Mario Kart
Footballguy
Thoughts and prayers will be sent by the thousands, I'm sure.Yeah, most rational people are concerned with climate change.
Thoughts and prayers will be sent by the thousands, I'm sure.Yeah, most rational people are concerned with climate change.
Cool. Glad you agree with the city government of Miami, the voters of Miami, climate scientists and AOC that something needs to be done before the city is significantly damaged by rising sea levels and storm surge
What does that have to do with AOC?Cool. Glad you agree with the city government of Miami, the voters of Miami, climate scientists and AOC that something needs to be done before the city is significantly damaged by rising sea levels and storm surge
Jonmx attempted to ridicule her for her concerns about the effect of rising sea levels in Miami. You joined.What does that have to do with AOC?
I think you are making that up.Jonmx attempted to ridicule her for her concerns about the effect of rising sea levels in Miami. You joined.
She was wrong to say "a few years". I assume she knows that's not true. I don't know if she misspoke or was being hyperbolic or something. Anyway, she should try to be more careful in the future especially considering how carefully conservatives seem to hang on her every word.Jonmx attempted to ridicule her for her concerns about the effect of rising sea levels in Miami. You joined.
When you think the world will end in 12 years, of course you think miami is gone in 3.She was wrong to say "a few years". I assume she knows that's not true. I don't know if she misspoke or was being hyperbolic or something. Anyway, she should try to be more careful in the future especially considering how carefully conservatives seem to hang on her every word.
AOC is dumb but not dangerous. AOC is the lefts Sarah Palin with all the stupid things she says...Palin had the potential to be dangerous had McCain been elected but thankfully that never came to play. .That's dumb, but not dangerous.
And AOC is the same person who started with the "border control = Nazi Germany" thing, so she doesn't get to complain when somebody plays the same stupid hyperbole game against her.
You are forgetting the "New Deal" part of the "Green New Deal". This isn't the Manhattan Project or the moon shot where we are in a race to invent new things but a program to reshape the nation in much the same as the public works aspects of the New Deal brought roads and bridges and dams and schools and electric and phone lines and etc., etc.. Similarly the "Green New Deal" includes repairing and upgrading the infrastructure of the country including high speed rail, upgrading to a "smart" power grid, overhauling existing buildings, etc. which all have tangible benefits. It is also similar to the "New Deal" in providing relief to the masses that are being displaced by the new economies. The "relief" aspects of the "Green New Deal" of a UBI, M4A, and a job guarantee provide very real security to most of the population. So while these "relief" parts are ignorantly criticized as having nothing to do with going green, they combine with the public works program to bring that noticeable benefit. Maybe I have missed it, but the one aspect of the New Deal missing from the Green New Deal is an analogy to the end of prohibition. Doesn't seem that hard to figure that one out.As I wrote my last post, I sort of had an epiphany: it occurred to me why AOC’s Green New Deal plans will never work under our form of government. It’s because the positive results of those plans- slowing down climate change- are invisible to the naked eye. So even if these restrictions are enacted, there’s just going to be some conservatives running for office a few years down the road with the purpose of repealing them, and they’ll be elected because the public won’t see any noticeable good result of the restrictions- even if climate change gets worse.
The two greatest government technological achievements of the last century- the Manhattan Project and the space program- had one important element in common- they didn’t affect people’s lives. It seems to me that if we’re going to combat climate change, we have to do it somehow outside of people’s daily lives, which means coming up with new technologies and then offering relatively painless transition. Is this possible? I don’t know.
Anything that isn’t outright denial is.If AOC said a “few years” instead of 80 years THAT’S STILL CLOSER TO THE RIGHT ANSWER THAN THE MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN POSITION.
What is the mainstream republican position? You realize most Repiblicans believe that global warming is happening and support investment and tax credits in renewable energy as well as many other actions to combat climate change change. AOC's loony tunes fear-mongering is not closer to the truth and putting it in all CAPS does not make it so.If AOC said a “few years” instead of 80 years THAT’S STILL CLOSER TO THE RIGHT ANSWER THAN THE MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN POSITION.
First I think you completely misrepresent the majority Republican view on this issue. Second, that view, one way or the other, is irrelevant because the Republicans who count- the President and those in the Senate and House- have been complete obstructionist on this issue.What is the mainstream republican position? You realize most Repiblicans believe that global warming is happening and support investment and tax credits in renewable energy as well as many other actions to combat climate change change. AOC's loony tunes fear-mongering is not closer to the truth and putting it in all CAPS does not make it so.
The reason the left is not winning the debate and getting things done is the fear-mongering and obscene solutions are turning people off.
100%.Second, that view, one way or the other, is irrelevant because the Republicans who count- the President and those in the Senate and House- have been complete obstructionist on this issue.
1. I provided the link to the polling which supports my statements.First I think you completely misrepresent the majority Republican view on this issue. Second, that view, one way or the other, is irrelevant because the Republicans who count- the President and those in the Senate and House- have been complete obstructionist on this issue.
Finally your second paragraph is 100% false. The Democratic Party, of which AOC is only one small part of with a minority point of view, is absolutely winning the climate change argument and, per every poll, the vast majority of the American people are with them.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/gop-climate-platform-gets-crazier-every-election.htmlWhat is the mainstream republican position? You realize most Repiblicans believe that global warming is happening and support investment and tax credits in renewable energy as well as many other actions to combat climate change change. AOC's loony tunes fear-mongering is not closer to the truth and putting it in all CAPS does not make it so.
The reason the left is not winning the debate and getting things done is the fear-mongering and obscene solutions are turning people off.
So what???? You guys are acting like wackadoodles.If AOC said a “few years” instead of 80 years THAT’S STILL CLOSER TO THE RIGHT ANSWER THAN THE MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN POSITION.
It's one thing to write down on paper that you believe X. It's another to hold your politicians accountable in making X happen. Actions always speak louder than words. I see virtually ZERO pushback by the GOP or it's constituents in rolling back or blocking legislation to affect the mechanisms of climate change in any meaningful way. In fact, all the action happening today is showing the opposite of addressing climate change.What is the mainstream republican position? You realize most Repiblicans believe that global warming is happening and support investment and tax credits in renewable energy as well as many other actions to combat climate change change. AOC's loony tunes fear-mongering is not closer to the truth and putting it in all CAPS does not make it so.
The reason the left is not winning the debate and getting things done is the fear-mongering and obscene solutions are turning people off.
I've been to two such ranges out of the dozens I have been to, outside of police or military ranges. Both were very rural. both were completely out doors and so small that they did not also sell ammo or firearms, literally range only, they did not even sell targets or have a soft drink machine and the restroom was simply a porta-potty.Henry Ford said:I’ll contradict others in this thread. Yes. I’ve never been to a shooting range that didn’t also rent firearms. And I’ve been to dozens.
A draft version of a political platform hardly represents the mainstream party views. They are written by very active people in each party who tend to be extremists and as a draft this is even more extreme. Would you sign up to every draft platform as being representative of what mainstream democrats believe?
Sad, what is not beyond the pale anymore. Well this still is for me.timschochet said:You know there really was some news about AOC tonight, of a particularly offensive nature . I’m not surprised you chose to ignore it, though:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/3kxaby/republican-attack-ad-burns-aoc-and-compares-her-to-the-khmer-rouge
She needs a vigorous and tension relieving workout before bed. Something to tire and relax herAOC saying she can't sleep at night worrying about climate change.
I think that’s just called an empty field.I've been to two such ranges out of the dozens I have been to, outside of police or military ranges. Both were very rural. both were completely out doors and so small that they did not also sell ammo or firearms, literally range only, they did not even sell targets or have a soft drink machine and the restroom was simply a porta-potty.
Very nearly so. Some berms to back the target areas and a firing line defined by old picnic tables and no safety officer but a timer giving 5 minutes every 15 minutes to go down range and change targets. (A green light red light system totally automated. BTW you can't get to and back from a 600 yard target in 5 minutes strolling. You either jog out or take your ATV.)I think that’s just called an empty field.
Draft? No. If it makes the final version, yes.A draft version of a political platform hardly represents the mainstream party views. They are written by very active people in each party who tend to be extremists and as a draft this is even more extreme. Would you sign up to every draft platform as being representative of what mainstream democrats believe?
Your argument is just so disingenuous. Yes, an increased number of Republicans are FINALLY willing to admit it might be happening, after years in which you attempted to deny it (I use the word “You” inclusively here because in past threads you were a very vocal denier), but the skepticism among conservatives remains strong:A draft version of a political platform hardly represents the mainstream party views. They are written by very active people in each party who tend to be extremists and as a draft this is even more extreme. Would you sign up to every draft platform as being representative of what mainstream democrats believe?
@sho nuff cowardly responds with a laugh. Cesspool.1. I provided the link to the polling which supports my statements.
2. Your logic is Trumponian. If you want to talk about what is Trump's position, call it that. Don't lie about it and call the mainstream Republican position. Words have meaning. Stop it with the BS generalizations.
3. My statement was accurate. There is virtually nothing getting done on the national level, which is what I meant by you are losing the arguement. Having a majority of public opinion but not producing policy is not winning in my book.
This forum is so ####### combative. Would you be happy if I described some of AOC's positions as the mainstream Democratic view. Unfortunately this is where we are at. Both sides have no issues with exaggerating or even lying about the other side.
It was deserved. The laughing icon is fine when you arr laughing at something funny someone side. When you use it to mock a poster, it is trolling and cowardly. If you want to refute something, refute it.We complaining about the like button now?
And responding with calling someone cowardly?
This is very true. However, your complaint about it here...seems selective.It was deserved. The laughing icon is fine when you arr laughing at something funny someone side. When you use it to mock a poster, it is trolling and cowardly. If you want to refute something, refute it.
Joe almost didn’t allow the laughing like button out of concern people would use it inappropriately like you did. You should stop that for the future.We complaining about the like button now?
And responding with calling someone cowardly?
Considering how often direct questions get ignored...I laughed instead. Seemed appropriate than getting into a long back and forth.It was deserved. The laughing icon is fine when you arr laughing at something funny someone side. When you use it to mock a poster, it is trolling and cowardly. If you want to refute something, refute it.
People are really that sensitive that the like button icons are an issue?Joe almost didn’t allow the laughing like button out of concern people would use it inappropriately like you did. You should stop that for the future.
Chef Sho always stirring the pot. You do understand calling his post laughable is getting personal?Considering how often direct questions get ignored...I laughed instead. Seemed appropriate than getting into a long back and forth.
So yes...it was a laughable post and now even more laughable whining and teyjng to get personal about the like button icons while complaining about the discourse on the board.
Have a nice day.
It’s really the same as all the issues we used to have. It does nothing to advance the conversation but can piss people off.People are really that sensitive that the like button icons are an issue?
The main person offended about the laughing emoji was Squistion.I swear I thought I saw an argument about how people on the left are too sensitive because they complain about the laughing emoji this past week. Maybe we can make that its own thread, just back and forth as to which political side is most upset by it.
The laughable part is also this...accuse a party of this and a person of only caring about one thing (and ignore questions about the post).Which republicans were called that and by who?I find it for more offensive that a bunch of Democratic presidential candidate call Republicans white supremacist. You only give a #### about right-wing rhetoric.
You may want to read this page over again. Jon seems... let’s go with “highly agitated” by it.The main person offended about the laughing emoji was Squistion.
You may want to read my post again. I was referring to the laughing emoji, not the like button. Have a great day Henry.You may want to read this page over again. Jon seems... let’s go with “highly agitated” by it.
This is a pretty low bar you are setting here.You do understand calling his post laughable is getting personal?
I’m sorry, you’re probably right. What should we call the little picture of a laughing person generated by the like button? Obviously it isn’t an emoji, that was silly of me.You may want to read my post again. I was referring to the laughing emoji, not the like button. Have a great day Henry.
Yeah. I’m beginning to think she really believes the twelve year thing.When you think the world will end in 12 years, of course you think miami is gone in 3.
Chakrabarti does write well.No doubt the initial impression of her tweet was meant to shock and draw the reader to the article. The article, then, was very clear about the difference. Unfortunately many people never made it to the article.