Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

138 Excellent

About Stoneworker

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Denver Broncos

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. They petitioned to block a "deficit hawk." The purpose of Simpson-Bowles was to identify "policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run." A component of fiscal sustainability is consistently balancing the federal budget. Pretty straightforward stuff. The rest of your pro-squad manifesto is irrelevant to my comment, which was specific to the petition.
  2. Yes. Throwing a tantrum at the very idea of someone who believes balanced budgets make a modicum of common sense. How "refreshing."
  3. That's cool. I'm also happy to discuss climate change/clean energy at length...but I believe there is an existing climate change thread where it might be appropriate. My main point in here is that any criticism of AOC's GND legislation (and accompanying messaging) should be specific to the flaws of the legislation itself...and that using distorted (IMO) clean energy misinformation to do so only takes us further from a constructive conversation in that regard. Cheers.
  4. I don't disagree. But perhaps unwittingly you were doing exactly what you're accusing AOC of doing in terms of not using simple and clear messages? Those clips were edited in a way that grossly distorted the realities of a clean energy transition. The main problem with AOC's GND is not some of the energy's that it massively conflates climate change with the entire far-left agenda of M4All, free college, guaranteed jobs, social equity, etc. and therefore is a trojan horse of sorts. The best GND of all would be a simple carbon tax.
  5. I'm as anti-socialist as they come and absolutely hate the GND...but these are horribly misleading clips that distort the economics and other characteristics of clean energy. For example, Gates misapplies the word "unreliable." In reality, the technologies of solar and wind are incredibly mature and reliable. And costs are plummeting annually with production volume. What Gates is referring to is their "intermittency," which is the inescapable fact that energy produced from those sources is available only when the wind is blowing and sun is shining. Of course, that is true. However, without batteries even close to being fully developed, utilities have easily been able to incorporate clean sources into the grid (transmission planning, look-ahead weather forecasting, etc.). So yes. There will be an inescapable transition period where baseload power (coal, natural gas) is required. However, the pure cost economics of solar and wind are becoming so compelling that this transition period is much shorter than previously anticipated. For example, there is a startup company in Colorado that recently paid $35 million to have a utility's existing coal plant source shut down. It then profitably substituted that coal with a 10-year supply of clean energy. And it is by far not a one-time transaction. One-by-one pretty much every claim made in those clips can be easily refuted but unfortunately I don't have the time...
  6. The case of the $3 million Denver STAR program is exactly what "defunding the police" does not look like. In actual fact, Denver Mayor Hancock has told the local AOC-clone Candi Cdebaca multiple times to pound sand when she proposed police defunding in the summer and establishing a "peace force." When the Denver city council requested increased funding to STAR as part of final budget approval, Hancock steadfastly resisted cutting the police budget and instead got the money elsewhere. Not one of the budget requests (i.e. the STAR program) pulls from the Denver Police Department, as proposed by some members of the council in response to calls to defund the police, an effort adamantly rejected by the mayor.
  7. Wow. Great memory, dude. One strong argument against receiving "controlled equipment" (e.g. rifles, armored vehicles) as part of the 1033 program is lack of training on behalf of the police recipients. IMO this is a good point that has nothing to do with procurement cost. Created as part of 1997’s National Defense Authorization Act, the 1033 program allows the Department of Defense to get rid of excess equipment by passing it off to local authorities Much of that inventory is perfectly ordinary: office equipment, clothing, tools, radios, and so on. But the haul also includes some of the so-called controlled equipment—rifles, armored vehicles, and so on—that have helped create such a spectacle of disproportion.
  8. Whether or not use of that equipment is actually effective is separate topic.
  9. It is also obvious you had zero clue whatsoever what the actual costs were of police procuring military equipment before you posted your "easy example."
  10. Oh geez. The claim was blatantly false. But anything to defend your buddies I guess...
  11. Easy example? Fact check = false. Police leaders have defended the program, arguing that military-style equipment -- which departments receive for free -- can save the lives of officers facing dangers like mass shootings, or help protect them if protests turn violent. The 1033 program was instituted in 1997 under the Clinton administration amid pressure to bolster police forces’ ability to fight the war on drugs. It transfers the military’s extra or outdated gear to state and local authorities who apply for it, who are responsible only for the cost of shipping.