Cacti

I won’t argue with your characterization of Trump, but exactly what alliances have been destroyed?

In the context of her speech and considering the audience, who is she referring to when she says “the rich and powerful”?

Warren: So, what is Warren’s plan to cull lies in political ads on Facebook? Who is going to be the arbiter of truth or falsity in political debates? Do Facebook employees get to choose a committee from their own ranks to monitor and censor the ads? Or maybe a private, unbiased, third-party fact checker can be trusted. R’s and D’s would have no problem agreeing on that third party, right? Better yet, maybe we can rely on some government agency (nonpartisan, of course) to distinguish lies from non lies to inform social media. Political lies, half-truths, and misleading ads are dangerous (they always have been), but pressuring social media companies to censor political speech is even more dangerous.

If you had to rank Big 12 teams by team talent, Texas would rank no worse than 2nd , probably right behind OU (we can argue about that later). But suppose you were an AD at a school not in the Big 12—I’ll pick Arkansas as an out-of-the-blue example—and you had to exchange your entire coaching staff with one from the Big 12, how many staffs would you choose before you got to Herman and crew? Our staff certainly wouldn’t be the 1st or 2nd chosen, but would they even be the 3rd, 4th, or 5th staff that you would choose?

It’s not a complaint to bring up China or India when discussing greenhouse emissions. Those countries are major polluters and they deserve scrutiny just as we do. Even if we were to cut America’s per capita emissions to China’s level, the IPCC’s goals of worldwide greenhouse gas reduction will not be met, and that’s because the referenced countries—as well as other countries and regions—will have to significantly reduce their emissions. Currently, they are not. According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That’s nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union. Obviously, that doesn’t meet your definition of substantial. So what specific actions do you recommend we take before we can fairly bring China into the discussion?

I know you’re not, but China is not even a good actor, at least not yet. According to Climate Action Tracker, China's carbon emissions rose an estimated 2.3% in 2018, the second consecutive year of growth after emissions appeared to stall between 2014 and 2016. No doubt we are responsible for a disproportionate share of past emissions, as are all industrialized nations. But we can’t do anything about past emissions; what matters is future world-wide reductions, and we can’t do that without the current, major offenders seriously addressing the issue. So it’s fair for China to ask “what about the U.S.” and it’s also fair for us to ask “what about China and India.”

You forgot to mention that they are also the largest investors of overseas coal plants, and that they are also firing up new plants within their own borders. … even as China reiterated its commitment to reducing emissions last week in New York, earlier this month at least three large, new coal-fired power stations appeared to be either operating or under construction in Inner Mongolia in northern China -- including Mengneng Xilin. … Chinese financial institutions are the world’s largest investor of overseas coal plants, pumping in $15 billion in coal projects from 2013 to 2016 through international development funds, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S.-based non-profit environmental advocacy group. There’s another $13 billion in proposed funding. Link Link

An even bigger loss is just waiting to happen. Despite Trump’s recent acquiescence to a Saudi request for additional U.S. troops, S.A. and her M.E. allies have to be nervous about Trump’s sudden and arbitrary decision to abandon an ally. Even if they trust Trump—and they shouldn’t—the next administration and Congress almost assuredly won’t be as pro Saudi as have past policy makers. So, this may be a situation where supporting/protecting Saudi Arabia is a bad choice for us, but choosing not to protect them could very well be a worse choice. S.A. is not capable of protecting themselves, as shown by the unanswered Iranian attacks on their oil facilities. Without protection the Saudis are practically helpless to counter Iranian aggression and intimidation, as well as being vulnerable to regime-destabilization action from Iranian proxies in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Since they need protection—and if we were not to provide it—S.A. would undoubtedly seek assistance elsewhere. And there is a regime that is able and would be more than willing to assume the role as paid protector: Russia. Currently Russia and Iran are on friendly terms, mostly because Iran is a large purchaser of Russian arms. But if the incentive is great enough, Putin would abandon an ally just as quick as Trump. And the incentive is money. Lots of money. Saudi Arabia is a huge market for Soviet arms (potentially larger than Iran) and the price for a permanent, protective mercenary force would be high, giving Russia what they desperately need: new revenue sources that are probably beyond the reach of our sanctions. An added incentive, at least from Putin’s point of view, would be to humiliate the U.S. on the world stage. So, what to do? We can continue to protect S.A. until the necessity for oil is nominal (50 more years?), or we can let another power like Russia or China assume the role of protecting the kingdom (assuming they covet such a role), or we can stand down and watch as Iran runs amok in the M.E.

If you say that a lot, then you must have reasons for feeling that the Hispanic immigrants are superior—or at least preferable—to the white population in particular states. Wouldn’t those same reasons also apply to Texas?

The prediction to which Mop is referring probably is the one made in 2008 by former lead NASA climate scientist, James Hansen, a.k.a. “the godfather of global warming science”, when he said that “in five to 10 years, the Artic will be free of sea ice in the summer.” Or he could be referring to a prediction from former NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally, who, in 2007 said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012…” Climate scientists are probably spot-on concerning long-term predictions but they are all over the map when making short-term forecasts. In any case, Mop was correct in saying that a specific prediction—made by noted scientists—was wrong.

Probably not. Only 3.83% of Ector County residents have a CHL, and it’s unlikely that all of them carry a weapon at all times. Besides, Ector County is not all that different from other Texas counties: Tarrant and Harris county percentages are 3.69% and 3.14%, respectively.

It sounds like that you’re linking the police with white nationalists. That’s not what you meant to say, is it?

This thread wouldn’t even exist if the detainees were white. I know you’re not naive enough to think that AOC, Torres, Castro, Barragán, Aguilar and other members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus would have shown the same concern/outrage if the occupants were Eastern European.

Who says progressives and conservatives can't compromise?

So we have at least two foreign nations interfering with our elections: Russia and Iran. And they are not aligned. Russia wants Trump to win, while Iran wants him out. Does Surly have enough outrage to go around?

No "convenient excuse" is needed. Prices will spike because of: 1) insurance companies raising rates to insure tankers; 2) some tanker companies are already avoiding the region, which lowers tanker supply and drives up shipping cost; and 3) oil prices generally spike when there is tension in the area.

Saying Alabama is dirty just because they outbid Texas and A&M and nearly everyone else for recruits is framing the issue in the most unfavorable possible way. A more politically correct way to frame it is to say that Alabama is—and has been—ahead of the curve when it comes to providing long overdue reparations.

I’ve often heard Stoops referred to as “Big Game Bob” as a form of mockery, as well as “chokelahoma” used in the same manner. According to some posters, these descriptions are justified because, more often than not, OU loses the ‘big game’ (obviously the Big 12 title games are not counted as big games). My question for Surly posters is this: Does losing the last game of the season—even if it is in a playoff situation—justify mocking a coach/team? Or is it just hyperbole, because OU is a hated rival?

It is pandering, as is promising to end offshore drilling on federal properties. But if she really wants to get new votes she needs to up her pandering game from not only appealing to the anti-oil crowd and the student-in-debt crowd, but also the huge, I-want-free-stuff crowd. And here’s the way to do that: She should promise to immediately sell off all the strategic oil reserves. According to the GND, which Warren endorses, we will be off of oil by 2030. Just imagine how many votes she could get if she proposed to sell a soon-to-be-useless product—one that is currently valued at well over 35 billion dollars—and return the proceeds to the American people in the form of free stuff; maybe free iphones or free internet, for example, or even reparations. She’s missing a real opportunity here.

AOC needs to have a word with her illustrator. Most of the characters in that video have exaggerated lips.

Both sides conspiring (unwittingly of course) is plausible. After all, a noted pundit recently had this to say: “ …the Republican Party, whose last remaining raison d'etre is to frustrate Democrats, seems to be thinking: We are determined to lose the 2020 election in order to foil Democrats' attempts to lose it.”

Your first two paragraphs are nothing more than doubling down on an erroneous opinion. No facts, just baseless suppositions and rationalizations. Your third paragraph doesn’t deserve a detailed response, but I will say this: there’s no need to call me a racist or supremacist or hater other than to hide the fact that you can’t support your opinion and you want to end the debate. And end it you did.

The Pentagon—as well as Congress—disagrees with you. The U.S. stocks well over one billion dollars of military equipment on Israeli soil. This stockpile (munitions, vehicles, hospital beds, etc.) is under our control and for our use, if needed. Israel has access to these stockpiles in an emergency. And former NATO Supreme Commander and Secretary of State Alexander Haig also disagrees with you. Over 30 years ago, he said "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security." Maybe you ought to reconsider your “Israel has little or no value” statement.

Big 12 defenses may be built to stop the spread HUNH but they don’t come close to actually stopping it. In 2012 conference play, 5 Big 12 teams averaged more than 35 point per game, and that doesn’t count Tech, who only averaged over 30. A&M may not have won the conference that year, but they would have had no problem putting up points against Big 12 defenses.

I doubt if even 20% of the public would read the full report even if it was available. And half of those would have to be told what it said. For the vast majority of the pubic, conclusions have already been reached.