Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'College Basketball Board' started by Hank_, Apr 26, 2019.
Okay, but like I said, this was regarding whether you were likely to befriend someone of the opposing party. Both of the polls I referenced included that data. And yes, general tolerance is very nuanced. Yes, people make political decisions for a myriad of reasons. I think people are good by nature. That is why I think it's more than okay to be friends with liberals. I don't like many of the things liberals stand for, but I can still be friends with them. To me, it's more telling of your tolerance level if you're willing to be friends with someone. That is the final nail in the coffin. That is much more significant than saying I don't like A, B, and C about the other person.
I’d like to see a more broad study. Gun to my head, I’d probably say Libs are slightly more intolerant of Cons but only by a hair. The reality is most people associate with like-minded people. The majority of your friends will usually hold very similar beliefs. Especially as you become parents
Virginia turns down invite to WH- snowflakes up in arms over lack of respect for their hero.
Imaginary hordes of foreigners heading to US border - snowflakes see end of the world as imminent.
I don’t know about everything but snowflakes are afraid of a lot of things.
The above group of snowflakes also seems to think billionaires will solve all their problems.
Perhaps. Would love to participate in research like that.
Go take a nap. These threads aren't for you.
Regardless of global warming, we should still move towards sustainable energy. It’s kind of like the adage “you don’t shit where you eat.” If you live in a town with out much population you don’t necessarily see the smog caused by factories and cars. But cities and populations are only going to increase.
And we shouldn’t **** up streams with farm run off.
And we shouldn’t overfish the oceans and dump plastic in them.
And it’s not cool to klll off biodiversity and extinctions of species. Took them millions upon millions of years to evolve and we kill them off at one of the fastest rates in earth history.
A lot of people note the jobs supported by the coal industry. I know coal people myself. But if I’m them I’m looking for alternatives ASAP. It’s like saying we should all eat at McDonald’s or people will lose jobs.
Both sides lack common sense approaches. This is common sense.
AOC - “let’s ban cars!”
Scott Pruit - “let’s drill in every county for oil!”
The neo-snowflake in GOP disguise is afraid of everything except dudes like Jim Jordan who are pro-child molestation & protect man/boy love.
Don't get the snowflake sensitivity true believers even started on that stuff.
They will cry as they defend the pedo-pal. They are that 'got' right now...
Don't drink the bong water Eric. You're literally getting dumber with each post on this board.
I am glad some intelligence is finally rising out of the waste pool that is this thread. Please. Post more.
I think it’s true of the majority of the left. I also find it much harder to find “moderates” on the left. To most of the liberals I know you either buy into everything progressives are pushing or you’re an evil person for [insert policy disagreement here].
When you deny proven facts of science, yes.
Clicked the spoiler, and climate change deniers are ******ed.
How do you prove that human activity leads to an increase in temperature? I would be floored to know that you can isolate the human element of this equation.
Tuvalu, an island nation in the Pacific, was often thought to be a place that would likely be swallowed up by the sea. Yet, this report indicates the island (and a few others) is actually getting bigger. Then you have issues like Climategate, where e-mails were leaked about scientists manipulating data to arrive at predetermined outcomes. And then I look at the highest temperatures in recorded US History. I don't know about you, but I find it alarming that 23 of the 50 states have a high that occurred in the 1930's (and only 2 of the highs occurred in the last 20 years). I'm not flat-out denying that humans can contribute to increased global temperatures, I'm just very skeptical that it has anything more than a minimal impact. Climate is and always has been cyclical.
Haha! That's funny as hell.
I find it hard to believe that you are speaking from any real world experience.
That's the most worn-out, regurgitated shvt I've read in minutes.
It is refreshing to have a well spoken and level headed liberal POV on the board. You're going to be a keeper, I can already tell.
If I remember right, you’re the guy who thinks evolution is also a hoax.
One huge problem with your “data” is that climate is not a single maximum peak or snapshot of a day’s weather.. or even one season’s weather. Literally all your “evidence” points to anomalous data points seeming to contradict climate change. But the problem is, you aren’t referring to climate.
Next winter could be the coldest on record. Could have record ice in the arctic. And it still wouldn’t disprove global warming. It’s also highly unlikely that happens.
You can slice it and be contrary in multiple ways. Bottom line is that humans are definitely ****ing up the environment and that is really the bigger point when you boil it down.
Then how do you justify the price tag on some of these proposals?
Compelling argument. I'm sold.
I believe in evolution, things change over time. No denying that. I don't believe in micro-evolution, however. Don't care to open up the can of worms at this time, however.
Now, as far as anthropogenic climate change, that's great and all, but it doesn't "prove" anything. Like I said, how can you isolate the human element from the equation? Cost accounting can be a major headache sometimes. Now try doing that with 70 trillion variables, and I'd say you're out of your mind if you think you can isolate the two and "prove" anything. You can fit 133 million earths inside the sun. Mother nature is infinitely more powerful/influential than human activity.
Will Happer, an American Physicist and Emeritus Professor at Princeton has stated "I also know a lot about long-term predictive climate models. And I know they don’t work. They haven’t worked in the past. They don’t work now. And it’s hard to imagine when, if ever, they’ll work in the foreseeable future. There’s a common-sense reason for this. The atmosphere’s complexity rivals that of the human brain. The sun, oceans, weather, clouds, and human interference play a part in how the atmosphere affects the climate. For the purposes of illustration, let’s just focus our attention on water. The earth is essentially a water planet. A major aspect of climate involves the complicated interaction between two very turbulent fluids: the atmosphere, which holds large amounts of water (think rain and snow), and the oceans, which cover fully 70% of the earth’s surface. We can’t predict what effect the atmosphere is going to have on future temperatures because we can’t predict cloud formations."
I wouldn't even call myself a liberal, I'm pretty hawkish on War, total capitalist etc but around the MB, anyone who thinks Roy Moore is a pedo-POS is considered a "liberal"
But thanks. I think more of the successful, informed, Pro-America non magatard types have to speak up and try to help them, every once in a while.
Conservative and Liberal and in-between non-magatards must unite and educate the duped minions, they are our American brothers (and 75% of my friends are guilty of the obvious, case-closed, dupage).
Edit: Although they aren't as authoritarian feened up as most this board.
How can we stop it?
How did Roy Moore get in this. Carlos Danger wants to know.
Good to see you drop quotes by attempted Trump appointee Will Happer, who believes CO2 is good for the environment and who has made several false statements about CO2 levels. You should also note that Will Happer is a physicist, not a climatologist, and has produced exactly zero peer reviewed studies about climate.
Happer also said:
“I believe that more CO2 is good for the world, that the world has been in a CO2 famine for many tens of millions of years and that one or two thousand ppm would be ideal for the biosphere. I am baffled at hysterical attempts to drive CO2 levels below 350 ppm [parts per million], or some other value, apparently chosen by Kabbalah numerology, not science.”
Problem is, this is verifiably false: jhttps://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
But also note the irony of your initial quotation that I actually agree with. Modeling the climate and human brain is extremely complex. And if that is the case, and this guy is not even a climatologist, then this guy is basically admitting he has no idea.
Can we also go back to your evolutionary views? I’m an open minded person. I’ll buy macroevolution is false. Just provide me with a better explanation.
Without CO2 plants and trees will die.
With out oxygen, you die. Now overload a room with it and light a match.
Without plants and trees, you have no oxygen.
Now overload a forest and start a fire.
You get called out for truly bad arguments and your response is: "fix the biggest issue facing humanity right now with specific policy proposals?" Seems proportionate.
And then you are complaining that I will leach off of others because I didn't respond fast enough (damn this job of mine!)? Seems fair.
My solution would be to build off of the view of experts in the field, as even LetsGoDuke2001 alluded to earlier in this thread re: the border. I can give you my broad ideas that reflect my preferred solution (there are many), but I'm afraid that I'm not quite going to be able to give you specific policy proposals at a level of detail that will solve one of the most complex problems in human history, buddy.
Taxes - taxes both raise revenue and shape behavior: mortgage interest deduction, tax deductions, child tax credits, short v long term capital gains, health insurance (i.e. why your job dictates your health coverage but not your grocery choices), etc... There's about 1,000 more examples of taxes being used to shape behavior in desired ways. Frankly, I'd probably replace the income tax with a use tax that's focused on carbon, but that raises its own issues (primarily that it could exacerbate another problem, the growing wealth gap). In any event, we currently tax something good (making money) instead of taxing something bad (carbon emissions). Make the switch, deal with the wealth gap issue, and keep taxes net neutral.
Nuclear - I've long been a proponent of investing in nuclear. The big hurdles are regulatory and risk allocation (there's a spectacular case about a company purchasing a nuclear plant under construction for literally $0 and then suing for $2b for accounting issues related to liability allocation). Those are not insurmountable.
Carbon credits - yes, there will be an entire industry devoted to trading and making money off of trading carbon credits. So what? There are industries devoted to trading and investing in almost anything. And the "cost" of carbon credits is really just accounting for market inefficiency - carbon is an externality whose cost is not borne by those emitting it. If you suspend your disbelief for a second and pretend that you believe that carbon dioxide has a net negative impact on the economy (see https://news.stanford.edu/2015/01/12/emissions-social-costs-011215/), then the logical conclusion is that the cost should be imposed on the emitters, just like with any other cost to the economy. So it's only a "cost" if you assume that the current market is perfect, which it is not, and in any event the cost is now borne by society at large.
Socially responsible investing - a number of institutional investors (large pension funds, a church with $2b in assets, etc...) already put their dollars where their mouths are. There are ways to encourage this through the tax code and other means (for example, there are good discussions in legal academia about changing the scope of fiduciary duties that corporations owe shareholders to reflect more than just short term market values, and any changes could include climate change issues).
Private attorneys general - allows a private cause of action to allow the free market to enforce statutes to relieve the burden on the government (and avoid regulatory capture). And I'm very aware of the issues with the (recently largely neutered) plaintiffs class action bar; I've litigated with and against them for years.
Reforestation efforts - easy.
Account for pollutants - the externality issue. If carbon is a problem that imposes costs on society that is not captured, then making emitters pay for it is simply correcting a market inefficiency. Let's use an example from your life. You pay $4.25 per bottle of coconut oil based lotion to rub one out, and you get 25 "shots" per bottle. If the firm manufacturing/selling that bottle has to pay $0.25 more and pass those costs onto you, you end up paying $0.01 more per rub session, but third parties (usually in the developing world) do not have to pay for your masturbation costs. It's just shifting the costs around to account for reality. In any event, you can both believe in the free market and believe that it is imperfect, just like you can love America and acknowledge its flaws, and just like I can love you even though you masturbate with coconut oil lotion.
Probably missed a few, but I hope you'll allow me to indulge in things like my job, my family, and not solving humanity's biggest and most complex problem for just today, at least. Maybe if you stop posting crappy comments I'll have more time to do what takes entire think tanks years to do.
You think my comments are crappy only because you disagree with them. Which brings back the topic of intolerance from the left.
Whelp...just finished Abducted in plain Sight. whatintheactualfack. So this dude effed the dad, daughter, and mom?
Even how they talk about this predo is disgusting
Yeah dude. Some sick shit. I wanted to break my tv. I was like, yep, that's enough for me. And I was thinking my wife felt the same way, but nope. She had to finish it.
I just can’t wrap my mind around any of it. Parents, siblings, police, good god
Well I am, so now what?
The Slave trade had nothing to do with black people’s ability to make good choices regarding their ability to control their quality of life? They were in control of their destiny? The Native American? You are right about one thing -it is insulting and stupid in its face. Women, gays? Change your argument to white male Americans and you have a point. We are clearly the most entitled class of humans in the history of the human race - it is comical to argue otherwise.