracture line is the debate over capitalism vs. socialism.  Can it survive as a single party with moderate, liberal and far-left views, or will the differences between the two systems prove to be too much for the party to survive intact?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J28 said:

The larger issue that all the attention to AOC illustrates is the coming schism in the Democrat Party.  The primary fracture line is the debate over capitalism vs. socialism.  Can it survive as a single party with moderate, liberal and far-left views, or will the differences between the two systems prove to be too much for the party to survive intact?

We'll know in 2024....devolution  or evolution 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Sure you would, sure.

You cats are so wrapped up in your party's BS that you cannot help yourself from framing everything as Left v Right.

Sorry to be so abrupt, but as someone who does not identify with the major parties, well lets just say it is very liberating.

Well, Here's #6 back at it, self-identifying as an asshole.   We are all pretty pleased that you don't identify as a sailor (and correctly it would seem). 

I suspect both parties are also pleased that you don't identify with them either, although the bar to be accepted by Team R is astoundingly low.  With the application of just a little self discipline, they might let you join.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Well, Here's #6 back at it, self-identifying as an asshole.   We are all pretty pleased that you don't identify as a sailor (and correctly it would seem). 

I suspect both parties are also pleased that you don't identify with them either, although the bar to be accepted by Team R is astoundingly low.  With the application of just a little self discipline, they might let you join.

Can you just let them talk to each other about the dangers the democratic party is facing?  I'm finally getting entertained in this nasty ass forum and you have to go fuck it up and let them pretend they want to have a real conversation!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Can you just let them talk to each other about the dangers the democratic party is facing?  I'm finally getting entertained in this nasty ass forum and you have to go fuck it up and let them pretend they want to have a real conversation!

Sometimes I guess I need to get my spleen removed.  Venting is cheaper than elective surgery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Sure you would, sure.

You cats are so wrapped up in your party's BS that you cannot help yourself from framing everything as Left v Right.

Sorry to be so abrupt, but as someone who does not identify with the major parties, well lets just say it is very liberating.

Care to point out in the interaction copied below where I made it a left/right issue?

5 hours ago, BillDBastard said:
5 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

You cannot possibly be associating the word "moral" with President Trump.

They are polar opposites.

See this is what happens when you pigeon hole people. You think everything is framed as Team Left v. Team Right.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense is not common.  It is only an application of perspective.  That is why there are things that are counter-intuitive.  What may make sense really doesn't sometimes.  We have to get away from the tribalism of R/D.  One of these is that a lot of the process being put forth by AOC actually work that may seem contrary to common sense.  That is a reason to back her voice in the political arena.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

Sure, by your own lead into this you identified AOC as a positive and Trump as a negative. Whether consciously or not you are taking one blitherer over another based on party affiliation, IMHO.

From my perspective I just see two people who both say the strangest things with no real basis in reality.

Swing, and a miss.  I didn't make it partisan.  You did, in assuming my feelings for each are based and heavily influenced by their party affiliation.  

However, I do take one of them over the other.  One is a documented liar.  He lies.  He lies.  Frequently and outrageously.  He lies for the practice.  The number of lies he's told, both consequential and inconsequential, are voluminous.  You seem to not be bothered by this character flaw in your party leader.

In no way, shape, or form are they in the same league.  I stand by my statement I would be just as outraged about the lies if President Trump went back to being a Democrat.  There are a few of his defenders here (but, they don't support him) would also join me in being outraged at the lies, if he were to switch back.  But, as long as he is a Republican, he gets Mulligan after Mulligan from them.

For the record, I don't see AOC as a positive.  I see her as a disrupter.  Some found that a laudable attribute in Donald Trump, and openly expressed that was the reason for their vote.

Once again, it's not a left v. right issue, for me.  It's a right v. wrong issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Laker said:

Common sense is not common.  It is only an application of perspective.  That is why there are things that are counter-intuitive.  What may make sense really doesn't sometimes.  We have to get away from the tribalism of R/D.  One of these is that a lot of the process being put forth by AOC actually work that may seem contrary to common sense.  That is a reason to back her voice in the political arena.

okay, I'll bite, what has AOC proposed/endorsed that may seem contrary to logic but is proven to have worked?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

okay, I'll bite, what has AOC proposed/endorsed that may seem contrary to logic but is proven to have worked?

How about accelerated minimum wages.  Alan Kruger's obituary gave a good example of him showing it works to the betterment of all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Of course you didn't. It's just the place it appeared. Just like all of the other partisan hack pieces you disavow. Attempt to launder your hackery all you want #6.

And dozens of other media outlets like Reddit, Newsweek (far right wing rags right!) and The Washington Examiner.... all before the NY Post or Fox News.

But then again you seem to track The Post and Fox News more than me. My Fox interaction is primarily, if not solely, Fox Business News. As for Alexander Hamilton's newspaper, best sports section in NYC...…. so??

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Laker said:

How about accelerated minimum wages.  Alan Kruger's obituary gave a good example of him showing it works to the betterment of all.

Artificially raising the minimum does not work in the long run. What works in the long run is to improve unskilled worker's wages is either training or limiting the pool of unskilled workers...… which is hard to do with hundreds of thousands of people attempting/breaching our southern border.

What "Accelerated Minimum Wages" actually does is causes inflation..... and if you had not noticed, that is what kills nearly every socialist leaning nation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

So AOC can be factually wrong and that works for you BD? How is that different than Trump being factually wrong and that not being okay?

There is a world of difference between being naive and misinformed (AOC) and pathological lying (President Trump).

That you see them as roughly equivalent demonstrates the partisan shit you claim to abhor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

There is a world of difference between being naive and misinformed (AOC) and pathological lying (President Trump).

That you see them as roughly equivalent demonstrates the partisan shit you claim to abhor.

ummmm, no sir. It is only being applied as right v wrong, not political affiliation in the least. Killing someone because you wanted to or killing someone because you didn't understand shooting them would kill them is still homicide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

There is a world of difference between being naive and misinformed (AOC) and pathological lying (President Trump).

That you see them as roughly equivalent demonstrates the partisan shit you claim to abhor.

That concept is true.  So let's not look to a naive misinformed person for our national energy policy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Artificially raising the minimum does not work in the long run. What works in the long run is to improve unskilled worker's wages is either training or limiting the pool of unskilled workers...… which is hard to do with hundreds of thousands of people attempting/breaching our southern border.

What "Accelerated Minimum Wages" actually does is causes inflation..... and if you had not noticed, that is what kills nearly every socialist leaning nation.

You obviously have not read anything on it.  With this short a response, I am sure you are stating your "common sense".  There is a reason Kreuger got the Nobel Prize.  That is not unrestricted acceleration of minimum wage.  Where the money comes from is dead (casino, rogue) capital.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jzk said:

That concept is true.  So let's not look to a naive misinformed person for our national energy policy.  

But it is not naive nor misinformed.  It is where we have to go.  Achievable time frames may be up to debate, but the direction is irrevocable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Laker said:

But it is not naive nor misinformed.  It is where we have to go.  Achievable time frames may be up to debate, but the direction is irrevocable.

 

It is very misinformed.  She wants to do it in 12 years.  Fossil fuel and nuclear power is why the humans on the Earth are thriving.  She is naive and misinformed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jzk said:

It is very misinformed.  She wants to do it in 12 years.  Fossil fuel and nuclear power is why the humans on the Earth are thriving.  She is naive and misinformed.

Achievable time frames may be up to debate. And I do hope you are not backing boiling water reactors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laker said:

Achievable time frames may be up to debate. And I do hope you are not backing boiling water reactors.

I am advocating human flourishing, especially for the poor.  Currently fossil fuel is needed for poor people to flourish.  If you can develop a more affordable source of energy, you will be a hero to mankind.  Meanwhile, don't be taking energy away from poor people.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

That concept is true.  So let's not look to a naive misinformed person for our national energy policy.  

Yeah, when we have Trump and Rick Perry in charge - remember him? The guy who is in charge of the department he wanted to get rid of and couldn't remember the name. Man, your nuggets are pure gold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

Yeah, when we have Trump and Rick Perry in charge - remember him? The guy who is in charge of the department he wanted to get rid of and couldn't remember the name. Man, your nuggets are pure gold.

Trump sure does say quite a few stupid things.  Not as many as you, but still plenty.  But I have never heard him talk about actually wrecking our society like AOC does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

I am advocating human flourishing, especially for the poor.  Currently fossil fuel is needed for poor people to flourish.  If you can develop a more affordable source of energy, you will be a hero to mankind.  Meanwhile, don't be taking energy away from poor people.  

Wind and solar now cost less than fossil fuel on a joule per joule basis.  We haven't even gotten into geothermal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, jzk said:

Trump sure does say quite a few stupid things.  Not as many as you, but still plenty.  But I have never heard him talk about actually wrecking our society like AOC does.

He doesn't talk about it, but he is the one driving the bus towards the cliff.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Laker said:

Wind and solar now cost less than fossil fuel on a joule per joule basis.  We haven't even gotten into geothermal.

If that is true, no need for any green new deal.  Capitalists will embrace your new cheap energy source to provide needed energy to the masses.

Too bad it is a bunch of bullshit.  And, I wish it weren't.  No one wants even cheaper energy than I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Laker said:

He doesn't talk about it, but he is the one driving the bus towards the cliff.

How so?  I could point to several poor policy choices, but nothing catastrophic so far.  

Make a case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jzk said:
12 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

There is a world of difference between being naive and misinformed (AOC) and pathological lying (President Trump).

That you see them as roughly equivalent demonstrates the partisan shit you claim to abhor.

That concept is true.  So let's not look to a naive misinformed person for our national energy policy.  

One of them is in a far more consequential position.  That the person of whom I speak appears to be in it for only himself and his family, with a documented history of lies, broken promises, and amorality gives me greater pause than it does you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

One of them is in a far more consequential position.  That the person of whom I speak appears to be in it for only himself and his family, with a documented history of lies, broken promises, and amorality gives me greater pause than it does you.

We are well aware of your moral superiority but which one is this thread about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Migrants are being driven north by climate change...……… has nothing to do with piss poor economies that are driving folks trying to find their version of The American Dream.

According to AOC, if we make our economy more like that in Central and South America, they will not come to the US. See this is the brilliance of AOC that you people on the right just do not understand and cannot possibly comprehend.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

One of them is in a far more consequential position.  That the person of whom I speak appears to be in it for only himself and his family, with a documented history of lies, broken promises, and amorality gives me greater pause than it does you.

Yes, I think it is clear that you have a bigger issue with trump than do I, and I have quite a bit.  So what is your point?  All threads about anything else besides Trump must now be converted to Trump threads?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:
37 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

One of them is in a far more consequential position.  That the person of whom I speak appears to be in it for only himself and his family, with a documented history of lies, broken promises, and amorality gives me greater pause than it does you.

Yes, I think it is clear that you have a bigger issue with trump than do I, and I have quite a bit.  So what is your point?  All threads about anything else besides Trump must now be converted to Trump threads?

I am simply amazed at the energy and passion people are giving to expressing their outrage at a first term Congresswoman, who has no seniority or power (other than her use of Twitter and your willingness to grant her time in your head), all while ignoring the actions and words of the person doing damage with the power of the Oval Office.

It is clear you, Dog, and others are laser focused on the inconsequential - be they silly statements or an elected official with no real power.  I find that noteworthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I am simply amazed at the energy and passion people are giving to expressing their outrage at a first term Congresswoman, who has no seniority or power (other than her use of Twitter and your willingness to grant her time in your head), all while ignoring the actions and words of the person doing damage with the power of the Oval Office.

It is clear you, Dog, and others are laser focused on the inconsequential - be they silly statements or an elected official with no real power.  I find that noteworthy.

She has the same 'shooting her mouth off on twitter' problem as Trump.

Perhaps the energy and passion put into the "This is our future" meme of her supporters is a little premature.  Certainly, Nancy thinks so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

She has the same 'shooting her mouth off on twitter' problem as Trump.

Perhaps the energy and passion put into the "This is our future" meme of her supporters is a little premature.  Certainly, Nancy thinks so.

 

They do have the same problem with using Twitter as their primary source of communication.  And, they both say stuff that makes you facepalm.

One has more influence and lies.  All the time.  Even when the truth would be better.

On which one should we focus?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

They do have the same problem with using Twitter as their primary source of communication.  And, they both say stuff that makes you facepalm.

One has more influence and lies.  All the time.  Even when the truth would be better.

On which one should we focus?

The one with the dyed hair, and big tits!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

They do have the same problem with using Twitter as their primary source of communication.  And, they both say stuff that makes you facepalm.

One has more influence and lies.  All the time.  Even when the truth would be better.

On which one should we focus?

What is wrong with Twitter?   There is something refreshing about the connection they have with the masses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

What is wrong with Twitter?   There is something refreshing about the connection they have with the masses.

I, personally, would prefer the President use other formats for communicating with the masses.  You know, stuff like Press Conferences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I, personally, would prefer the President use other formats for communicating with the masses.  You know, stuff like Press Conferences.

Press conferences are fine, but twitter is instantaneous and is far more effective at connecting with people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JZK loves the “the GND will eliminate fossil fuels” trope because it makes him think he’s smart. Ignoring the “as much as feasible” language and the “non-binding legislation” verbiage is required, of course. 

And the argument that “if it’s economically advantageous it’ll happen spontaneously” ignores a few basic premises. 

The first is that the coal, oil & gas lobbyists have no influence on a national energy policy.

The second is that subsidies cannot be used to further national goals, which may require investment in one area reaping benefits in many others.

And the third is that industrial momentum requires effort to shift historic solutions and processes to adopt new technology and choices.

IF you are willing to ignore all the glaring flaws in his arguments, JZK appears to be intelligent. It’s pretty obvious to me, though, that the last thing he wants to do is think about problems and consider solutions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

JZK loves the “eliminate fossil fuels” trope because it makes him think he’s smart. Ignoring the “as much as feasible” language and the “non-binding legislation” verbiage is required, of course. 

And the argument that “if it’s economically advantageous it’ll happen anyways ignores a few basic premises. 

The first is that the coal, oil & gas lobbyists have no influence on a national energy policy.

The second is that subsidies cannot be used to further national goals, which may require investment in one area reaping benefits in many others.

And the third is that industrial momentum requires effort to shift historic solutions and processes to adopt new technology and choices.

IF you are willing to ignore all the glaring flaws in his arguments, JZK appears to be intelligent. It’s pretty obvious to me, though, that the last thing he wants to do is think about problems and consider solutions.

So make a case for something, if you can. 

Be specific about something.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, jzk said:

Press conferences are fine, but twitter is instantaneous and is far more effective at connecting with people.

My personal opinion is using Twitter as the official method of communication demeans the Office of POTUS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

JZK loves the “the GND will eliminate fossil fuels” trope because it makes him think he’s smart. Ignoring the “as much as feasible” language and the “non-binding legislation” verbiage is required, of course. 

And the argument that “if it’s economically advantageous it’ll happen spontaneously” ignores a few basic premises. 

The first is that the coal, oil & gas lobbyists have no influence on a national energy policy.

The second is that subsidies cannot be used to further national goals, which may require investment in one area reaping benefits in many others.

And the third is that industrial momentum requires effort to shift historic solutions and processes to adopt new technology and choices.

IF you are willing to ignore all the glaring flaws in his arguments, JZK appears to be intelligent. It’s pretty obvious to me, though, that the last thing he wants to do is think about problems and consider solutions.

AOC claims millennials (and she ought to know - she is one) believe the world will end in 12 years.  The GND is the socialists plan to save the world and their prescription to do so is for the end of the use of fossil fuels.  If the danger is that great, then we need to get busy right now.  Even though we face this cataclysmic threat, no senators voted for the GND.  NONE.    Completely restructuring the US economy to eliminate fossil fuels and nukes would be the most monumental task this nation would ever contemplate.  The clock is ticking - there is no time to wait.  So what's the solution @phillysailor?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

My personal opinion is using Twitter as the official method of communication demeans the Office of POTUS.

Fair enough to have that opinion.  But I think we do agree that the manner in which Trump uses twitter is what is really demeaning.  But is the platform itself demeaning?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's examine the impact of "climate change" on human well being:  

1.  The Earth is getting greener.  More plants.  Many more.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/

2.  Agricultural yields are improving.

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply_.html

3.  Human climate related deaths have declined by 98% in the last 80 years.

The actual real world data has proven that "climate change" is a big nothing burger.  In fact, it has been a net benefit to mankind.

https___blogs-images.forbes.com_alexepstein_files_2014_11_cna2ifjirlmv3ldr975xcuhbee6rorxdmoqjgh5ciw4mswu2_buocbpnfw-9pq6iiiqspbrbbvbf8h_klrjhjx3j9-hgi5mcgkmjjflkruhwfi_nozuak_z4urylil3cta.jpg

uscornyields-large.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jzk said:

Fair enough to have that opinion.  But I think we do agree that the manner in which Trump uses twitter is what is really demeaning.  But is the platform itself demeaning?

Perhaps Twitter, in and of itself, is not demeaning.  But, I believe using it as the official channel of communication is beneath the office.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t care for a lot of the crap Trump posts.  A significant number of Americans broadly support his agenda but dislike him personally because he is a rude and sometimes crude New Yorker.  I think his poll #s would go up 10% if he laid off Twitter.

Link to post
Share on other sites