Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by BurnPyro, Sep 27, 2016.
It was just a prank, bro.
The end game is that renewable energy is simply something that will happen on its own, but is not in any way tied to climate change. Renewable energy gets marketed as happy earth stuff so that naive libtards will jump behind it and donate/win favor. The real reason China, the US and the other leaders in renewable energy research are even doing it is because they want it to be cost effective enough to take over at some point when fossil fuels run out. They also want to be able to turn it into a product of some sort and start earning if/when that time comes. China, in particular, has always wanted to remain/be self sufficient. They don't want the power of resource availability to be with someone outside China and therefore be able to exercise that power/influence over China in any way. Same with US and everyone else tho, these other places do not house 20% of the worlds population.
I really struck the liberal clean burning match with the climate remake.. rofl.
ok, but that doesn't tell me what you think are the priorities.
you answered a question i wasn't asking but you, evidently, were reading.
in mildly related news, a lot of the problems with these discussions both in here and in general are the differences in what we see as moral. for a chunk of the left, the environment is a moral issue. i don't think that's true for the right.
i heard a story about a proposed development policy (i only remember broad strokes at this point. it would've been for housing or similar) that was written up by some left-leaning rookie who stressed the importance of the environment/climate change as a factor for future building. there was a problem with how that was worded, in that right-wing states, counties, whatever weren't going to sign up because that doesn't come across as particularly important to them.
if the proposal went to only left-leaning areas (because they were the only ones that signed up), it would easily be viewed as discriminatory. to get through that, the proposal was re-worded (but remained essentially the same in content) to emphasize security for the development.
it's a rough re-telling, but i think the point comes across.
I thought we agreed you had to say bazinga.
Any free market libertarians concerned about the tax credits and defense contracts Trump promised Carrier to keep ~1000 jobs in the US?
I mean, with how far to the left I am, I am fine with this sort of thing in principle - I believe government plays a vital role regulating and driving the economy towards goals that are deemed beneficial to national interests, but I know we have quite a few people here who wants the government involved as little as possible, particularly when it relates to economic matters, so this has to be concerning to those folks?
Remember that when Democrats do this sort of thing, it is derided as "meddling" and "picking winners and losers." So is this the same thing? If not, why is it different?
That's only when I am trying to be funny and you are being humorless about it.
My favorite occultist does a commendable job describing state of Dem Party.
Some feel that I "spam" forum with links. The links cover a diverse range of material that I find noteworthy. Geressen has positively interacted with me on many different articles. (We disagree a lot, which is fine and normal. And he very rarely lets feelz push him into a personal attack). How can even more valid data be a bad thing? Also, I do ask questions and share plenty of my opinions.
There is nothing I can realistically do about those with virtual thin skins. Each of us has unique experiences, and situations, and DNA, and talents, and priorities and... So trying to shame/force me to communicate in a cookie cutter style is... unhelpful. I will forever be grateful to the many fantastic Spaniards that taught me their language 2 decades ago, and showed me that saying what one thinks/feels/means/believes is a valid path. Exercising free speech is liberating. It is, IMO, a universal human right of uber importance.
wrong thread but:I do not disagree, but you have to admit there are points where the freedoms interact in ways where one has to be restricted.
The following NYT article agrees with u, but is a little more positive:
Trump is a liberal and centrist and conservative and economic nationalist. And probably a few more divergent words too. El Donaldo is so unique that even smarties are struggling mightily to read him. The spectacle is often dAng entertaining. He is not a fascist, as others have claimed. And most of the yucky words used by the 4th estate against DJT are also goofily incorrect. I predict that the vast majority of American citizens will eventually realize Trump is a decent Prez, and then his reelection will be a technicality. Fate is fickle, so I am certainly NOT gonna guarantee anything. And he is still PEOTUS.
I want less centralized gvt and more state gvt. And a very slow decrease of overall gvt during the next few generations sounds great to me. Maybe humanity will need no rulers in some far distant time. Gvt that is more efficient and less intrusive--than today--seems about as good as we can achieve this century. "Pragmatism" is the word of the month, IMO.
I don't care if you spam. I spam plenty. I only have a problem when you act surprised at some of our reactions and growing disinterest in your rhetoric.
Free speech away all you want. I am just answering your "Curious" pointifications.
It's not. If it's ACTUALLY valid AND you are willing to discuss it.
But, for example, when I questioned the data presented in the climate change video you posted, you ignored it and later said you didn't have time to look into it.
How can you know whether something is valid if you aren't willing to look into the things YOU post?
It's like you read my posts and twist it and make it mean something completely different (which, I suppose is just politics in general and not something specific to you). I am not against free speech nor data.
And how do you feel about it? Instead of just a link and no personal opinion offered on either my questions/topic or the article you linked?
Do you agree with me? Do you agree with the article? Why or why not? I don't know AT ALL how you feel about the subject even though you answered!
This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about when I say you "spam" links and then don't really engage with us or the topic.
It's not about being "thin skinned," it's about desiring actual discussion and discourse with the people here.
Remember when we were discussing Trump's tax policies and I examined Trump's idea in detail and provided some links and you said you'd check it out and reply later? You never did. It SEEMED like it was a topic we were both interested in but you barely engaged with it even tho (if I recall correctly) you brought it up.
And I am not saying you have to reply to everything - obviously I don't either, but it really feels like most of the time you post AT us instead of WITH us. That's my problem with it.
Hope that makes it clearer that I don't have a problem with you sharing stuff with us - go ahead - I am just explaining why some of us might be less interested in engaging with you if you don't seem interested in engaging with us.
Thanks for editing some thoughts in.
You said a lot here with just a few sentences, and much of I already know from other conversations, but I still don't know how you feel about what he is doing in regards to Carrier/UTX though.
You want less centralized govt, but think he will be a decent prez - so do you approve of this... government intrusion in the economy in this situation or not? Why or why not?
And how does this event/scenario play into how you feel about his possible performance? Positively? Negatively?
I DID respond to several of your specific questions r/t the climate change vid. I also said I did not have enough interest in that topic to spend hours and hours debating you, or others, because Trump's win signaled new priorities. The fact that you continue to falsely claim I ignored everything u typed is beyond the pale.
It is still an interesting scientific topic, but it is not in top 5 of political importance.
No, you didn't.
Or if you did, I missed it - I apologize if this is the case, but until you can prove to me otherwise, I stand by my claim that you ignored that post.
For reference, here is my original reply to that video:
You did not reply to this that I know of, and engaged with some other people on the topic of Climate Change, but not with the specific criticisms of the video I offered.
And specifically, in regards to your question of "How can more valid data be a bad thing?". Maybe you should ask yourself:
Instead, you were more interested in e-peen level banter with other people.
Eventually, after some pushing from me, did eventually reply to my queries on why you didn't reply:
Note that I mentioned TWO points. Again, if you can't even be bothered to discuss two items from a link YOU offered, then why bother? Can you see why this reaction would cause me to be less interested in discussions of topics with you? Or reading/watching your links?
I approve, but I don't really know much about specifics of the deal they reached. 1-2 K jobs is small potatoes in the scheme of things.
Slowly less gvt intrusion is my preference. But I expect improvement to be a tedious and nonlinear process. Rushing is often counterproductive. Proper speed of change is a very subjective matter.
I am of the mind that Trump deserves space and time to work things out. Election was only 3 weeks ago. I did the same for Prez Obama 8 years back. Carrier staying is a tiny win for Trump, and a big win for a few thousand Americans.
But this isn't "improvement" if you believe in less government intrusion? This isn't rushing at all, this is, in fact, the OPPOSITE direction?
I wouldn't suggest otherwise. But each action/event should generate some movement of the needle.
That depends. Maybe the government contracts promised to Carrier/UTX could have gone to a more efficient/competitive company and created/kept jobs? Or maybe the subsidized tax breaks to the company could have been used to pay down the deficit? I mean, these are the arguments conservatives have made for years about government meddling in the free market - suddenly it's no big deal when Trump does it?
Or maybe you just mean that the government is already doing this sort of stuff, thus Trump doing it is fine.
In which case, sure, I can see that argument.
Though on that note, some people (not you) are celebrating this like Trump did something extraordinary (while previously blasting Obama for similar things), when I see it as par for the course - this kind of thing has been going on... since government became a thing? And Trump is getting big media attention for it because... Trump? (Honestly, I always said he knew how to play the media, if nothing else.)
In either case, it might be premature to discuss too much re: Carrier/UTX, as we don't know the details of the deal, as you said, but it's gotta be something that benefits them financially enough so the options are rather limited.
Also, part of the reason I am griping is that every so often I REALLY enjoy the discussions with you, and have enjoyed a lot of what you have written in the past - and I want THAT DJ here. Of course, it's not up to me, and you are free to do as you wish. So I will drop the matter now
Separate names with a comma.