Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[barton]

A serious conversation means people listening to, and producing, facts.  I wouldn't risk it. 

No one knows what damage from ecosystem damage or collapse would really cost to remedy.   Some costs won't be in dollars.  Some measures will be palliative care, not a cure.   But if we don't start now, the suffering will be beyond description. 

[REDSTATEWARD]

A serious conversation means people listening to, and producing, facts.  I wouldn't risk it. 

No one knows what damage from ecosystem damage or collapse would really cost to remedy.   Some costs won't be in dollars.  Some measures will be palliative care, not a cure.   But if we don't start now, the suffering will be beyond description.

Good luck on convincing voters to give up jobs  providing energy to fight an “ existential threat” that doesn’t exist. It didn’t work very well for Hillary in West  Virginia as I recall.

[Yankguy1]

Well perhaps Trump's lie about coal "coming back" (or his other lies) might convince voters to vote for someone else then.   

[Hairy Lime]

If you don’t understand that climate change does NOT threaten our existence I can’t make it any clearer than that.

What would convince you that it does threaten our existence?

A pointless question.

When asked what proof he had that Republicans are taking the threats posed by climate change seriously, his answer was, essentially, they are lowering taxes on the rich.

This isn't someone trying to have a good faith conversation.

Red is a sealion. He has no interest in good.faith conversation.

Sometime in the not.so distant future I see Red, facing massive world wide food shortages, Florida under water, Kansas and Nebraska vast desserts, sea life dying off, choking on the air, gasping out with his last foul breath "We can solve all of this... [cough] if we just [cough cough]... lower taxes on the rich".

[josh]

If you don’t understand that climate change does NOT threaten our existence I can’t make it any clearer than that.

What would convince you that it does threaten our existence?

A pointless question.

When asked what proof he had that Republicans are taking the threats posed by climate change seriously, his answer was, essentially, they are lowering taxes on the rich.

This isn't someone trying to have a good faith conversation.

According to the latest accounting statistics the democrat presidential candidates’ bids to “save the planet”  run from a LOW of 3$Trillion(Warren) to a HIGH of $16 trillion(Sanders).
But NEEDs insists on a “ good faith conversation”!
LOL

You've provided no evidence to suggest the risk is not real.

As usual.

The preponderence of the evidence and the vast majority of scientists think the threat is real, but you think we can have a booming economy while our cities are under water.

I sure wish you lived on a coast.

[REDSTATEWARD]

If you don’t understand that climate change does NOT threaten our existence I can’t make it any clearer than that.

What would convince you that it does threaten our existence?

A pointless question.

When asked what proof he had that Republicans are taking the threats posed by climate change seriously, his answer was, essentially, they are lowering taxes on the rich.

This isn't someone trying to have a good faith conversation.

According to the latest accounting statistics the democrat presidential candidates’ bids to “save the planet”  run from a LOW of 3$Trillion(Warren) to a HIGH of $16 trillion(Sanders).
But NEEDs insists on a “ good faith conversation”!
LOL

You've provided no evidence to suggest the risk is not real.

As usual.

The preponderence of the evidence and the vast majority of scientists think the threat is real, but you think we can have a booming economy while our cities are under water.

I sure wish you lived on a coast.

I do. Thanks for your concern.
By the way. I never argued climate  hangs did not pose problems.
I simply pointed out it is not an existential crisis or threat.
And I noted the democrat   Loans running for President are using those terms to scare people and turn our country socialist.

[Yankguy1]

Wait.  I thought we were already Socialist.   

[barton]

We are.  At least going back to the first Roosevelt administration.  And possibly going back to labor reforms following the Haymarket Square riots in the 1880s.  Unregulated capitalism was amoral, predatory, and in some cases lethal. 

Technically, when RW-ers say "socialism," they are somewhat misusing the term, which means government ownership of all means of production, as well as services.  In the U.S. what we have is democratically regulated capitalism, where the government does not own, but exercises some control over, producers and the commodification of labor. 

[Hairy Lime]

If you don’t understand that climate change does NOT threaten our existence I can’t make it any clearer than that.

What would convince you that it does threaten our existence?

A pointless question.

When asked what proof he had that Republicans are taking the threats posed by climate change seriously, his answer was, essentially, they are lowering taxes on the rich.

This isn't someone trying to have a good faith conversation.

According to the latest accounting statistics the democrat presidential candidates’ bids to “save the planet”  run from a LOW of 3$Trillion(Warren) to a HIGH of $16 trillion(Sanders).
But NEEDs insists on a “ good faith conversation”!
LOL

You've provided no evidence to suggest the risk is not real.

As usual.

The preponderence of the evidence and the vast majority of scientists think the threat is real, but you think we can have a booming economy while our cities are under water.

I sure wish you lived on a coast.

I do. Thanks for your concern.
By the way. I never argued climate  hangs did not pose problems.
I simply pointed out it is not an existential crisis or threat.
And I noted the democrat   Loans running for President are using those terms to scare people and turn our country socialist.

Loans are running for president?

[REDSTATEWARD]

We are.  At least going back to the first Roosevelt administration.  And possibly going back to labor reforms following the Haymarket Square riots in the 1880s.  Unregulated capitalism was amoral, predatory, and in some cases lethal. 

Technically, when RW-ers say "socialism," they are somewhat misusing the term, which means government ownership of all means of production, as well as services.  In the U.S. what we have is democratically regulated capitalism, where the government does not own, but exercises some control over, producers and the commodification of labor.

LOL.
Barton is totally confused on how market economies work.

Regulatory and public institutions are essential to a capitalistic system.
Think Federal Reserve and Public Schools for example.

[REDSTATEWARD]

If you don’t understand that climate change does NOT threaten our existence I can’t make it any clearer than that.

What would convince you that it does threaten our existence?

A pointless question.

When asked what proof he had that Republicans are taking the threats posed by climate change seriously, his answer was, essentially, they are lowering taxes on the rich.

This isn't someone trying to have a good faith conversation.

According to the latest accounting statistics the democrat presidential candidates’ bids to “save the planet”  run from a LOW of 3$Trillion(Warren) to a HIGH of $16 trillion(Sanders).
But NEEDs insists on a “ good faith conversation”!
LOL

You've provided no evidence to suggest the risk is not real.

As usual.

The preponderence of the evidence and the vast majority of scientists think the threat is real, but you think we can have a booming economy while our cities are under water.

I sure wish you lived on a coast.

I do. Thanks for your concern.
By the way. I never argued climate  hangs did not pose problems.
I simply pointed out it is not an existential crisis or threat.
And I noted the democrat   Loans running for President are using those terms to scare people and turn our country socialist.

Loans are running for president?

Typo. Meant morons.

[Hairy Lime]

If you don’t understand that climate change does NOT threaten our existence I can’t make it any clearer than that.

What would convince you that it does threaten our existence?

A pointless question.

When asked what proof he had that Republicans are taking the threats posed by climate change seriously, his answer was, essentially, they are lowering taxes on the rich.

This isn't someone trying to have a good faith conversation.

According to the latest accounting statistics the democrat presidential candidates’ bids to “save the planet”  run from a LOW of 3$Trillion(Warren) to a HIGH of $16 trillion(Sanders).
But NEEDs insists on a “ good faith conversation”!
LOL

You've provided no evidence to suggest the risk is not real.

As usual.

The preponderence of the evidence and the vast majority of scientists think the threat is real, but you think we can have a booming economy while our cities are under water.

I sure wish you lived on a coast.

I do. Thanks for your concern.
By the way. I never argued climate  hangs did not pose problems.
I simply pointed out it is not an existential crisis or threat.
And I noted the democrat   Loans running for President are using those terms to scare people and turn our country socialist.

Loans are running for president?

Typo. Meant morons.

You are the one that voted for him.

[facilitatorn]

It’s both sad and funny watching a brain locked troll argue for lower rates on higher incomes when it’s clear he has no legitimate income of his own. Jim is very loud for a dumb thief. 

[barton]

We are.  At least going back to the first Roosevelt administration.  And possibly going back to labor reforms following the Haymarket Square riots in the 1880s.  Unregulated capitalism was amoral, predatory, and in some cases lethal. 

Technically, when RW-ers say "socialism," they are somewhat misusing the term, which means government ownership of all means of production, as well as services.  In the U.S. what we have is democratically regulated capitalism, where the government does not own, but exercises some control over, producers and the commodification of labor.

LOL.
Barton is totally confused on how market economies work.

Regulatory and public institutions are essential to a capitalistic system....

So why do you keep calling proposed public regulation "socialism"?  It's your misuse of the term that betrays the confusion here.  If, say for example, the government offers incentives for clean energy, that encourages innovation and growth of businesses based on innovation, that is a healthy form of regulated capitalism.  How do you think our nation ended acid rain?  Burning high-sulfur fuel was penalized and low-sulfur fuel supported. 

[barton]

Sometime in the not.so distant future I see Red, facing massive world wide food shortages, Florida under water, Kansas and Nebraska vast desserts....

Kansas can be rather pancake-like.