What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Real Ideas for Republicans, Right now (1 Viewer)

TyroneWA

Footballguy
 We live in an era now where money doesn't matter, the left is burning cities as some kind of gambit, and the money printer goes brrr. So bring me your big ideas that have cross-cultural appeal. I want ideas that we can beat Nancy Pelosi and Woke Capital with

I'll start:

THE NEW AMERICAN HOMESTEAD PROGRAM

My fellow Americans, the COVID-19 Crisis has exposed the critical weakness of our agricultural supply chains.  Never again should Americans have to worry about accessing a steady supply of healthy and nutritious foods.

My friends, in time when vast numbers are unemployed, we know many of our people would love a chance to get involved directly in agriculture, and frankly we need more people involved.  Our farmers are aging, and our farms are too concentrated.

Therefore, I am asking the Department of Agriculture to immediately implement the New American Homestead Program, an opportunity for thousands of Americans to get involved in farming directly.

Under this program, an eligible family will be able to access up to $1 million dollars in federal assistance to purchase a farm of not more than 200 acres.  Half of the money can go to the land and buildings, 25% to capital goods and improvements, and 25% must be held for operating reserves.  The farm must be organic, and be employed in diversified small hold agriculture.  One of our greatest unsung heroes, Joel Salatin, has agreed to head up an advisory division to help these new farmers learn good ecologically sound husbandry of their lands and livestock.

The best part about this program is that the successful participant, at the end of 20 years, will have his loan forgiven.  And a participant who finds the he is not up to the task can offer his farm to the next person in line, no questions asked.  We will be funding 5000 New American Homesteads per year, for the minimal cost of $5 billion, a drop in the bucket of the Federal Budget.  But by this revolutionary means, we aim to seed an entire generation of small family farms who can feed America with the healthy, local foods she once had.  

We believe that this new generation of yeoman farmers, empowered by today's technology, can unleash a wave of ecological farming innovation not seen since the so-called Green Revolution, which we now know wasn't green at all, rather was the beginning of a toxic and oligopolized food system.  So today, we're starting down a new path that is actually an old path.  A healthier, more sustainable path for America.

 
I can't see how sending people with no farming experience to own and run farms would be a good idea. Even with Joel Salatin giving advice.
This too.  I grew up on a farm.  It's not something a person just picks up.  (Full disclosure: when it was time to pick a major and future career, I ran away from farming as fast as I could.  I have no skill in this area and I know it.)

 
 We live in an era now where money doesn't matter, the left is burning cities as some kind of gambit, and the money printer goes brrr. So bring me your big ideas that have cross-cultural appeal. I want ideas that we can beat Nancy Pelosi and Woke Capital with

I'll start:

THE NEW AMERICAN HOMESTEAD PROGRAM
I guess if the current GOP of the first paragraph implodes a new GOP can rise from the ashes that might think along the lines of your proposal.   Would be nice.  Don't hold your breath. 

ETA: Along the lines, not so sure of returning to the 19th century. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We’re going to be in need of a political party that accepts climate change but proposes market based solutions as an alternative to the Green New Deal. 

 
We’re going to be in need of a political party that accepts climate change but proposes market based solutions as an alternative to the Green New Deal. 
Climate change??  Not a problem.
It's only been going on forever.

Pumping billions into man made climate change?
...not so much...not believing the 97% myth.

Signing agreements with countries who do nothing...but we keep paying...even though we are so far ahead of them in every category??
....again...not so much.

Basically...being the world's ##### and giving payments to be popular?
Never again.

(looking forward to statements made, debunking the video, without watching the video)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a farmer I have no interest in organic farming raising some crop and mostly weeds. Seen it and can’t stand it. For me it would be like being forced to crawl in a bed full of bed bugs every night.

 
This too.  I grew up on a farm.  It's not something a person just picks up.  (Full disclosure: when it was time to pick a major and future career, I ran away from farming as fast as I could.  I have no skill in this area and I know it.)
Sure. You could just watch a couple of episodes of Green Acres and you are ready to farm. No experience necessary

 
Opie said:
Climate change??  Not a problem.
It's only been going on forever.

Pumping billions into man made climate change?
...not so much...not believing the 97% myth.

Signing agreements with countries who do nothing...but we keep paying...even though we are so far ahead of them in every category??
....again...not so much.

Basically...being the world's ##### and giving payments to be popular?
Never again.

(looking forward to statements made, debunking the video, without watching the video)
You’re the problem. 

You’re forcing me into a choice I don’t want to make. Either go along with you, stick our heads in the sand and do nothing, or get on board with AOC and the Green New Deal. If you force me to choose I’ll have to go with AOC: at least she recognizes the crisis and is trying to solve it. 
 

But I sure wish there was a moderate alternative...

 
You’re the problem. 

You’re forcing me into a choice I don’t want to make. Either go along with you, stick our heads in the sand and do nothing, or get on board with AOC and the Green New Deal. If you force me to choose I’ll have to go with AOC: at least she recognizes the crisis and is trying to solve it. 
 

But I sure wish there was a moderate alternative...
You've been lied to....again

You swallowed it....again.

Don't you ever get tired of it?

I know it's like telling you that you've been praying to the wrong god....but you should really hear the truth.
One thing that all religions do is to tell their congregation NOT to listen to alternative views.

The "97% of scientists agree" is a lie.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You've been lied to....again

You swallowed it....again.

Don't you ever get tired of it?

I know it's like telling you that you've been praying to the wrong god....but you should really hear the truth.
One thing that all religions do is to tell their congregation NOT to listen to alternative views.

The "97% of scientists agree" is a lie.
You get a historian (Dr. = PhD) and film maker to dispute scientific consensus on climate change?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You get a historian (Dr. = PhD) and film maker to dispute scientific consensus on climate change?
Actually....he simply shows the flaws and the statistical lies in the way the results of these "studies" were presented....you draw your own conclusions....instead of simply gorging on the false "facts" that you were fed.

Once again...try to refute the message...not the messenger.
Try it sometime.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually....he simply shows the flaws and the statistical lies in the way the results of these "studies" were presented....you draw your own conclusions....instead of simply gorging on the false "facts" that you were fed.

Once again...try to refute the message...not the messenger.
Try it sometime.
The qualifications of the messenger to dispute scientific consensus.  He isn't qualified.

I am far far from a climate change thumper.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, and the professionals call it the Scientific Method.

They are scientists with specialties allowing them to not just draw conclusions but through the process challenge them and confirm or dispute them.
It is obvious that you didn't watch the video.

So be it.

 
My idea for Republicans is to get rid of all the anti-science, anti-education, anti-academia elements of the party if they want anyone to ever take them seriously again.

To be clear embrace science, research, education at institutions designed for science, research and education. Not YouTube or Infowars or 4chan. 

Education does not brainwash you to be a liberal, it makes you more informed and teaches you how to learn and critically think and validate where information is coming from. 

Start there and at least going forward the conversation can be discussed in a reasonable manner - unlike what is happening in the few posts above this one. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please answer, seriously.

On what other topics do you take a person from a non related field over experts in that field?
If that dentist is simply talking about statistical anomalies...which have absolutely NOTHING to do with history....or dentistry....I would hear what he had to say.

If he were just presenting the other side of an opinion....yes...I would watch.
I may agree with him...I may not.

YOU won't even listen.

Who's got the problem here?

 
If that dentist is simply talking about statistical anomalies...which have absolutely NOTHING to do with history....or dentistry....I would hear what he had to say.

If he were just presenting the other side of an opinion....yes...I would watch.
I may agree with him...I may not.

YOU won't even listen.

Who's got the problem here?
Please, again.

Where else do you take people with zero background in a field over experts in said field? 

You know what statistical anomalies would have to do with?  The Scientific Method.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My idea for Republicans is to get rid of all the anti-science, anti-education, anti-academia elements of the party if they want anyone to ever take them seriously again.

To be clear embrace science, research, education at institutions designed for science, research and education. Not YouTube or Infowars or 4chan. 

Education does not brainwash you to be a liberal, it makes you more and informed teaches you how to learn and critically think and validate where information is coming from. 

Start there and at least going forward the conversation can be discussed in a reasonable manner - unlike what is happening in the few posts above this one. 
I have an issue with the way politics use science and academia.

But yes, denying (not just denying but then bringing a historian on youtube into it :lmao: ) the science - especially around climate change - is like putting a dunce cap on yourself.

 
You want to remain ignorant....I can't stop you.

You seem to listen to Al Gore....a climatologist? 
President Obama....another climatologist?
This is painful to watch man.

No, hate Al Gore, and no Obama would not be a source for me on climate change.

This would be another example of looking to a non expert over the expert.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have an issue with the way politics use science and academia.

But yes, denying (not just denying but then bringing a historian on youtube into it :lmao: ) the science - especially around climate change - is like putting a dunce cap on yourself.
You seem to listen to Al Gore....a climatologist? 
President Obama....another climatologist?

Exactly which climatologist do you listen to?

 
This is painful to watch man.

No, hate Al Gore, and no Obama wuld not be a source for me on climate change.
so...

Exactly which climatologist do you listen to?

What is your source of information concerning the climate?

Could it be....the 97% consensus?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Opie Take your time, I'll be back later.

Let me know which other areas of your life you look to non experts in a field over the experts in the field?

 
If you want people to see your evidence, YouTube is generally not the best choice.  Written pieces, with data and statistics, are better, for a variety of reasons.

 
You've been lied to....again

You swallowed it....again.

Don't you ever get tired of it?

I know it's like telling you that you've been praying to the wrong god....but you should really hear the truth.
One thing that all religions do is to tell their congregation NOT to listen to alternative views.

The "97% of scientists agree" is a lie.
One of you two is a "true believer".  And no one has ever intelligently described  @timschochet who changes his mind mid sentence if new information warrants it a true believer.

 
If you want people to see your evidence, YouTube is generally not the best choice.  Written pieces, with data and statistics, are better, for a variety of reasons.
What about a You Tube video that is filled with written pieces, dates, and statistics?

Hey...don't look for the truth....

just keep the faith, baby!
(It's just easier that way)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
so...

Exactly which climatologist do you listen to?

What is your source of information concerning the climate?
Lets start with the science your youtube historian is disputing:

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

 
Lets start with the science your youtube historian is disputing:

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
...and what would you think if every one of these were proven to be a lie?

You'd never know it.....because you've already swallowed and digested the lies and won't look at anything that refutes those lies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top