Ibleedbrown

19 minutes ago, nickers said:

Bernie is a scumbag pedo... puhleeze!.. And hes a total coward!

Apologies, l wasn’t aware. It was probably all those goofy photoshopped images of him in a lawn chair that swayed me. 

I read it, sounds like he covered all the big points. Truth be told l got a soft spot for Bernie. He’s a bit aways from where l see myself politically, but l generally take him to be a straight up dude, at least as far as politicians go. Granted, l pay minimal attention to people l can’t vote for. 

Trump visited my neck of the woods in SW Ohio yesterday and l was reminded of how much vitriol there is for the guy. The office and social media chatter was full of it. If l’m being honest, l’m less concerned about Trump getting reelected than l am dealing with people losing their minds over Trump getting reelected. Oh how l wish we could have picked a candidate with a less messy slate. 

My concern is that the writing was on the wall and we didn’t bother to read it, so if he loses we will have no one to blame but ourselves. 

Damn Vapor, you revived a 6 year old thread in stunningly poignant fashion. Hats off man. How did you even find this thing?

I usually just revive the occasional old thread just to mess with people. A good gag every once in a while. 

On 5/11/2024 at 12:57 PM, Dutch Oven said:

It's the dead time of the Browns season... post-draft but months before training camp... thought it would be a good time for a quick questionnaire

1. When was your first Browns game you attended in person? What do you remember from it?

2. When was your last Browns game you attended in person? Any good/funny anecdotes from it?

3. First favorite Browns player? Who was the Browns player you first really liked? 

4. Last (current) favorite Browns player not named Nick Chubb? 😁

5. First Browns jersey you owned? Who was the player?

6. Last Browns jersey you owned? Who?

7. If you could go back in time and see any Browns game in person, what game would you go to?

8. If you could put any current NFL player on the Browns, THAT DOESN'T PLAY QUARTERBACK, who would it be?

 

1. During the Belichick years my aunt scored some Browns v. Broncos tickets in Cleveland and we up and backed it from Cincy. It was notably Kosar’s last game starting for the Browns. He was replaced by the green nut during the game, and as you can imagine it did’t go well for our guys.

2. Technically this year, the last game in Cincy when some dude whose name l have forgotten started for us. Things also didn’t go well that game for us, but we were playoff bound and tickets were cheap. Still kinda cool seeing a Browns game in January. 

3. I guess it would have been Kosar. 

4. Dang, l haven’t decided yet. I sorta tabbed Taki squared as my guy the last few years so l gotta pick a new fave. Maybe Owusu-Koramoah?

5. Some huge ass like triple XL Browns jersey ended up in my possession years ago, had 99 and “Browns” on the back. I maybe wore it once. It was a bit too big for me. 

6. Nick Chubb!

7. Maybe the game 2 Halloweens ago when we walloped the Bengals. I love it when we wallop the Bengals. 

8. I’ll go Sauce Gardener. 

On 5/11/2024 at 10:18 AM, Jax said:

You are assuming they care about the environment or so called 'man made warming''. That's why you're view is too realistic.

Being honest matters because you have to know the problem in order to fix it correctly. Such as, what is the correct temperature of the earth? How are you deciding this? You assume too much co2 is bad but if they are lying or exaggerating, co2 could be harmless or even needed. It wasn't that long ago they were concerned about an ice age. So then we have to trust these experts blindly because of science but what if we trusted them when they predicted an ice age? They were experts then as well.

Gov't doesn't exist to make gobs of money. They exist to serve and are paid with our tax money. To be in gov't is to be honored to serve, you take pride in your country and you are doing your part to contribute. Some areas you need a livable wage, but it's all transparent and approved from boards and what not. When they make gobs of money then it's you as the consumer or tax payer that's getting screwed over.

When they have a shtick, or a corrupt grift, then tax payers are being harmed in some way. If you want to make gobs of money then become an entrepreneur or enter wall street. Otherwise you're using your gov't position to influence and take lobby 'brides' and that in the end effects the tax payer.

But hey, after gov't sure unless they're using their influence to affect policies that affect us. Gores shtick isn't harmless, he fear mongered the masses and generated 'experts' that needed funding to research his shtick. As woody says, Gore doesn't count because he isn't a climatologist expert. Neither is Biden or anyone else in gov't, but you guys fall in line with all regards to man made global warming. So by woodys logic, we shouldn't listen to anyone in gov't because none of them are experts in fields they are making policies on. Anyways in all seriousness, we need honesty to even know if there is a problem let alone on how to change it.

Even then just by using common sense, it's not something that needs changed tomorrow, the climate is like a huge cruise ship, you have time to change it's direction, it's not a speed boat racing towards the docks at blazing speed. So when anyone in gov't wants to force changes tomorrow you know they're full of shit. You want to make changes that matter so you do the research, share that for debate and slowly implement it over time and there will be less resistance because you took the time, shared the info for debate and was transparent the whole time. That's different than woodys way where you just know better than anyone else, force solutions you don't need and call people names when they question it.

On top of making these changes tomorrow, the alarmist people don't even do the things they are telling you to do to save the planet. It's a joke. You're forcing tax payers to buy EVs in the next decade when you haven't even converted your gov't vehicles or your personal vehicles to EV. - Dumbass cult

I am assuming most everyone cares about the environment, that is true. l still believe that.  Nothing presented here leads me to believe otherwise. Not necessarily climate change. 

Much of what you wrote makes sense and clarifies some things for me. I get it, and it’s an understandable response. 

Resentment is at play here. Resentment for Al Gore and democrats and their pushy car salesman approach. I suppose we all get to decide how much we allow that resentment to drive what we put out there. I think there’s more common ground than not though, and l think it’s something worth building on. 

Your cruise ship analogy was a good one, an acknowledgement that we should be proactive, maybe just not as proactive as Al Gore thinks we should be. Why isn’t that message being broadcast loud and clear? 

My suspicion is that climate change has become such an albatross chained to environmental causes that it’s  preventing us from exploring that common ground. 

28 minutes ago, nickers said:

I want that too without the fear mongering by the left.. And do it with common sense technologies...

Yeah thanks for summarizing that in one and a half sentences.

There’s weird shit at play suggesting otherwise. Reject the weird shit. Say no to weird shit. 

6 hours ago, Jax said:

I think your view on it is too realistic but good.

The problem is I don't think we have an honest picture of the problem and without that we can't have any honest solutions yet.

I think everyone knows we have to be making an impact in some manner. Is the co2 a threat or a drop in the ocean?

I'm too tired right now to list all the things.

Gore was caught grifting the climate scene and when things didn't even come close to what he said it was apparent to not only us but others that could use the same thing for their own reasons, be it money or power. So is there some misinformation from man made climate change, sure, but both sides are putting it out there and like I said before, follow the actions.

 

I’d like to think it’s realistic and good. Nothing to lose and something to gain?

How important is an honest picture of the problem? It seems to me both sides are proactively working towards a common solution despite different motivations. What’s wrong with receiving recognition for those efforts? 

I don’t really get angry with politicians for making gobs of money plying their schtick. Trump included. Gore stumbled in to a schtick that resonated with a lot of people, me included. Conservationism is a good cause. 

I want my kids and grandkids and your kids and grandkids to inherit the same chance that we had on this rock. 

On 5/9/2024 at 10:59 AM, FY56 said:

 

I've always perceived (and maybe wrongly) climate change and the environment as two different issues.  Everyone wants clean air and water.

After all it was Nixon that established the EPA. I don't think it had anything to do with climate change.

Having said that, they can be linked...less auto pollution= cleaner air = less Co2 emissions, except today as it pertains to cars, the emphasis is on climate change. There's been more than enough demands on automakers to produce efficient cars and restrict air pollutants. 

Republicans are perceived anti-environment because the environment is at the bottom of their priorities. The economy is at the top.

The majority favor expanding drilling, obviously that makes them anti-environment too.

Well, what a surprise, it turns out they do care after all. And as you presumed, there is some common ground.

Republicans also favor more solar power and wind turbines. The majority also favor carbon capture technology. Now that sounds interesting.

By a 58% to 42% margin, Republicans say expanding production from fossil fuel sources like oil and gas is a greater priority for the country than expanding renewable sources like wind and solar.

Not bad.

Republicans’ views of climate change, energy issues | Pew Research Center

Republicans support expanding fossil fuel and renewable energy sources. Burning fossil fuels for energy is the source of most U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Climate scientists have urged countries to rapidly reduce their reliance on fossil fuel energy while transitioning to renewable sources to help limit the rise in Earth’s temperature.

Among Republicans, large shares back increasing the production of fossil fuel sources: 73% favor more offshore oil and gas drilling and 68% favor more hydraulic fracturing.

At the same time, comparable shares of Republicans support renewable energy production, including more solar power farms (70%) and more wind power (60%). In addition, two-thirds said they favor building more nuclear power plants, according to a June 2023 survey.

 

Much of this makes sense to me, and the statistics you provided don’t surprise me. I perceive climate change as simply a motivating factor, meaning if you subscribe to it you are more likely to support green energy type stuff like solar and wind and buying hybrids and stuff like that.

It also seems clear to me that conservatives who don’t subscribe to climate change are basically doing a variation of the same things by supporting green energy things. Obviously a different motivating factor that leads to similar results. 

And l suspect all but the most militant of green energy proponents acknowledge that we still need to rely on fossil fuels while also exploring green energy resources. 

Your line about the economy being the republican's’ main thing resonated with me, but my next thoughts turned to how investing in green energy would help in that area. There’s plenty of support for it and plenty of jobs that can be created with both goals in mind. 

You mentioned Nixon started the EPA, and it was Teddy Roosevelt who started the national parks. There’s ample examples of when conservatives were also the conservationists and l think could be again. Climate change doesn’t have to be a fortress that needs to be conquered. Just hitch a ride in Cal’s Prius and drive around it and win some rightfully deserved votes in the process. 

On 5/9/2024 at 12:10 AM, MLD Woody said:

I'd like to agree with you, I'd like to think that's the case, but we have people like cal and his posts above that kill that belief for me. 

An individual recycling and making a compost pile is great, but it won't make any real impact. Oil and gas companies invested in and pushed the narrative of personal responsibility around the environment and climate change. Why? To direct the attention away from them. They've known for decades the damage they're causing but short term profits beat long term (next generations) damage. 

These large corporations, those that stand to gain from the status quo, will funnel money into right wing think tanks, which produce "reports" that right wing media rolls with. No topic on this board has seen a higher level of fake experts touted than climate change. A personal favorite of cals being a list of "scientists" from 15 years ago that I could be on... 

Another angle being not a fake expert, but the complete misinterpretation of actual climate research and studies. 

Basically every time I've taken the time to dig into the mountain of links cal or someone else vomits up the claims can be debunked in a few minutes. But the problem is there is so much misinformation (actual misinformation, not "news that trump doesn't like" misinformation) out there that regular people just see the headlines and don't do any digging. Even if debunked later those readers are long gone.

Look at what Girls posted. Public polls on climate change. I'm not surprised less people care. I imagine it's along party lines too since the issue has been politicized. I don't really care what the public thinks on this matter though, most are scientifically illiterate. We're a country that is hostile to actual expertise and we'll suffer as a result. 

I’m falling a bit behind on the conversation here, but these “reports” you referenced and the subsequent messaging that seems to be directed at and echoed by conservatives is why l spoke up. To me it seems like it’s painting an unfavorable and inaccurate picture of their true stance on environmental issues. Attempts to discredit climate change is one thing, but it’s extending to messaging that shows a derogatory attitude towards green practices in general. And the greater problem is it’s not leaving any room to get any positive messaging out there that they’re not as anti-environment as they would seem. l think it’s costing them votes. 

I also don’t discount the personal responsibility stuff. Imo a person who personally invests their own time and resources into this stuff is more inclined to support our collective investment in it, and they bring to the table ground roots know-how on it too. 

22 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Bike lanes and roundabouts aren't going to save us from ourselves. The data is clear, the science is clear, whether everyday folks believe it or not. Intervention and regulation is needed, but this stands to lose powerful people lots of money. Hence money funneling into conservative politicians and efforts to politicize the whole issue. Now you can "own the libs" by being anti climate change efforts. 

The politicization of scientific issues just hurts us as a whole. If not now, later. 

Of course, a big chunk of the voters hurting us now won't be around later to deal with the damage they've caused. 

Don’t say that too loudly in Carmel, IN, the roundabout capital of America. I’ve never seen a community that dislikes stop signs as much as they do. It’s a bit over the top honestly. SO many roundabouts!

I think we’re uncovering that there’s more common ground here than not, but as usual politics has mucked up the works.  l’m trying real hard here to boil this down to absolutes: we all care about wellness and sustainability. Let the focus be there.

Wellness for our floating rock and by extension ourselves, and sustainability to preserve the benefits of nature we’ve enjoyed and want to keep enjoying.

I have no idea why the term “climate change” became a poison pill, but l imagine it has something to do with the sense of urgency with which it was presented. Think pushy car salesman. And Al Gore being a democrat and all.

I’m more interested in nurturing the common ground here, because l think there’s a lot of it. 

14 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Well said.

Regarding the right wing politicization of green energy, you have to wonder what's driving that. I'd guess we could follow a money trail back to oil and gas companies. 

And for that reason, among others,bi disagree that government doesn't need to lead the charge. Govt needs to be heavily involved to push the initiative and tilt the scales. Pure capitalism isn't going to turn down money now to help the planet later. We have over a century of recent history to show our greed at the expense of the environment 

There are times l can’t help but wonder if the money trail leads back to some shady left wing group with the intention of getting conservatives to paint themselves as the anti-environmental group, and it seems to be working. I would argue that in everyday practices conservatives are just as much pro-environment as liberals, if not more so. If more of us could live like Cal then it would be a net positive. 

But this manufactured mental association linking anything to do with it to “global warming” has really done a number on us. I don’t understand it. 

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2024/05/06/desantis-blocks-climate-change-efforts-a-partisan-fight-in-election/73546118007/

I found this recent article on DeSantis, who has done some really positive pro-environment things in Florida, but he’s also shot himself in the foot over this mental association to “climate change.” He actually wants to erase the term “climate change” from state law. Which is fine, whatever, but can we still have bike lanes and roundabouts? Bike lanes promote a healthier populace and roundabouts reduce wear and tear on cars. Those are good things, and jobs get created in the process. Another good thing. 

The article ends with a point l’ve used before. “I’m a conservative. And conservative and conservation have the same root word. When did conservationists become the bad guy?”

Just now, calfoxwc said:

We have a small generator that is solar-powered, we can use it for camping, and if the power goes out, it has run the

fireplace insert fan for about 6 hrs. Pretty cool stuff - the panels are about 3' x 5', I wired them in a pair. Can recharge in about 3 hrs. Won't run a hot plate or anything like that - but it's cool.

Fess up Cal, do you have a compost pile?

5 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

Solar panels have been around a long time, and their efficiency has improved over the decades.

I think they have a niche in certain applications, but they still have a way to go for widespread use.

That’s not right wing, that’s common sense.

But if it makes you feel better.

They do. 

Let’s not do that Canton. I’m not trying to internet spar with you. Our goals are similar. 

20 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

I wouldn’t call it “right winged media”.

Let’s crawl into the way back machine to the Obama administration.

He gave government subsidies to 21 solar cell companies.

Before his term was up, 18 of them went belly up and the last 3 were begging for more government money.

You can call it right winged media all you want…but I prefer to call it facts.

Yeah man, l tried to cover that in the “fuck ups along the way” mention. Presumably progress was made as evidenced by the continued existence of solar panels. 

It’s ultimately up to you, the rank and file voters and sharers of content. If this anti-green message is what you want to portray, then have at it. I don’t think it’s serving your best interests, and that’s ultimately all l’m trying to say. 

I’ll admit it, l lent an email address to his campaign and l’m getting ambushed with emails. One of his latest spelled out his platform. I’ll paste the pertinent parts here. I’m on board with most of it. Paste job:

Make of it what you will. 

12 hours ago, Jax said:

Bungling idiots - dumbass cult

This is the sort of thing l was referring to with all my long winded perception stuff. Here’s a bit more…

The concept of solar power predates the global warming theory. Our attempts to harness the power of the sun go way back. Didn’t you ever try to melt things with a magnifying glass as a kid?

There’s plenty of support for solar power, otherwise there wouldn’t be a giant floating solar panel farm in India. Tweets and posts and articles like the one you linked are becoming commonplace in right wing media. Stories about people’s EVs burning up, stories about wind farms failing in inclement weather, etc. And the tenor of these articles is seemingly reveling in the demise of these poor fools who dared to invest in green energy. 

There’s plenty of reason to support green energy that has nothing to do with global warming. It’s available, it’s cleaner, and it’s theoretically cheaper. And of course there are going to be fuck ups along the way. That’s what drives innovation. It’s big new stuff in the grand scheme of things.

But here’s the thing, the government doesn’t need to lead the charge here. I’m certain there is enough public interest and progress thus far that private industry, American ingenuity and nobodies like myself will drive things forward. Government grants and policy will help, but it’s only going to grease the wheels to the inevitable. 

I don’t understand why right wing media is doing this. Trying to get right wingers to come off as the anti-green party. I bet a guy like Cal is one of the greenest dudes on this forum. Grows food, makes tea out of pine needles, likely frugal with energy usage. I’d bet a dollar he has a compost pile. 

I think it’s a media mindfuck, and l think it’s harming your cause, assuming your cause is to get conservative candidates elected. It would be a big plus if conservatives could simply come off as neutral on the matter, which l believe is more reflective of how they truly are. 

I honestly have a really high opinion of teachers. It’s a tough gig man, and not everyone’s cut out for it. 

I am pro-education. I am that guy who blindly votes for every school levy. I do some of the dirty work too. It’s not just teachers. It’s coaches, it’s mentors, it’s sponsoring scholarship funds, it’s giving kids’ jobs. It’s a community effort when it’s working on all cylinders. 

I am a fan of “the cannon.” A literary term that boils down to a set of works that is taught to subsequent generations so that we all have shared learning experiences to connect us. Sorta like we all know the ABC song and we all read the Scarlett Letter. Stuff like that. It’s good that the cannon evolves but ideally at a pace that matches the generational turnaround. 

I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.

On 11/9/2022 at 12:22 AM, Westside Steve said:

I was worried about Abrams too.

but...

WSS

Cindy?

I realize this is an old comment, but this last election cycle she was up for reelection, and l swear l received something like a dozen mailers that were all about her, and they were all over the map. Some painted her like she was a liberal democrat. Some touted that she was endorsed by Trump and law enforcement. It was weird, and l’m sure they were funded by different organizations with varying degrees of nefarious intentions. 

It reminded me of a story another poster linked here about left wing political pacts funding super right wing candidates during the primaries, figuring if they win they’ll have a more beatable opponent in the general election. That’s evil genius man. 

I’m reasonably certain some of that was going on with the mailers l was receiving.

I dunno. I voted for Cindy. I think she’s representing well. What’s your take on her now?

Aww, too bad. I actually kinda like Esiason as a broadcaster. 

17 minutes ago, Dutch Oven said:

So you are saying that Kvoethe should look at his "wife" like he stares longingly at Baker?

That is solid advice. I would also add this little tidbit of advice:

"Hoes gotta eat too...." 

If that’s what it takes, raaar!

I’m solidly middle aged and just now figuring this stuff out so l’m basically a loser who has no right to offer relationship advice. Fair warning.  

10 minutes ago, Dutch Oven said:

Well someone has to bang Kvoethe's wife...

His obsession with Deshaun Watson seems to get in the way of it. 

Women need positive attention. Took me too long to crack that code if l’m being honest. It’s simple fellas, every day, a positive word or gesture in her direction. Let her know how much she means on a daily basis. 

36 minutes ago, Kvoethe said:

Stalker never disaappoints.  How do you find the time capn cucklold?

Way to make this thread super weird. What is even going on here? Dude’s bangin’ my wife and l’ll just casually insert that on a message board…

17 minutes ago, Vagitron said:

Hey fellas, hope all is well. 

Is he wrong? Ten years is a bit much but take all that draft capital back and think about how different the Browns roster would be. Watson has definitely set you all back but I won't say it's ten years. I don't think that dude will ever be anywhere close to how he was in Houston. He never acts like he wants it. Goes through the motions.

Suck what?

Just now, Dutch Oven said:

But.... but... but... wE'vE bEEn Set bAcK tEN yeArS! 🤣

Well hell, we’re used to that. Toughest fans in sports!