Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[jimmyjazz 45957]

40 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Don't you remember how I was on the old Shaggy and HF MB threads?

No.

 

Quote

This is the same.

Fascinating.

 

 

Quote

It's the offseason Jimmy.

Not in the United States, it's not.  

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

100% renewable and 100% carbon-free are different things, and that should be the battle on the left. While we can be concerned with the long-term problem of storing nuclear waste, nuclear power plants do not contribute to climate change.

Climate change is the immediate threat. Leaking in Yucca would be terrible, but it's not going to cause global climate catastrophe that kills hundreds of millions.

Good call. AOC is wrong on this one. Nuclear is a viable option in a Green Energy portfolio.

[Atx71 146]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Wouldn't it be cool if the right stopped pretending science didn't exist and advocated those kinds of solutions to this extremely pressing problem? Wouldn't it be cool if the right started coming up with market-based, capitalism-friendly solutions?

What a wonderful world it would be if it wasn't a party of fundamentally stupid obstructionists, right?

You can thank the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus voters who worshiped the Fox News' confirmation bias business model. And gerrymandering. 

[RDCanecutter 26443]

4 minutes ago, Pokemon said:

Faced with this eloquence, I must admit I see your point.

[jimmyjazz 45957]

Conan's is not Chicago-style deep dish.  It's delicious (all pizza is delicious in its own Jesus-loves-the-little-children-all-the-children-of-the-world way), but it's not Chicago style.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

This thread:

 

[A Cellar Honker 19]

[DaysOff 7951]

Wanna know how I know you never lived in New Orleans?

Betcha I know where you got those shoes at.

[Fozzz 152]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Is it important that she does?

I think it would be helpful.  The politicians who have been particularly vocal about non-intervention (Ohmar, Khanna, and Tulsi) don't have much purchase in the media, and if you were just consuming corporate media you would think that virtually everyone outside of Maduro and his cronies are in support of US intervention.  AOC does have purchase and could change that dynamic.

[bad_teammate 13195]

4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I think it would be helpful.  The politicians who have been particularly vocal about non-intervention (Ohmar, Khanna, and Tulsi) don't have much purchase in the media, and if you were just consuming corporate media you would think that virtually everyone outside of Maduro and his cronies are in support of US intervention.  AOC does have purchase and could change that dynamic.

I'd really rather her not become THE unified voice of the left. It's cool that she's pushing things left, and I really like her, but the ideas need to be the center of the movement and the voices should be changed around. We need to find the left voices that care deeply about different topics and let them lead on those topics and then, those of us as individuals out here in the world need to amplify those voices.

I sincerely don't know who, in the new crop of Congress critters, cares a lot about Venezuela.

[Underdog 28637]

GDit, now I want some Conan's Pizza. 

[Cajun 11705]

23 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

2 hours ago, Cajun said:

Wanna know how I know you never lived in New Orleans?

Betcha I know where you got those shoes at.

On your feet, dats where dey at!

 

[Cajun 11705]

32 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

This thread:

 

I have just met you AND I love you!

[Cajun 11705]

48 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

No.

 

Fascinating.

 

 

Not in the United States, it's not.  

Ah, I thought you remembered.  

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

say it again!

Weird. I only posted it once. 

[Cajun 11705]

[Tom 2959]

This thread is a shitshow, which is Cajun and EMAW's objective.

Jesus, Cajun has straight up admitted multiple times he's trolling because it's fun and ya'll have spent the last 5 pages arguing nonsense with him.  Either ignore him, neg him, or both and move on.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Here’s the actual Green New Deal paperwork.

For those that want to decide for themselves.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

[workswithseed 2108]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

You have to wonder about the white guys so anxious to find a loophole to allow them to say nigger. To me, it's very strange. Or it's something far worse than strange.

I'll actually acknowledge the parallel strangeness of a word having so much power, but there it is. White people (I'm one) should resolve to never think the concept of nigger let alone feel the need to use the word. I italicize the word to be clear that I think it is a special word that ought to be separated from other language.

There's a loophole to say nigger? I thought you could just say it cause it's speech. There is always connotation for the word which can let you ride or die. What if you call a bunch of white supremicist it? That would throw them for a loop calling them something they don't like. Hell even south park had a whole episode on it, no one know got mad at them saying it, did they?

It's like fuck, you wouldn't say it in front of polite folks, but at the end of the day it is a word that can have a time and a place.

[Underdog 28637]

1 hour ago, Cajun said:

On your feet, dats where dey at!

 

<---- fell for that shit... ☹️

[bad_teammate 13195]

If all of you morons could stop dropping the n-word that would be spectacular. Christ, this place is pathetic.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

3 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

Question, do you consider the following song lyric to be racist?

"And to the black folks he was just a crazy nigga"

  

 

[Biff Tannen 45686]

27 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Here’s the actual Green New Deal paperwork.

For those that want to decide for themselves.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

There are a couple of places where it goes off the rails into just general utopia ideals, but the overall idea is a good starting point.

[tantric superman 4667]

41 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Here’s the actual Green New Deal paperwork.

For those that want to decide for themselves.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

Resolved, ... it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

(C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;

(D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come— (i) clean air and water; (ii) climate and community resiliency; (iii) healthy food; (iv) access to nature; (v) a sustainable environment; and

(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’

 

I'm for A, C and D and sure, why not B but E belongs in some other bill.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

8 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I'm for A, C and D and sure, why not B but E belongs in some other bill.

It’s really more of a mission statement than a bill.

[DaysOff 7951]

It’s really more of a mission statement than a bill.

SHOW ME THE MONEY!

[EastTexan 662]

16 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

Where's the part where they want to pay people unwilling to work? That is a great idea. BTW it was in the original document. 

Took it out cause they stupid.

[elfenix 34241]

18 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

Where's the part where they want to pay people unwilling to work? That is a great idea. BTW it was in the original document. 

the only part close to that is "(O) providing all people of the united states with (iii) economic security."  maybe you're talking about a faq page.  but that's not what was in the bill.  and as a professor pointed out (when discussing the official commentary to the texas bar code of professional responsibility), the comments aren't actually the rule, if they'd have wanted the comments to be the rule they'd actually be the rule, not the comments.  the faq isn't the resolution. it's not in the resolution and never was in the resolution.

Edited February 11, 2019 by elfenix

[jimmyjazz 45957]

14 minutes ago, EastTexan said:

Took it out cause they stupid.

They were stupid for taking it out?  I can't keep up with you guys.  Both sides!

[Cajun 11705]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

If all of you morons could stop dropping the n-word that would be spectacular. Christ, this place is pathetic.

Damn Bad, and I was gonna see if you wanted to go see Chris Rock with me.

Maybe follow it up with a Tarantino film festival?

Edited February 11, 2019 by Cajun

[EMAWesome 101]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

100% renewable and 100% carbon-free are different things, and that should be the battle on the left. While we can be concerned with the long-term problem of storing nuclear waste, nuclear power plants do not contribute to climate change.

Climate change is the immediate threat. Leaking in Yucca would be terrible, but it's not going to cause global climate catastrophe that kills hundreds of millions.

Then again neither is anything else.  Explain something to me.  Meteorologists will tell you that forecasting anything further out than two days requires a lot of guess work and the farther off in the distance time wise the less reliable these forecasts become.  Keep in mind that they are only forecasting for a very small chunk of area on earth.  If their forecasts for a week in advance are self-admittedly unreliable why in the hell do people take forecasts for the entire planet a hundred plus years from now as absolute undeniable gospel?  When The Weather Channel puts up a map of the forecasted path of a hurricane they show about 30 different agencies forecast models and the whole thing looks like a plate of technicolor spaghetti has been thrown onto a map of the Atlantic Ocean.  No one is ever in agreement with where the storm is headed and at least half of the models completely miss.  And all of these forecast groups have access to far more information about any particular hurricane then climatologists have information about weather patterns a century from now.  There is no one in the Air Force flying climate hunter airplanes through the climate in 2119.  There is no reason to change an entire country of over 300 million peoples economical and social behavior over a forecast than is really nothing more than throwing shit up against a wall and guessing exactly which particular turds are going to stick.

 

P.S.--Spare me the "climatology and meteorology are two different things" reponse.  I know they aren't the exact same thing but they are related to each other closely enough that my point still stands.  If a meteorologist doesn't know with any real degree of certainty what the weather is going to be like in Jackson, Mississippi next week then climatologists can't possibly have any real accurate idea of what general climatic conditions across the entire planet are going to be like a century from now.  Anyone that says they do is bullshitting you.

[wildcat09 29354]

imgur

[Biff Tannen 45686]

[Dahobbs 17534]

44 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

Where's the part where they want to pay people unwilling to work? That is a great idea. BTW it was in the original document. 

It was never in the bill and was never proposed legislation. It was in an early version FAQ distributed by AOC's office. Basically, first year congress critter has rookie staff. Shocking.   

[EMAWesome 101]

54 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Resolved, ... it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

(C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;

(D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come— (i) clean air and water; (ii) climate and community resiliency; (iii) healthy food; (iv) access to nature; (v) a sustainable environment; and

(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’

 

I'm for A, C and D and sure, why not B but E belongs in some other bill.

It's not the federal government's duty to provide any jobs (other than Federal government jobs).  That is the duty of the private sector.  The only way it becomes the federal government's duty is if the federal government is running the business.

It's also not really the government's job to provide healthy food and access to nature.  Government doesn't eat.  Government doesn't need exercise.  These are the responsibility of society in general.

I have no earthly idea what E has to do with anything concerning energy, climate, or the environment in general.  This is just feel good, break your arm while patting yourself on the back, clap-trap.  It's a politician's version of wearing a stupid ribbon in writing.   It's feeling like you are making a difference without actually having to do anything that makes a difference.  "Starting a conversation" about an issue takes no commitment, involvement, or effort to do.   Actually doing something about an issue does which is why no politician or celebrity ever goes past the starting the conversation phase.

 

[tantric superman 4667]

53 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s really more of a mission statement than a bill. 

I like my mission statements like I like my women.  Tight and focused.

[wildcat09 29354]

4 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

It's not the federal government's duty to provide any jobs (other than Federal government jobs).  That is the duty of the private sector.  The only way it becomes the federal government's duty is if the federal government is running the business.

It's also not really the government's job to provide healthy food and access to nature.  Government doesn't eat.  Government doesn't need exercise.  These are the responsibility of society in general.

 I have no earthly idea what E has to do with anything concerning energy, climate, or the environment in general.  This is just feel good, break your arm while patting yourself on the back, clap-trap.  It's a politician's version of wearing a stupid ribbon in writing.   It's feeling like you are making a difference without actually having to do anything that makes a difference.  "Starting a conversation" about an issue takes no commitment, involvement, or effort to do.   Actually doing something about an issue does which is why no politician or celebrity ever goes past the starting the conversation phase.

 

Look at this gigantic fucking brain we've got here. Just look at it people!

[Dahobbs 17534]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Look at this gigantic fucking brain we've got here. Just look at it people!

Yep, if only there was some group chosen by society in general to help society accomplish its goals. Somebody should look into creating that. Maybe we could even have the public vote for them!

Edited February 11, 2019 by Dahobbs

[GRHorn 105]

Props to AOC for at least proposing a broad vision, no matter how wacky. 

[elfenix 34241]

let them eat cake

[Cajun 11705]

10 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I like my mission statements like I like my women.  Tight and focused.

imgur

Edited February 11, 2019 by Cajun

[Cajun 11705]

4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Props to AOC for at least proposing a broad's vision, no matter how wacky. 

fify

Edited February 11, 2019 by Cajun

[Bash Riprock 1695]

lol. she never disappoints.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

20 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

 

 

P.S.--Spare me the "climatology and meteorology are two different things" reponse.  I know they aren't the exact same thing but they are related to each other closely enough that my point still stands.  If a meteorologist doesn't know with any real degree of certainty what the weather is going to be like in Jackson, Mississippi next week then climatologists can't possibly have any real accurate idea of what general climatic conditions across the entire planet are going to be like a century from now.  Anyone that says they do is bullshitting you.

That is incorrect. Take any introductory course in climatology from any university (conservative or liberal) and you'll see the evidence is overwhelming. Anybody that says that x place will be exactly +2.5C in 50 years is pulling your leg. That's why there are models and ranges depending on a shit ton of factors. Ignoring the problem, because you can't get a 7 day weather model to be 100% accurate is absurd when we just have to get an average roughly correct for 20,000 days.

 

That's like saying you can't possibly know that red will come up 47.4% of the time in roulette, because we can't accurately predict what the next 20 spins will be.

[jimmyjazz 45957]

Frankly, the degree to which weather and climate are coupled is so minimal that anyone who opines otherwise either has a vested interest in denying climate change or is just plain stupid.

Not sure which we're dealing with here.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Frankly, the degree to which weather and climate are coupled is so minimal that anyone who opines otherwise either has a vested interest in denying climate change or is just plain stupid.

Not sure which we're dealing with here.

Off topic a bit, but in The Fifth Risk Michael Lewis makes some great points about the improvements in meteorology funded by the government in the past couple of decades. Great read for many reason.

[Macanudo 12979]

What the fuck does "Access to nature" mean.    Does this mean we're all gonna have to start peeing outside in the yard now?

[EuroHorn 3265]

11 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

What the fuck does "Access to nature" mean.    Does this mean we're all gonna have to start peeing outside in the yard now?

[Thetexashammer 1062]

8 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

There are a couple of places where it goes off the rails into just general utopia ideals, but the overall idea is a good starting point.

Socialist societies leave their people without health care, without jobs, and without food. I don't know what part of that you want us to experience.

6 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

That is incorrect. Take any introductory course in climatology from any university (conservative or liberal) and you'll see the evidence is overwhelming. Anybody that says that x place will be exactly +2.5C in 50 years is pulling your leg. That's why there are models and ranges depending on a shit ton of factors. Ignoring the problem, because you can't get a 7 day weather model to be 100% accurate is absurd when we just have to get an average roughly correct for 20,000 days.

 

That's like saying you can't possibly know that red will come up 47.4% of the time in roulette, because we can't accurately predict what the next 20 spins will be.

There is no introductory climate science class. Climatology isn't a science. It's a model. It's not a branch of science, it's a hypothesis. Not a theory of law, a hypothesis. Certainly not something you would teach as "Climate 101". Yes, you will probably find some counterexample. Don't care, it's not a branch a fundamental science.

Here's a question for you. If the earth stays the same temperature for the next 50 years (that you referenced), will the models be proven wrong or right? Hint: The question relates to 90% confidence intervals and their relationship with time. Fuck, I mean do you even know anything about the historical accuracy of the models (not a branch of science) that you worship?

Edited February 12, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20400]

7 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

It's not the federal government's duty to provide any jobs (other than Federal government jobs).  That is the duty of the private sector.  The only way it becomes the federal government's duty is if the federal government is running the business.

It's also not really the government's job to provide healthy food and access to nature.  Government doesn't eat.  Government doesn't need exercise.  These are the responsibility of society in general.

 

 

Have you seen what "society in general"  looks like when it doesn't have access to nature and healthy food?