OT: Trump/Russians/Robert Mueller

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9;842844776 said:

As has already been established, you are a deceiver of the worst kind. The International Planned Parenthood organization (founded in India) is different from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which was founded in America and primarily operates in America. When Americans casually talk about Planned Parenthood they are talking about the American Planned Parenthood. By casually conflating the two you are knowingly trying to deceive people. I'm sure Putin loves your act.


Last I've checked, Puerto Rico is not in India. Even Vlad knows this.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88;842844601 said:

Planned Parenthood sterilized thousands of lower-income and minority women without their consent in the 1970s. It doesn't mean that they're out to do the same today.


You tried to make people believe the American version of Planned Parenthood did this. You're just a long paragraph deceiver of no moral character. No skin off my back. You're the one who has to live with yourself.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks;842844707 said:

You like to cherry pick the credentialed scientists who are skeptics but that doesn't mean that there aren't influential shills like the Heartland Institute. As for the myth of the 97%, the climate skeptic industry has done a great job discrediting that number but from everything I've seen it's in the ballpark. You probably have some cherrypicked data to back up your 20-25% just like you have with everything else and you would probably enjoy going back and forth all day having a meta-discussion on this point. I hesitated to even address this topic because the whole thing is a huge misdirection by industry interests and their promoters.



What "climate skeptic industry" and what "huge misdirection"? What magazines, newspapers, TV networks, commercial websites or MSM outlets does it control? The skeptic community boils down to independent media and an online community of dissenting scientists and researchers. It faces an uphill battle because the MSM has upheld basic falsehoods like the 97% consensus as a relentless mantra, and most outlets have outright banned any dissenting opinion or article as an editorial policy. This anti-skepticism has hardened recently with the issue becoming more politicized in the Trump era, him being a very polarizing figure.


Quote:

I don't really care what is causing climate change, but I do care about the effects. If lowering carbon emissions will reduce the impacts of climate change on this planet, than I am in favor of lowering carbon emissions regardless of how we got here.


What qualifies as "climate change"? The term was chosen to replace "global warming" when the warming trend from 1975-97 (which as Dr Revelle indicated above was comparable in duration and amplitude to previous warming periods from the 19th century) leveled off in the last two decades. There has not been any global warming, so the term was replaced with "climate change"/

In fact there is no scientifically measurable "climate change", the warming has leveled off while CO2 emissions have increased substantially over the last 20 years. There is no evidence of greater "climate change" or greater instability in weather patterns, or more weather extremes, as the data on the frequency of droughts, hurricanes, floods or in the rate of ocean level rise has shown no significant change.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88;842844788 said:

What "climate skeptic industry" and what "huge misdirection"? What magazines, newspapers, TV networks, commercial websites or MSM outlets does it control? The skeptic community boils down to independent media and an online community of dissenting scientists and researchers. It faces an uphill battle because the MSM has upheld basic falsehoods like the 97% consensus as a relentless mantra, and most outlets have outright banned any dissenting opinion or article as an editorial policy. This anti-skepticism has hardened recently with the issue becoming more politicized in the Trump era, him being a very polarizing figure.




What qualifies as "climate change"? The term was chosen to replace "global warming" when the warming trend from 1975-97 (which as Dr Revelle indicated above was comparable in duration and amplitude to previous warming periods from the 19th century) leveled off in the last two decades. There has not been any global warming, so the term was replaced with "climate change"/

In fact there is no scientifically measurable "climate change", the warming has leveled off while CO2 emissions have increased substantially over the last 20 years. There is no evidence of greater "climate change" or greater instability in weather patterns, or more weather extremes, as the data on the frequency of droughts, hurricanes, floods or in the rate of ocean level rise has shown no significant change.


What a loser you are. Caught in a lie and just move on. I hope you are getting paid by Putin because you have certainly sold your soul. Pretty cheaply, probably.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9;842844784 said:

You tried to make people believe the American version of Planned Parenthood did this. You're just a long paragraph deceiver of no moral character. No skin off my back. You're the one who has to live with yourself.


The International Planned Parenthood Foundation was founded by Margaret Sanger, founder and head of Planned Parenthood, and the IPPF is based in London, not India. Do you see any connection here, or is this a (Russian) deception.

I wasn't going to engage with you Dajo, because as CB93 pointed out above, there is not much to be gained from this, as you are a tone deaf partisan zealot who is not seeking any real dialogue. And on top of that, you are an ill-tempered, abrasive and irrational xenophobe. You're the blue state version of the Ugly American.

If you have an ounce of self-awareness, you will view this as constructive criticism and not as an insult.

Go Bears.
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88;842844793 said:

The International Planned Parenthood Foundation was founded by Margaret Sanger, founder and head of Planned Parenthood, and the IPPF is based in London, not India. Do you see any connection here, or is this a (Russian) deception.

I wasn't going to engage with you Dajo, because as CB93 pointed out above, there is not much to be gained from this, as you are a tone deaf partisan zealot who is not seeking any real dialogue. And on top of that, you are an ill-tempered, abrasive and irrational xenophobe. You're the blue state version of the Ugly American.

If you have an ounce of self-awareness, you will view this as constructive criticism and not as an insult.

Go Bears.


"The trouble with our liberal friends is that they are not ignorant, but that they just know so much that isn't so." Old, but still true.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88;842844793 said:

The International Planned Parenthood Foundation was founded by Margaret Sanger, founder and head of Planned Parenthood, and the IPPF is based in London, not India. Do you see any connection here, or is this a (Russian) deception.

I wasn't going to engage with you Dajo, because as CB93 pointed out above, there is not much to be gained from this, as you are a tone deaf partisan zealot who is not seeking any real dialogue. And on top of that, you are an ill-tempered, abrasive and irrational xenophobe. You're the blue state version of the Ugly American.

If you have an ounce of self-awareness, you will view this as constructive criticism and not as an insult.

Go Bears.


Checkmate.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66;842844806 said:

"The trouble with our liberal friends is that they are not ignorant, but that they just know so much that isn't so." Old, but still true.


"Overall, this pattern of correlations paints a portrait of the prototypical Trump supporter as someone with (a) little sympathy for the poor, (b) a strong desire for power, (c) strict adherence to social conventions (e.g., dress codes, following the chain of command)."

"Out of immense frustration, some of us may feel the urge to shake a Trump supporter and say, "Hey! Don't you realize that he's an idiot?!" No. They don't. That may be hard to fathom, but that's the nature of the Dunning-Kruger effect one's ignorance is completely invisible to them."

"As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an*op-ed*for Politico, "The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is*not*good at that task and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment." Essentially, they're not smart enough to realize they're dumb." Psychology Today
jyamada
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister;842844822 said:

"Overall, this pattern of correlations paints a portrait of the prototypical Trump supporter as someone with (a) little sympathy for the poor, (b) a strong desire for power, (c) strict adherence to social conventions (e.g., dress codes, following the chain of command)."

"Out of immense frustration, some of us may feel the urge to shake a Trump supporter and say, "Hey! Don't you realize that he's an idiot?!" No. They don't. That may be hard to fathom, but that's the nature of the Dunning-Kruger effect one's ignorance is completely invisible to them."

"As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an*op-ed*for Politico, "The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is*not*good at that task and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment." Essentially, they're not smart enough to realize they're dumb." Psychology Today


Checkmate!
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88;842844780 said:

As I was saying above, the rate of warming has been [U]nearly flat[/U] for the past 20 years, as indicated by unbiased air and satellite measurements. During this period, CO2 emissions have not just risen but accelerated; we've added into the atmosphere nearly 50% more CO2 since 97 than the cumulative human CO2 output from the last several centuries, yet there is no corresponding rise in global temperatures...


Starting in 1997 means a very conveniently cherry-picked time period. The scientific consensus does not agree with this interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2013/aug/25/steve-goreham/global-warming-skeptic-says-global-surface-tempera/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds

Cal88;842844780 said:

The guidelines from the Paris agreements would be damaging to the US economy, whole industrial sectors would be at risk.


CEOs from multiple large American corporations seem to disagree (including those bastions of environmentalism, DuPont, Dow Chemical, GE, and Exxon Mobil), which is why they took out a full-page ad in the New York Times urging Trump not to leave the Paris Agreement.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-business-opposition-paris-20170602-story.html

https://hbr.org/2017/05/u-s-business-leaders-want-to-stay-in-the-paris-climate-accord

So I think I'll need some more support for this claim. Seems like big business now thinks the money is in renewable energy, not coal and oil.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88;842844793 said:

The International Planned Parenthood Foundation was founded by Margaret Sanger, founder and head of Planned Parenthood, and the IPPF is based in London, not India. Do you see any connection here, or is this a (Russian) deception.



You tried to conflate the International PP (formed in India and currently based in London) with the American PP organization in order to attempt to deceive. You got caught. Simple as that.

You are correct I'm not trying to have a constructive dialogue with you. You are a deceiver with an anti-American bent and a penchant for propaganda emanating from Russia. I will continue to expose you as long as we are both posting here.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister;842844822 said:

"Overall, this pattern of correlations paints a portrait of the prototypical Trump supporter as someone with (a) little sympathy for the poor, (b) a strong desire for power, (c) strict adherence to social conventions (e.g., dress codes, following the chain of command)."

"Out of immense frustration, some of us may feel the urge to shake a Trump supporter and say, "Hey! Don't you realize that he's an idiot?!" No. They don't. That may be hard to fathom, but that's the nature of the Dunning-Kruger effect one's ignorance is completely invisible to them."

"As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an*op-ed*for Politico, "The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is*not*good at that task and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment." Essentially, they're not smart enough to realize they're dumb." Psychology Today


Our conservative friends are so deeply lost in the billion dollar industry that is the right wing propaganda business that they get very angry when they venture outside and have the bubble punctured.

A whole era of conservatism that is on the verge of going down in history as preferring kleptocrats allied with Russian and Saudi dictators over Democrats and democratric allies. If they don't stand up soon history will not be kind.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66;842844806 said:

"The trouble with our liberal friends is that they are not ignorant, but that they just know so much that isn't so." Old, but still true.


You win the award for most unintentionally ironic post of the day. Bonus points for stereotyping "liberals" as well as genuflecting to Ronnie.
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks;842844877 said:

You win the award for most unintentionally ironic post of the day. Bonus points for stereotyping "liberals" as well as genuflecting to Ronnie.


And a prestigious award it is in this company.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842844835 said:

Seems like big business now thinks the money is in renewable energy, not coal and oil.


Renewal energy is a huge opportunity for the economy. While I sympathize with those in the coal industry who would continue to lose jobs, more jobs would be created in the renewal energy industry. I understand that those new jobs won't go to those who used to work in the coal mines, but we can't play identity politics in the rights for the same reason the left doing so on a regular basis is so despicable. The corporations can still invest in renewal energy despite US leaving the Paris Agreement since no one, not even the president, can stop the global markets. There will be demand for renewable energy, and China sees big dollar signs and not clear skies for giving lip service to the environment.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66;842844878 said:

And a prestigious award it is in this company.


While this is somewhat less than nuanced perspective, I agree with 95% of what the speaker in the below link says. And while I agree with what he says about wanna-be social warriors (my paraphrasing) and "progressives", I disagree with his historical perspective of liberalism or that progressive was even historically identified as liberal. Certain conservatives have also been very liberal (libertarian and Ayn Rand acolytes while some heroes of liberalism have also come from the left - MLK, Savio) and what I view as typical far left has always been illiberal (Stalin, Mao, left-leaning fascists, etc.). All you have to do is look at the so called social warrior and see that they have no interest in true liberty.

sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's just not renewable energy that threatens coal; natural gas is a far bigger threat. When a utility converts from coal to natural gas power plants there is no going back.
The benefits are immense and the costs are minimal.
Reduced emission control equipment, not just reduced emissions,
Reduced maintenance costs and increased equipment life (while the latter is not a benefit if you depend on depreciation, it's a major plus in reliability and longevity)
Reduced storage space, costs, and storage infrastructure ( consider the impact and cost difference between the infrastructure to handle mile long coal unit trains versus an 8 inch
gas pipeline); operating costs are minimal for natural gas while unit trains have to be continuously unloaded by a dedicated train crew as the coal train acts like a very long conveyor belt.
Natural gas waste products are non-existent compared to tons of coal ash that have to be disposed of daily.
Storage of coal can generate hazardous runoff, even if this pollution is allowed by current policies. Power plants can still be liable for damages resulting from their pollution.
I can only imagine the OMG moment when a utility replaces a major coal plant with a natural gas plant.

FWIW Natural gas also is a threat to oil products. I'm allergic to diesel fuel; so I have a personal health bias in favor of natural gas replacing diesel fuel. However the city buses where I live have been converted to natural gas and I don't miss the diesel smell or the fine mist of unburned diesel fuel exhausted on myself or my car.

There are many common terms it appears that The Grump does not understand, infrastructure appears to be one of them; outsourcing air traffic control will not affect the airport infrastructure problems like encroachment and heavier than designed air traffic. I concede that air traffic control problems can result in increased accidents or damage to infrastructure. The steel industry infrastructure is gone. Nobody seems to want to comment but I suspect the reality is that many of the steel smelting plants stayed in business until their facilities required complete replacement. You can't patch a hole in the hull of your super tanker after it had just sunk in the Marianas Trench. We do not need to repair infrastructure, we need to replace infrastructure which is a much higher cost and takes much more Congressional fortitude. It could be argued that the last major national infrastructure project was the Interstate Highway system, funded by DOD to replace railroads as the primary mover of freight in war time. It is by design that the major interstates routes paralleled transcontinental railroad lines, and in some cases the highway competitions forced the railroads into abandonment. Although the justification used by DOD had some 'fuzzy logic', the solution was not to repair and upgrade the existing railroads infrastructure, but to completely replace it with a new infrastructure. 70 years after that decision, we need to make similar infrastructure decisions today, not piecemeal band aid fixes.

calbear93;842844890 said:

Renewal energy is a huge opportunity for the economy. While I sympathize with those in the coal industry who would continue to lose jobs, more jobs would be created in the renewal energy industry. I understand that those new jobs won't go to those who used to work in the coal mines, but we can't play identity politics in the rights for the same reason the left doing so on a regular basis is so despicable. The corporations can still invest in renewal energy despite US leaving the Paris Agreement since no one, not even the president, can stop the global markets. There will be demand for renewable energy, and China sees big dollar signs and not clear skies for giving lip service to the environment.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sp4149;842844903 said:

It's just not renewable energy that threatens coal; natural gas is a far bigger threat. When a utility converts from coal to natural gas power plants there is no going back.
The benefits are immense and the costs are minimal.
Reduced emission control equipment, not just reduced emissions,
Reduced maintenance costs and increased equipment life (while the latter is not a benefit if you depend on depreciation, it's a major plus in reliability and longevity)
Reduced storage space, costs, and storage infrastructure ( consider the impact and cost difference between the infrastructure to handle mile long coal unit trains versus an 8 inch
gas pipeline); operating costs are minimal for natural gas while unit trains have to be continuously unloaded by a dedicated train crew as the coal train acts like a very long conveyor belt.
Natural gas waste products are non-existent compared to tons of coal ash that have to be disposed of daily.
Storage of coal can generate hazardous runoff, even if this pollution is allowed by current policies. Power plants can still be liable for damages resulting from their pollution.
I can only imagine the OMG moment when a utility replaces a major coal plant with a natural gas plant.

FWIW Natural gas also is a threat to oil products. I'm allergic to diesel fuel; so I have a personal health bias in favor of natural gas replacing diesel fuel. However the city buses where I live have been converted to natural gas and I don't miss the diesel smell or the fine mist of unburned diesel fuel exhausted on myself or my car.

There are many common terms it appears that The Grump does not understand, infrastructure appears to be one of them; outsourcing air traffic control will not affect the airport infrastructure problems like encroachment and heavier than designed air traffic. I concede that air traffic control problems can result in increased accidents or damage to infrastructure. The steel industry infrastructure is gone. Nobody seems to want to comment but I suspect the reality is that many of the steel smelting plants stayed in business until their facilities required complete replacement. You can't patch a hole in the hull of your super tanker after it had just sunk in the Marianas Trench. We do not need to repair infrastructure, we need to replace infrastructure which is a much higher cost and takes much more Congressional fortitude. It could be argued that the last major national infrastructure project was the Interstate Highway system, funded by DOD to replace railroads as the primary mover of freight in war time. It is by design that the major interstates routes paralleled transcontinental railroad lines, and in some cases the highway competitions forced the railroads into abandonment. Although the justification used by DOD had some 'fuzzy logic', the solution was not to repair and upgrade the existing railroads infrastructure, but to completely replace it with a new infrastructure. 70 years after that decision, we need to make similar infrastructure decisions today, not piecemeal band aid fixes.


Very good points on natural gas. One thing I don't like about natural gas is the harm created by all of the fracking.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93;842844891 said:

While this is somewhat less than nuanced perspective, I agree with 95% of what the speaker in the below link says. And while I agree with what he says about wanna-be social warriors (my paraphrasing) and "progressives", I disagree with his historical perspective of liberalism or that progressive was even historically identified as liberal. Certain conservatives have also been very liberal (libertarian and Ayn Rand acolytes while some heroes of liberalism have also come from the left - MLK, Savio) and what I view as typical far left has always been illiberal (Stalin, Mao, left-leaning fascists, etc.). All you have to do is look at the so called social warrior and see that they have no interest in true liberty.




I strongly disagree with some of his characterizations here, for example that anti-discrimination laws are in violation of religious liberty. It's all in how you look at it. No one is forcing a Christian running a business to change their religious beliefs, only to not decide who they will or will not do business with based on factors like race, religion, and sexual orientation.

That said, they key difference I see here is that while there certainly are some factions on the far left that edge into suppressing free speech, they don't have much pull in national politics. Meanwhile, the populist far right has almost completely taken over the Republican Party. Trump's election proves it. If there is a current pressing danger of authoritarianism in America, it's coming from the Right, not the Left.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93;842844915 said:

Very good points on natural gas. One thing I don't like about natural gas is the harm created by all of the fracking.


In b4 Cal88 tells us that fracking is actually good for the environment.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that in addition to being a leading authority on the safety of smoking and the skepticism of climate change, the Heartland Institute also claims that fracking isn't bad for the environment.
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coal mining/consumption hasn't been exactly environment friendly, especially strip mining and acid rain runoff. Renewables like wind/solar/tidal/geothermal have some negatives as well but generally look good compared to the alternatives they replace. I imagine in some areas natural gas pipelines are a bigger issue than fracking, e.g. San Bruno.


We are in the midst of an evolution of perspective; as a railroad history buff, I have observed that the evolution from wood to coal to bunker C oil to diesel oil as locomotive fuel was generally reported as "CLEAN PROGRESS" However when compared to electric or natural gas locomotives, diesel locomotives are very dirty. As a society we have wanted an evolution to cleaner living spaces, and reduction in coal use is just part of the evolution.

How about a positive spin on "FRACKING"? All those earthquakes caused by 'fracking' may force communities to adopt 'earthquake resistant" building codes. Hopefully when the "big one" hits again on the New Madrid fault, the fracking -forced seismic building code changes will result in a major reduction in damage and loss of life.

calbear93;842844915 said:

Very good points on natural gas. One thing I don't like about natural gas is the harm created by all of the fracking.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks;842844927 said:

In b4 Cal88 tells us that fracking is actually good for the environment.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that in addition to being a leading authority on the safety of smoking and the skepticism of climate change, the Heartland Institute also claims that fracking isn't bad for the environment.


Why? How does that progress the discussion? He isn't some nasty troll. Why not just express your viewpoint and let people decide. He seems to be making arguments and not twisting anyone else's words or just trolling. And most of us are independent thinkers who will evaluate individual arguments instead of parroting party lines.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sp4149;842844934 said:

Coal mining/consumption hasn't been exactly environment friendly, especially strip mining and acid rain runoff. Renewables like wind/solar/tidal/geothermal have some negatives as well but generally look good compared to the alternatives they replace. I imagine in some areas natural gas pipelines are a bigger issue than fracking, e.g. San Bruno.


We are in the midst of an evolution of perspective; as a railroad history buff, I have observed that the evolution from wood to coal to bunker C oil to diesel oil as locomotive fuel was generally reported as "CLEAN PROGRESS" However when compared to electric or natural gas locomotives, diesel locomotives are very dirty. As a society we have wanted an evolution to cleaner living spaces, and reduction in coal use is just part of the evolution.

How about a positive spin on "FRACKING"? All those earthquakes caused by 'fracking' may force communities to adopt 'earthquake resistant" building codes. Hopefully when the "big one" hits again on the New Madrid fault, the fracking -forced seismic building code changes will result in a major reduction in damage and loss of life.


I agree that natural gas is better than fossil fuel or coal. However, I think another big issue with fracking is the pollution of water supplies which can have devastating effect for those living nearby. I see natural gas as a transition fuel source until we get to a truly clean energy source.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842844919 said:

I strongly disagree with some of his characterizations here, for example that anti-discrimination laws are in violation of religious liberty. It's all in how you look at it. No one is forcing a Christian running a business to change their religious beliefs, only to not decide who they will or will not do business with based on factors like race, religion, and sexual orientation.

That said, they key difference I see here is that while there certainly are some factions on the far left that edge into suppressing free speech, they don't have much pull in national politics. Meanwhile, the populist far right has almost completely taken over the Republican Party. Trump's election proves it. If there is a current pressing danger of authoritarianism in America, it's coming from the Right, not the Left.


You and I could not disagree more strongly. As far as protecting liberty, allowing someone who does not believe in gay marriage not to participate is a better result than forcing someone to go against their religious belief so that the customer doesn't have to be inconvenienced. I disagree that factions on the far left didn't have much pull. All HRC did was pander to the far left to win over Bernie Sanders' crowd. You look at this board and the dialogue in the Democratic party and it isn't to go towards moderate policies. They are moving more to the left. If you don't see that the progressives are the equivalent of Republican Party's tea party sub-group and are having the same destructive effect on the Democratic party as tea party did on the Republican party where moderates lose out, then I don't believe you are looking at your own party objectively.


Having said that, I do believe that there is an illiberal sub-group in each party. Trump and his authoritarian tendencies and policies are just as illiberal as the progressives.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I believe US coal production is only down about 5%-10% from its peak. The massive job losses are from technology. Those jobs aren't coming back no matter what energy source we use.
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is a growing groundwater crisis in this country as too many aquifers are being drawn down or drying up. Fracking contaminating deep ground water obviously only makes the problem worse. What many may not realize is that all ground water in not potable or usable. At Skaggs Island the wells went through several aquifers until they found one marginally drinkable. I recall the main well was over 400 feet deep, even though ground water was within a foot of the surface.

calbear93;842844941 said:

I agree that natural gas is better than fossil fuel or coal. However, I think another big issue with fracking is the pollution of water supplies which can have devastating effect for those living nearby. I see natural gas as a transition fuel source until we get to a truly clean energy source.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93;842844943 said:

You and I could not disagree more strongly. As far as protecting liberty, allowing someone who does not believe in gay marriage not to participate is a better result than forcing someone to go against their religious belief so that the customer doesn't have to be inconvenienced. I disagree that factions on the far left didn't have much pull. All HRC did was pander to the far left to win over Bernie Sanders' crowd. You look at this board and the dialogue in the Democratic party and it isn't to go towards moderate policies. They are moving more to the left. If you don't see that the progressives are the equivalent of Republican Party's tea party sub-group and are having the same destructive effect on the Democratic party as tea party did on the Republican party where moderates lose out, then I don't believe you are looking at your own party objectively.


Having said that, I do believe that there is an illiberal sub-group in each party. Trump and his authoritarian tendencies and policies are just as illiberal as the progressives.


sycasey said factions on the far left edge into suppressing free speech but don't have much national power. You countered that the Bernie Sanders crowd has a lot of power. Are you saying the Bernie Sanders crowd is suppressing free speech? If so, I'd like to see your examples.
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not according to recent data. In 2016 coal production fell 17.6% nationwide from the year before. In some Major coal areas like Colorado, coal production dropped almost 40% last year.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/09/colorado-coal-production-plummets-2016/

Overall, from the peak year of 2008, coal production has fallen over 35 %, from nearly 1200 million short tons to under 750 million short tons.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29472

Supply side economics, when the supply is 50% greater than demand your industry is in BIG trouble.


dajo9;842844964 said:

I believe US coal production is only down about 5%-10% from its peak. The massive job losses are from technology. Those jobs aren't coming back no matter what energy source we use.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sp4149;842844975 said:

Not according to recent data. In 2016 coal production fell 17.6% nationwide from the year before. In some Major coal areas like Colorado, coal production dropped almost 40% last year.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/09/colorado-coal-production-plummets-2016/

Overall, from the peak year of 2008, coal production has fallen over 35 %, from nearly 1200 million short tons to under 750 million short tons.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29472

Supply side economics, when the supply is 50% greater than demand your industry is in BIG trouble.


Thanks sp, I wasn't totally confident because the data I was looking at was older (why I said "I believe" instead of being my usual more assertive self). I concede that your data is better than mine and that I was incorrect.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93;842844935 said:

Why not just express your viewpoint and let people decide.


That's exactly what I'm doing. I noticed you didn't question Odonto when he quoted Reagan. Did you think that moved this conversation forward? How did your link to a youtube video move the conversation forward?

I used the fracking discussion to twist the knife on a previous discussion with Cal88 who incorrectly stated that I "have no leg to stand on when [I'm] reducing climate skeptics to tobacco industry hacks." In fact, I have at least one leg to stand on because one of the more prominent and well-funded "think tanks" engages in climate change denial as well as having claimed smoking isn't unhealthy and that it is a myth that fracking negatively impacts our environment. That sure seems like relevant information to the discussion. As someone who has claimed in this very thread that fracking has environmental impacts, I'm surprised that you don't find that interesting.

You are more than welcome to address any facts or opinions I've posted, but I don't see how you have standing to call me out for not moving the conversation forward especially so soon after you posted what is basically a youtube attack video on a stereotypical group of partisans that doesn't seem to apply to anyone in this discussion.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93;842844943 said:

You and I could not disagree more strongly. As far as protecting liberty, allowing someone who does not believe in gay marriage not to participate is a better result than forcing someone to go against their religious belief so that the customer doesn't have to be inconvenienced.


Define "go against their religious belief." I don't believe any Democratic politician has suggested that Christian ministers should be forced to administer gay weddings. Just that people who want to buy a cake should be sold a cake. To me, that latter example is one of right-wing conservatives taking the extra step and saying that action violates their religious freedom because of what that cake might later be USED for. I don't think that's an actual encroachment on their freedoms.

calbear93;842844943 said:

I disagree that factions on the far left didn't have much pull. All HRC did was pander to the far left to win over Bernie Sanders' crowd. You look at this board and the dialogue in the Democratic party and it isn't to go towards moderate policies. They are moving more to the left. If you don't see that the progressives are the equivalent of Republican Party's tea party sub-group and are having the same destructive effect on the Democratic party as tea party did on the Republican party where moderates lose out, then I don't believe you are looking at your own party objectively.


So let's talk about what "far left" actually means. Everything advocated by Bernie Sanders would be solidly middle-of-the-road in most European countries. None of it is particularly radical on a worldwide scale. So when Democrats and progressives talk about moving the party in that direction, we see it as moving the country out of the right-leaning "norm" it's been in since Reagan. Obama moved the needle a bit, but still nowhere near where most other first-world countries are.

To me, that is still not anywhere close to dangerously illiberal politics. Trump has talked about the press being an "enemy of the people." That is an actual threat.

calbear93;842844943 said:

Having said that, I do believe that there is an illiberal sub-group in each party. Trump and his authoritarian tendencies and policies are just as illiberal as the progressives.


Trump is in charge. Progressives are attempting to build a movement. There is no equivalence here, in terms of what I am worried about.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9;842844972 said:

Are you saying the Bernie Sanders crowd is suppressing free speech?


Bernie Sanders said Ann Coulter should be allowed to speak at Berkeley.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/23/bernie-sanders-defends-ann-coulters-right-to-speak/?utm_term=.25b84566b6a8

There is no equivalence.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks;842844927 said:

In b4 Cal88 tells us that fracking is actually good for the environment.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that in addition to being a leading authority on the safety of smoking and the skepticism of climate change, the Heartland Institute also claims that fracking isn't bad for the environment.


Lol, trying get some work done here today so, briefly, I've gone from being totally against fracking, to being somewhat opposed, on a case by case basis. Fracking doesn't make sense near densely populated areas, or where the risks of water table contamination are higher, like in Upstate NY. I haven't researched this subject nearly as much as that of global warming though, so I'm less certain about it.

Unlike those Heartland types you love so much U2S, I'm against nuclear power in its current form, it has a failure rate of around 0.5% (2 out of ~450 plants have already had catastrophic failures), when it should be 0% (given the gravity of the downside), and that's not counting the near-misses, the nuclear waste and the cost issues. I'm for research into safer forms of nuclear fission.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Seems like a fair take. In b4 dajo ties your answer to Putin.
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93;842844943 said:

You and I could not disagree more strongly. As far as protecting liberty, allowing someone who does not believe in gay marriage not to participate is a better result than forcing someone to go against their religious belief so that the customer doesn't have to be inconvenienced. I disagree that factions on the far left didn't have much pull. All HRC did was pander to the far left to win over Bernie Sanders' crowd. You look at this board and the dialogue in the Democratic party and it isn't to go towards moderate policies. They are moving more to the left. If you don't see that the progressives are the equivalent of Republican Party's tea party sub-group and are having the same destructive effect on the Democratic party as tea party did on the Republican party where moderates lose out, then I don't believe you are looking at your own party objectively.


Having said that, I do believe that there is an illiberal sub-group in each party. Trump and his authoritarian tendencies and policies are just as illiberal as the progressives.


This board is nothing but moderate. After all, you and Dajo voted for the same corporate Democrat. I have to say the lamenting of the lost moderates amuses me. We've had nothing but bi-partisan moderation until 2008 and it's hollowed out the country in lock step to corporate masters
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.