htownbrown

5 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

No s*** but that was the idea! Waters is out there. Don't know if you remember the original theatrical release of POLYESTER,  they passed out scratch and sniff cards. 

WSS 

Thankfully, I never saw it.  I cringe everytime I see Waters....and anytime someone says the word 'divine'.

The most offensive movie of all time is Pink Flamingos.  It will scar you for life.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/teachers-union-requires-white-teachers-be-fired-before-educators-of-color-to-remedy-past-discrimination

What happened to job performance?  Anything the government gets involved with just goes to shit.  At least lie and say black teachers outperformed white teachers, no one would have a leg to stand on.  But to say we're doing this to you because of your ancestors is quite silly, when the goal is to create smart kids.  I would like to create a new term...polite segregation.  That's what it is.  Maybe they are all great teachers in this district, but that's not how it reads.

We're slowly moving in a direction where it will be racist to compete with anyone that doesn't have your skin tone, over the simplest things.  

1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Just those two on the hat.😁 (Well I don't really own those, just a stolen picture from wiki).

The rest was pure BS. I don't even own a hybrid car.

Dammit, I thought you were going to convince me.

20 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

 

 

Propeller baseball cap

I'm running up my storage from the hot air down here generated by global warming. I'm claiming $20,000 tax credit.😂

How many panels do you own?

1 minute ago, cccjwh said:

Right because all of the progressive want to take your guns!!! 

 

That's not what I said, your just trying to find a tributary out of your own logic.

2 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

You think taking people's rights away is progressive? You really are a conservative. 

 

I'm simply following your logic.  So supporting the 2nd amendment is progressive/liberal?  You're all over the place today.

1 minute ago, cccjwh said:

Well conservatives do love to go backwards. There's another win for you guys.

Considering the advancements in pregnancy prevention, it could be considered progressive under your definition.  

On 8/14/2022 at 9:53 AM, cccjwh said:

So more progressive voted for the Civil Rights Act than conservatives. 

I don't think you thought this out very well.  The status quo was roe vs wade not that long ago, but according to your logic you have to own the "change" in policy?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/elizabeth-warren-everyone-tells-me-they-would-vote-for-me-if-i-had-a-penis

At least about the primary.  If she had surgically acquired a penis beforehand, she could've been running for the presidency.  Instead, she went native american and found out her base didn't give a shit.

I hope Stacy Abrams sees her opening.  (No pun intended)

5 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Well, the comment wasn't directed towards you and we weren't having a conversation. 

I made the point I wanted to and you helped me make it, so thanks for that. It was purposeful whataboutism to make a point against it. 

I still have no earthly idea what you're talking about, but congratulations. 

10 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Oh, so the point I made was ridiculous?

Interesting.

 

I was doing Cals "no one talks about the rainforest!" when "discussing" climate change schtick. 

The point was that it was ridiculous. 

 

But at least we've got that settled. 

 

 

 

Figured you'd jump all over my post. 

 

Thought Cal would actually say something against abuse in the church though...

I wouldn't suggest it was ridiculous, just woefully out of place considering how hard you stump against whataboutism.

I guess the lesson here is I should stay away from your comments lest I might find myself in the middle of a domestic dispute I don't understand.  Good to know.

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

Funny how so many people here are concerned about groomers but they're silent about abuse in the church. 

It's gross no matter who does it, but I think everyone stands in solidarity against pedophilia in the churches.  Just because someone is gay doesn't make them a child molester, just like someone supporting a church doesn't mean they support pedophilia. If a priest wants to teach your kid about homosexuality, you should be equally concerned.  By your own standard you're engaging in whataboutism. 

This has been the best strategy to date.  It's not the only reason California is collapsing, but it is certainly a contributing factor.  AOC can hand out the gift basket.

13 minutes ago, hammertime said:

Morality??

 I’m hoping your being sarcastic.

Democrats are

the epitome of

evil .

 

Well morality is a relative term.  Obviously, their morals drive them.

For example, you and I may believe it's morally correct to keep children away from people whose whole identity is based on their sexuality.  They certainly have a different moral take.

1 hour ago, FY56 said:

I'd almost be willing to bet any one of our liberal friends, say $100 that if Trump does get elected that within a week the stock market takes a significant jump, and gas prices drop considerably. Although it would have to be determined at what level would be considered "significant".

They won't take that bet, they know better.

From what I can tell, the whole appeal of the leftist perspective is morality.  At least what they perceive that to be.  A capitalist economy can't approach any of their moral goals, theoretically, so they have no interest in it's success. 

3 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Yes, nothing has changed. Exactly. 

 

Crazy to that covid only killed obese people and smokers, who we all know deseyto die. Such a targeted disease. 

What has changed that makes it "safer" now for unvaxxed people?  So they were responsible for the death of millions including themselves, suppossedly, but now they can play with the herd again?  It must take a lot of rope to tie both ends of that argument.  I think it's not a stretch to suggest you would be ranting about wearing masks and getting the shot if the CDC recommended it under the current statistics. 

For the record, I never suggested anyone deserved to die friend-o.  I did, however, suggest they didn't deserve priority. 

3 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Wait, so things change over time? This is groundbreaking. People need to know this!

Well the CDC put it out there, not I, so it's as good as gospel.

Just find it incredible, to be honest, that people like yourself advocated for shutting the world down to save smokers and obese people, and now they're just overly flippant about it all without an actual "cure".  That's a seismic shift.

Sounds super scary!  Millions may die!

1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Yeah, "Don't wait for him to be reelected and untouchable again."

That sums up their plan very nicely. 

"Damage"

On 7/30/2022 at 11:08 AM, DieHardBrownsFan1 said:

I'd go out and buy a new double wide.

You could have it all...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-reverses-course-will-close-gaps-in-areas-of-border-wall-as-crisis-hits-d-c-elections-loom

I thought walls were stupid?

So Griner and Whelan for the "Merchant of Death".  A few years ago this would be considered collusion, but I'm sure Biden thinks he's swapping Cornpop for Brittney from Grindr and Captain Ahab.

So I have a few questions for any qualified climate alarmist...

If the US goes completely green on energy usage without the other major energy consumers also going green (i.e. China), how will the end result be positive unless we have the capability to transport green energy to the world market?

If we stop consuming fossil fuels and CONTINUE to produce them, would we drop the price so low that it would actually be a disincentive for others to make the switch?  

If we stop consuming fossil fuels and STOP producing them as well, where is the revenue to fill that void from the most traded commodity in the world?  A lot of people bring up the jobs green energy would create domestically, but where are we in the world market?  Would it damage our "buying power" globally?  The last question may sound greedy, but it's more or less the catalyst of mmgw.

If you can, eventually, transport green energy to the world market how do you see that playing out economically and geopolitically?  I wouldn't consider a trade off of global warming for global war a net positive.

5 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

I don't think the data says what you think it does. But that's the beauty here, that's why we have experts.   

Uhhh...sure

You can want change and not think the world will end tomorrow if that change doesn't happen.

Irrelevant 

Again, step one is agreeing a plan needs to happen. There are people on this board and in this country that don't even think climate change is occurring. That is a major roadblock right now.

So am I more responsible for climate change if I don't support YOUR plan?

Again, I disagree the solution is the private sector. Again, I give the example of the meat packing industry from over 100 years ago. Capitalism doesn't have a mechanism to care about the damage it's actions might cause decades down the road or in the current state if it isn't creating a negative financial impact. 

Sure, but what your asking for is investors to foot the bill for your carbon footprint.  If you don't demand a good, they won't supply it.  A company doesn't supply a good and say you have to buy it.  If they supply a product at a higher price than your willing pay, it's game over.  Go ask BMW why they don't produce the same amount of cars as Toyota. 

 Sweeping change will come through govt regulations and changes.  

If you regulate energy supply for companies, you'll end up with less goods at a higher price.  You may see lower emissions from less production, but you can't circumnavigate the law of supply and demand.  

Even further subsidation of those efforts to improve the climate. 

Finally, something slightly palatable.  

Maybe, god forbid, we pull some money from defense spending. 

Again, we need to seriously start this conversation and start seriously investing resources and effort.

You couldn't be more vague.  

If a large chunk of this country thinks it is a hoax from China we'll never get to that point. 

Huh?  

Driving a car with gas or buying a product from China is just an inconsequential drop in the bucket at this point. 

And yet, your angry with companies who produce them.  

Sure, buy local and recycle. All positive. But the real change needed is at a much larger level than that.

So if China and other polluters don't agree with American energy policy, how do you suppose you get them to stop polluting?  You're never going to get to zero emissions without them.  

That's why gas companies pushed the individual responsibility angle, to get the target off of them.  

FFS, it was all for the money we paid them.  We (globally) demanded it and they supplied it.  WTF else would you expect?

Don't go vote based on a single issue fine, but let's hope we can start voting in people that believe man is affecting the climate and that can at least see further ahead in time than a few years. Or hell, vote in people that listen to experts. That's a start.  

I know you don't agree, but I don't find it urgent.  I believe the private sector will figure it out before the progressives will concoct and implement any meaningful GLOBAL "plan".  I think Cysko posted an article about some Canadian company running an engine off atmospheric CO2.  WhoTF in the legislature could even dream up something better for your cause?  AOC?  Sanders?  Biden?  Point in the direction of this mythical politician. 

Biden just sold 5 million barrels of reserve oil to Europe and China, while republicans tried to stop him.  You voted for Biden and typically I vote for republicans.  Are you more responsible for damage caused from that oil because you voted for Biden?  That seems to be your logic...