Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    14247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 25 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    You might have missed the sarcasm of the post.  Poor is poor regardless of where you are in the world. My point is that what we consider as poor here would be almost middle class in other parts of the world.

    You are the one that missed the point of his post. 

    • Like 1
  2. 18 minutes ago, Lurch said:

    We should all ignore science because a scientist was wrong 20 years ago.

    He doesn't appear to be a scientist at all actually, but rather a diplomat.

    https://www.pace.edu/sites/default/files/files/commencement/hdr-2003-dr-noel-j-brown.pdf 

     Dr .Noel Brown is the former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, North American Regional office. Dr. Brown holds a B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Seattle University, an M.A. in International Law and Organization from Georgetown University and Ph. D. in International Relations from Yale University .He also holds a diploma in International Law from The Hague Academy of International Law

    Also, it isn't even clear that his statements were necessarily wrong. His prediction from 1989 doesn't appear to have a time element as to when those things would come to pass. It sets 2000 as a deadline for action, but it doesn't say anything about those events actually occurring by the year 2000. I'd have to look at the current science, but I don't think those conclusions are inconsistent with what we expect to happen in a hundred years or so given our current conditions. We still need to act in order to prevent additional damage, but we already believe that some amount of damage is going to occur (and has been occurring). 

    • Like 2
  3. 9 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

    Obama was the president when the Clinton investigation took place. stupid troll attempt.

    Was the statute of limitation on this imaginary infraction a year? You're telling me it was a super serious issue that deserved a special counsel, but that it wasn't worth investigating or pursuing the minute after Obama was no longer President? Weird. Almost sounds like maybe it wasn't that serious (or real) to begin with. 

  4. Just now, HtownHorn said:

    Which is why the Hillary investigation needed a special prosecutor, especially after the Lynch Clinton tarmac meeting.

    I am sorry. Did the Republicans not have complete control of the government just last year? I feel like this pressing need could have been easily met, you know, if there was actually any substance to it all. 

  5. 2 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

    That is a fair point.   Maybe certain people here are always taking AOC literally. Perhaps we never take her seriously enough, but we do always take her literally.  

    Maybe a lot of voters take AOC seriously but not literally, so when they hear things like the Amazon money going to pay for teachers comment, or the world ending in 12 years comment, their question is not, “Where are you actually going to get $3,000,000,000 to pay teachers by virtue of the Amazon deal being scrapped ?” or, you know, “How exactly is the Green New Deal going to save the world from destruction 12 years from now?” What they hear is we're going to have a saner, more sensible economic policy.

    Maybe we are being unfair and she just needs the benefit of the doubt because she’s unpolished.

    Jesus christ, listen to the interview. Read the Facebook post. She wasn't being literal, she was making a rhetorical point. A fucking 5th grader could have figured that out; it wasn't subtle. It wasn't an example of being unpolished, it was an example of certain people being either disingenuous or moronic when referencing her statement. Period. 

    • Like 1
  6. 12 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    This is a direct quote, but keep on keeping on....

    "Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said.

    Yes, it is a quote. Obviously, in context, she is being mildly hyperbolic  to emphasize how important this issue is to the country's youth. It is clear from reading her Facebook post what she is referencing (the deadline for reducing emissions) and not the literal and sudden end of the world. Good luck with the whole thinking thing. One day it may work for ya. 

  7. 7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    The joke's on you for talking to an idiot troll.

    Oh, for sure, but I figured others may appreciate knowing that one of the most common examples of "AOC being dumb" is anything but. I don't really expect ChickenSandwich or the others to ever acknowledge that they're full of shit. 

    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
  8. 7 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    We’ve started two year investigations on more important people with way less. 

    Really, she should have left Nancy alone

    You must be talking about Hillary because there is no way on fucking earth you can describe the investigation into Trump et al. as based on "less". 

  9. 5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    But with only 12 years left before the earth is destroyed, doesn’t that still make her a murderer? Or just full of shit?

    I looked into this bit. I haven't seen anything to indicate AOC seriously thought the Earth would be destroyed in 12 years. In fact, several months prior to her talk that generated this meme, she posted the following on facebook:

    "12 years. That's how long the latest UN study gives our planet to act on climate change before the point of no return. Food and water scarcity will put hundreds of millions of people at risk. Nature as we know it will never be the same. It doesn't have to be this way.

    With far-right populism preying on fear, racism and poverty, we owe it to our children to make a bold, Federal Green Energy Jobs program to empower people in industries that will literally save our planet. Instead of subsidies for dirty energy industries, we need just and equitable investments in green jobs for every American who wants one. Our future depends on it."

    https://www.facebook.com/Ocasio2018/posts/12-years-thats-how-long-the-latest-un-study-gives-our-planet-to-act-on-climate-c/1877512735672735/

    She then linked an article from the guardian as a source (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report?fbclid=IwAR175Zn7I8HIRvBqNMgRP4uPQQlhbY4LgrNV4XWfae4zkgvJKmP18rz6tWg)

    A bit of a more nuanced (and fact-based) take than what is being represented by certain folks. 

    • Like 2
  10. 4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    If you go to the Washington Examiner website and read the story, you'll see little more than a few "that's really weird" quotes by conservative political commentators.

    Now, that being said, if her campaign did something fishy and the FEC can figure it out, then by all means penalize the guilty parties, including (presumably) AOC herself.

    The story's relationship to AOC is pretty tenuous. Her chief of staff may have done something (or nothing) to benefit a company he created. There isn't really any allegation that AOC did or received anything, just sort of a "it could have happened" statement.  A summary of the allegations: her chief of staff created two PACs that received $3.3 million in small donations. The PACs then collectively paid a little less than a third of that total to two separate entities he created. Those payments were listed as "strategic consulting" fees. 

    Notably, this apparently wasn't a secret or anything, the whole thing was previously explained on the organization's website, at least according to the previous article on AOC's boyfriend receiving payments. I actually looked through the Wayback Machine and I don't see the portion identified by that article, so I'm a bit perplexed by that. At any rate, as shown in the article, the website said that  the LLC was designed to be hired by "the PAC and candidates to actually run campaigns." It also included a bit saying the business would not be run as a profit machine and that Mr. Chakrabarti was receiving no salary. 

     

     

  11. 19 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

    Actually you missed the point clearly.  I was referring to natural law.

    Oh, so you already knew the answer when you asked question? Interesting. I hope we passed your test then. 

    My point: you can take issue with whether natural law/human rights includes the right to a certain standard of living. But, you can't criticize someone for arguing for the existence of natural rights and be at all consistent with the ideology behind our founding. As to the former, I think you'll be hard-pressed to convince most folks that human rights don't or shouldn't include a general minimum floor for standard of living. This isn't a new concept in this country. 

  12. 33 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

    I’m not in favor of letting people starve, but which inalienable/natural right was it that stated or even implied a guaranteed salary good enough to live on no matter what?  You can choose whether you want to cite Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence or the philosophers like John Locke who came up with the theory.

    You missed the point. He was looking for a legal source of rights when it was clear that she was arguing for rights not as a matter of human law, but rather natural law. Whether a previous philosopher has identified that particular right is immaterial. His implication that she was wrong for identifying extra-legal rights is fundamentally at odds with the philosophical underpinnings of our country.  

  13. 11 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

    where is it a right to make a certain amount of money?  Just curious.  The word right is overused.  I guess a right now is anything you want it to be.  Is this an unalienable right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?  I am sure some you of will do some mental hurdles to apply it to that though.

    You understand of course that the founders believed in certain inalienable rights; not because they existed on a piece of paper, but because they were part and parcel of being a human being (at the time it was more of being a white man, but that is besides the point). In fact, a significant part of the stated inspiration for this country was the denial of these innate rights under the legal structure at the time. Perhaps you should read a bit more on the philosophical underpinnings of this country. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...