Page 550 of 550 FirstFirst ... 50450500540546547548549550
Results 8,236 to 8,244 of 8244
  1. #8236
    Ol' Doogie, Circa 2005 JDogindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post
    Sweet. Baby. Jesus. Somebody bring out a straitjacket for Rantin’ Rudy. He done lost it.
    How about him commemorating 9/11 by using footage of a right-wing, prepper-based clothing store that spun it that disgruntled leftists caused the attacks and just conveniently left out the people who made the ad at the end?

  2. #8237
    Ol' Doogie, Circa 2005 JDogindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    Because the reality looks kinda like this -

    - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/c...l-warming.html
    Of course, effing China is the largest emitter, but just because China is the biggest offender, doesn't mean that should excuse us from not bothering with reducing ours. It also illustrates the fact that while the world heavily relies upon China for the development of goods, it's due mostly as China is where you can get goods made cheap and without consideration for how they are made. If anything, America could stand to profit by proving to the rest of the world what forward-thinking opportunities await if we could emphasize renewable energies and curb on emissions.

    However, as our country is dependent on fossil fuels, and our government is filled with officials in the pocket of Big Oil and Big Coal, as well as a president who routinely bashes anyone with intelligence that doesn't agree with him, that's not happening.

  3. #8238
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Not being able to control China is no excuse for not doing our own part, and frankly, bringing it up aligns you with some of the dumbest voices in denial movement who always deflect to 'what about China' as an excuse for doing nothing.

    You can only control what you do, and 'doing nothing' because 'China' remains a pretty feckless handling of things.
    Who is suggesting not doing our part?

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    On that, I think you are quite a bit more optimistic that I.

    Would that be great? Absolutely.

    Is it even remotely realistic that it would give us the leverage you suggest? Doubt it.

    Not to say that the it isn't past time that the US got it's figurative butt in gear about dealing with getting away from fossil fuels as much as is realistically possible.


    Just that taking a sober look at the bigger picture might be an even more important step that doing so.
    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    "They Have Three Or Four Times The Amount Of People The U.S. Does." has nothing to do with that they are a part of the equation that you have very little control over.

    As I've already pretty clearly stated, the US needs to address our piece of the puzzle right around "Last Week".

    That does not change that there is a bigger picture causing damage that we are a single part of. If we could hit a magical button that made the US a county that contributes nothing to climate change next week, there would still be damage happening that folks seem to want to shrug off with "Well, they've got more people!"
    As for "You Can Only Control What You Do...", is that going to undo climate damage done by other countries?

    If not, our country is going to need a way better plan that "We Can Only Control What You Do."

  4. #8239
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogindy View Post
    Of course, effing China is the largest emitter, but just because China is the biggest offender, doesn't mean that should excuse us from not bothering with reducing ours. It also illustrates the fact that while the world heavily relies upon China for the development of goods, it's due mostly as China is where you can get goods made cheap and without consideration for how they are made. If anything, America could stand to profit by proving to the rest of the world what forward-thinking opportunities await if we could emphasize renewable energies and curb on emissions.

    However, as our country is dependent on fossil fuels, and our government is filled with officials in the pocket of Big Oil and Big Coal, as well as a president who routinely bashes anyone with intelligence that doesn't agree with him, that's not happening.

    Is that something that I have said?

    If anything, the idea that you can have an even remotely realistic plan to address climate change where you don't really have much of a plan for dealing with your largest emitter is just foolish.

    The best plan ever devised that only addresses the second largest emitter isn't much of a "Best Plan Ever Devised".

  5. #8240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by worstblogever View Post
    You are advocating for sick people of color to go and die because you're afraid if we don't, more migrants of color might come across the border.

    That's cowardice, motivated by racial fears. Which is a proven tactic of the GOP. And you have just shown us it can work on the rank and file.



    The White House was shamed into reversing this policy as of this afternoon. But you're still defending it, because you're still that frightened of the prospect of more migrants.

    Pro Tip: Experts on climate change predict migrations from Central America because of climate change. If you actually do want to stop the flow of migrants because you can't get over your fears of them, get your party to admit climate change is a threat, and address THAT. Which they won't do, because their donors in the oil, coal, and fracking industries would rather they don't go to alternative fuels like wind and solar.

    But definitely stop lying to us all that you guys are "pro-life".
    This assumes several things, that I view undocumented immigrants of color as worse than undocumented white immigrants, or that I think medical exceptions for immigration decisions will have much of an impact on the numbers of migrants and the eventual composition of the country. Neither is really how I see things.

    I do believe we should have limits on the number of immigrants allowed into the country. This is a mainstream position in American politics. The majority of the population is to my right in wanting the limits to either be the same as they currently are or lower. I'd like to see an increase in legal immigration, but there should still be an established limit.

    We could still have a border policy even if things suck in other countries. These aren't mutually exclusive ideas. However, if you think open borders are such an obvious policy that anyone opposed to it is a coward, you should be clearer about that opinion.

    The main reason for oil, coal and fracking is that we like cheap energy. It also seems to me that if you're worried about climate change, you should embrace fracking at least in the short term, as it does reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    I get the argument that fracking undermines decarbonization, but that's making the perfect (and in this case it's not that perfect since everyday living will get more expensive) the enemy of the good, which undermines the idea that climate change is a serious problem that needs to be addressed now.

    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...2020-president

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalak View Post
    The thing is that those numbers were never provided. You assumed they were exaggerated before every getting any, as they can not be compiled until the impact is known. Since the question I asked you was what your personal perspective was on whether the reduction in abortions was worth the loss of healthcare from Planned Parenthood as well as the 32 million that would be thrown off their insurance, here's some numbers for you. Lets say .01% were negatively affected health wise by the loss, seriously. Then lets say 10% of them die. That's nearly 300k in serious trouble with over 30k people dead. So assuming those numbers, do you personally still think it's worth the suffering and deaths of many thousands?

    Please answer my direct question and don't deflect this time.
    We're talking about multiple numbers here, so I'm trying to clarify rather than deflect. If we're comparing the number of abortions to the number of infant and maternal mortalities in the African-American community the number of abortions is almost certainly higher (with 638,169 legal induced abortions in the US in 2015, the ballpark figure is that the number of African-American abortions is in the low six figures.) So that gets to pro-life conservative motivations on particular policies.

    That's a different question than the benefits of the fight with Planned Parenthood, since I'm not really sure defunding efforts have been all that successful. They seem to be making up for losses in fundraising. The goal of many conservatives is to end planned parenthood, but they're not going to pull it off, and I'm not sure they've done any serious damage to it.

    If we had a perfect computer that determined the outcomes of every policy, I'd be inclined with whatever helps the most people live well and achieve their full potential. But there are so many unknowns that the hypothetical of "Is X worth tens of thousands of people dying?" is rarely something we can consider (There is also going to be the brutal question of who is dying; if 30K bedridden senile people die an year faster that might be worth certain tradeoffs.)

    The health insurance figures are messy since a big chunk of the people who would lose their insurance are those who don't want to be insured, and are only paying to avoid the tax penalties. Part of the reason they don't want to buy healthcare is that there isn't a plan that covers their needs (which would include their chances of getting sick later).

    I get that the health care system is a mess. The majority of Americans seem happy with their employer-based coverage but that's detrimental in preventing people from being able to change workplaces in a changing and dynamic economy, so it's not a workable system. We also can't have a system where the only people buying insurance are those who are sick because that makes things way too expensive, but the current system is costlier than it needs to be since we're subsidizing stuff that isn't essential.

    My policy preferences are going to be a bit esoteric, but there's a lot to be said for the cost benefits of reducing regulations and requirements. Someone should be able to buy a plan that just covers them for financially catastrophic emergencies and maybe proven preventative medicine rather than typical medical expenses. There should be other policies to reduce costs (Maybe the government should produce insulin or some of the rarer costlier drugs to prevent price-gouging by companies with monopolies; transparency laws also make sense) and waste (mandates that insurance pay for unnecessary procedures or things like brand versions of generic medicine) which can have a reverberating good (the availability of a bare-minimum plan should lead to other plans being less expensive.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post

    "Republicans kept complaining about Obamacare, but didn't have an alternative they could all support
    "

    HA!, They didn't come up with one they could all support? They never offered a single plan in the House or Senate, just votes to abolish the ACA.
    What I said still stands.
    I was just pointing out that I criticized it before you did. I'm open about this being a shortcoming of Republicans. But that doesn't make opaqueness a virtue for Democrats.

  6. #8241
    Ol' Doogie, Circa 2005 JDogindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    Is that something that I have said?

    If anything, the idea that you can have an even remotely realistic plan to address climate change where you don't really have much of a plan for dealing with your largest emitter is just foolish.

    The best plan ever devised that only addresses the second largest emitter isn't much of a "Best Plan Ever Devised".
    If our current foreign policy strategy right now is "pick fights with everyone except Saudi Arabia, at which case, we'll pick fights for them", what makes you think we're just going to convince them to reduce their emissions? Right now, we should focus on our own wheelhouse when we can't even be arsed to do anything about it domestically.

  7. #8242
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,819

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogindy View Post
    If our current foreign policy strategy right now is "pick fights with everyone except Saudi Arabia, at which case, we'll pick fights for them", what makes you think we're just going to convince them to reduce their emissions? Right now, we should focus on our own wheelhouse when we can't even be arsed to do anything about it domestically.
    To me, getting our own act together is a given when it comes to addressing climate change.

    That said, I just cannot see that our focus should be that alone. If damage we do warrants a serious approach right this minute, a "We'll Get To That When We Get To It..." approach to what we will have far less control over is absolutely nonsensical.

  8. #8243
    Postin' since Aug '05 Dalak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    We're talking about multiple numbers here, so I'm trying to clarify rather than deflect. If we're comparing the number of abortions to the number of infant and maternal mortalities in the African-American community the number of abortions is almost certainly higher (with 638,169 legal induced abortions in the US in 2015, the ballpark figure is that the number of African-American abortions is in the low six figures.) So that gets to pro-life conservative motivations on particular policies.

    That's a different question than the benefits of the fight with Planned Parenthood, since I'm not really sure defunding efforts have been all that successful. They seem to be making up for losses in fundraising. The goal of many conservatives is to end planned parenthood, but they're not going to pull it off, and I'm not sure they've done any serious damage to it.

    If we had a perfect computer that determined the outcomes of every policy, I'd be inclined with whatever helps the most people live well and achieve their full potential. But there are so many unknowns that the hypothetical of "Is X worth tens of thousands of people dying?" is rarely something we can consider (There is also going to be the brutal question of who is dying; if 30K bedridden senile people die an year faster that might be worth certain tradeoffs.)

    The health insurance figures are messy since a big chunk of the people who would lose their insurance are those who don't want to be insured, and are only paying to avoid the tax penalties. Part of the reason they don't want to buy healthcare is that there isn't a plan that covers their needs (which would include their chances of getting sick later).

    I get that the health care system is a mess. The majority of Americans seem happy with their employer-based coverage but that's detrimental in preventing people from being able to change workplaces in a changing and dynamic economy, so it's not a workable system. We also can't have a system where the only people buying insurance are those who are sick because that makes things way too expensive, but the current system is costlier than it needs to be since we're subsidizing stuff that isn't essential.

    My policy preferences are going to be a bit esoteric, but there's a lot to be said for the cost benefits of reducing regulations and requirements. Someone should be able to buy a plan that just covers them for financially catastrophic emergencies and maybe proven preventative medicine rather than typical medical expenses. There should be other policies to reduce costs (Maybe the government should produce insulin or some of the rarer costlier drugs to prevent price-gouging by companies with monopolies; transparency laws also make sense) and waste (mandates that insurance pay for unnecessary procedures or things like brand versions of generic medicine) which can have a reverberating good (the availability of a bare-minimum plan should lead to other plans being less expensive.)
    You could have just said "I don't want to answer" or what seems to be a "Yes" rather than that string of talking points that indicate nothing of actual substance. Nothing is preventing you from answering simply other than yourself.

    BTW Mets there is no longer any penalty to failing to get insurance, I have none and have had to pay no fines or fees thanks to Trump. Anyone who cared that much about it would have dropped their insurance already.

  9. #8244
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    18,636

    Default

    Regarding Whistleblowergate:

    Whistleblower Complaint Against Trump Reportedly Involves Ukraine

    Whistleblower Filed Complaint Over Multiple Trump Actions: Report

    ‘It’s Treachery If Not Treason’: Harvard Law Professor On Trump-Ukraine Report

    And remember this golden oldie:

    Rudy Giuliani Cancels Trip To Push For Probe Of Joe Biden’s Son In Ukraine

    **********

    Trump Got ‘Played’ By Benjamin Netanyahu And Israeli Officials, Says Rex Tillerson

    “In dealing with Bibi, it’s always useful to carry a healthy amount of skepticism,” the former secretary of state said in a talk at Harvard. Can't say this surprised me.

    **********

    Congress Is Bailing Out Trump’s Farm Bailout

    The top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee insists farmers need the money. Yeah, and because of Trump's disastrous trade war with China cutting farmers off at the knees.

    **********

    Gunmaker Colt Suspends AR-15 Production For Civilians

    The company says low demand is behind its decision to suspend production and sales of the gun to civilians. 'Low demand'. Right. Gotcha. Whatevs!

    **********

    From Sydney To San Francisco, Millions To Strike For Global Climate Action

    The day of protest precedes the United Nations summit on how to rein in the worst effects of climate change.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •