Random Politics & Religion #00 |
||
Random Politics & Religion #00
Ooooh, can I say it?
But basically what I want: better technology, no we're probably not going to have futuristic magical ***here in the next 3-5* years, it takes time, but hopefully we'll have something in the next 50-100* years, instead of 300*, when we'll be looking to freeze our population and move into space as we won't be able to sustain our lives on this rock we've ruined for us. *made up numbers, don't take them literally. Offline
Posts: 4394
Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Well, I've said this before, but the only discussion we should be having is how to create an economically viable and superior alternative to CO2-producing fuels. You can screw over the citizenry with taxes all you want (I'm looking at you, California) and encourage utopian ideals, but it's all a huge waste of time and money. You want to save the world? Produce the technology and the financial incentive to accept an alternative fuel and stop screwing over the people that are just going to use what's already the currently best option. No amount of preaching climate change is going to do it, no matter how many disasters you correctly/falsely attribute to it. Very much agreed. The problem is that nobody wants the government to incentivize energy and technology companies to innovate either through tax credits or prohibitive regulation on current methods. As long as there is black gold to be squeezed out of the ground through ever more invasive and dangerous means, they won't make a shift toward more advanced energy sources. You can't give tech companies research money because it's misuse of tax dollars, you can't give companies tax credits because it's croney capitalism, you can't tax or regulate because it's fascism... And we can't get to the bottom of that problem as long as half the country is spouting lines like Altima is. I 100% agree with what Ravael said any sane person would. The difference between my lines and your lines is that yours supports the exact opposite of what Ravael said. If anything Oil company's should get no tax benefits, tax credits, subsidy's. But they do, why don't you *** about changing that so more green alternatives have a fighting chance. In your example, how does cutting off any tax benefits the oil companies get affect green energy production? When we cut off those benefits, companies use tax inversion or other evasive ways to move their profits overseas.
According to you, we make poor businesses go overseas and evade taxes because we charge them way too much on their profits. How does cutting the existing incentives we've had to levy just to keep them from leaving the country incentivize them to repatriate their money and invest it on green infrastructure? I'm throwing you a softball, how does that model work and how do you rectify it being in strong opposition to business friendly positions you take whenever people question the purity of corporations? Did I just read that Alti wants to increase taxes on a corporation?
He probably doesn't even know he said it, as he just borrows opinions from other people.
Shiva.Viciousss said: » He probably doesn't even know he said it, as he just borrows opinions from other people. At least he's borrowing it from a rational person for once. So still arguing with the Liberty U graduate, he runs this line when I commented on the "center for creation studies" and how it discredits any accreditation they have.
Quote: we teach facts there... I've seen and held and researched this stuff Oh, hi.
I've been meaning to check in, see where things are now. Do mainstream conservatives still think the scientific community is split on man-made global warming or have they moved on to accusing the scientific community of fabricating it just so they can get grant money? No, it's not a jab, I'm legitimately curious. Offline
Posts: 4394
Odin.Jassik said: » In your example, how does cutting off any tax benefits the oil companies get affect green energy production? When we cut off those benefits, companies use tax inversion or other evasive ways to move their profits overseas. According to you, we make poor businesses go overseas and evade taxes because we charge them way too much on their profits. How does cutting the existing incentives we've had to levy just to keep them from leaving the country incentivize them to repatriate their money and invest it on green infrastructure? I'm throwing you a softball, how does that model work and how do you rectify it being in strong opposition to business friendly positions you take whenever people question the purity of corporations? So you want green energy but can't bring yourself to stop supporting Big Oil despite the fact you believe Global warming is going to end civilization. I have never defended a Corporation, its sad that you confuse them with small business. Jetackuu said: » Did I just read that Alti wants to increase taxes on a corporation? We all know you have problems reading. Shiva.Viciousss said: » He probably doesn't even know he said it, as he just borrows opinions from other people. Typical Vic talking out his ***. I think you have me confused with you.
Bismarck.Ihina said: » Oh, hi. I've been meaning to check in, see where things are now. Do mainstream conservatives still think the scientific community is split on man-made global warming or have they moved on to accusing the scientific community of fabricating it just so they can get grant money? No, it's not a jab, I'm legitimately curious. It's not just Republicans creating the problem, honestly. Fault lies with Dems for not playing harder and the media's bias of fairness in reporting both sides instead of focusing on the facts. There are things we know about it, and things we can only make educated guesses at, and nobody who has the power to truly influence the debate is reporting the actuality of it. Everything is spun and mashed up into a brand for every special little snowflake out there. There are real advantages to keeping this debate going rather than getting down to brass tax and figuring out what exactly we know for sure, what we can do about it, what we need to spend more time studying, and how we're going to go about doing it. Offline
Posts: 4394
Jetackuu said: » I think you have me confused with you. So basically "No u" Offline
Posts: 4394
Bismarck.Ihina said: » How's business lately, AO? Not to bad considering the Historic low temperatures and early snow. Offline
Posts: 4394
Odin.Jassik said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » Oh, hi. I've been meaning to check in, see where things are now. Do mainstream conservatives still think the scientific community is split on man-made global warming or have they moved on to accusing the scientific community of fabricating it just so they can get grant money? No, it's not a jab, I'm legitimately curious. It's not just Republicans creating the problem, honestly. Fault lies with Dems for not playing harder and the media's bias of fairness in reporting both sides instead of focusing on the facts. There are things we know about it, and things we can only make educated guesses at, and nobody who has the power to truly influence the debate is reporting the actuality of it. Everything is spun and mashed up into a brand for every special little snowflake out there. There are real advantages to keeping this debate going rather than getting down to brass tax and figuring out what exactly we know for sure, what we need can about it, what we need to spend more time studying, and how we're going to go about doing it. That about sums it up doesn't it. No more of that you not only don't realize what you said, you're attributing your lack of reading comprehension on me, I'm basically saying "no" to your "no u."
Altimaomega said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » How's business lately, AO? Not to bad considering the Historic low temperatures and early snow. There's a thing called scientific literacy, something (like literacy) you apparently aren't very good at, I almost feel bad for you. Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » In your example, how does cutting off any tax benefits the oil companies get affect green energy production? When we cut off those benefits, companies use tax inversion or other evasive ways to move their profits overseas. According to you, we make poor businesses go overseas and evade taxes because we charge them way too much on their profits. How does cutting the existing incentives we've had to levy just to keep them from leaving the country incentivize them to repatriate their money and invest it on green infrastructure? I'm throwing you a softball, how does that model work and how do you rectify it being in strong opposition to business friendly positions you take whenever people question the purity of corporations? So you want green energy but can't bring yourself to stop supporting Big Oil despite the fact you believe Global warming is going to end civilization. I have never defended a Corporation, its sad that you confuse them with small business. I never said "global warming" is going to end civilization... I do what I can to minimize my personal emissions. I use energy efficient appliances, I drive an older and fuel efficient passenger car, I have a newer and super high efficiency HVAC system and on-demand water heater, I walk or ride a bicycle often (though less in the winter obviously), we keep electronics and such for years and years, we grow our own vegetables, etc. I do many many things personally to minimize my carbon footprint. I spearheaded a campaign to lower the carbon footprint for the manufacturing company I worked for. We cut our scrap metal by almost 40%, setup recycling programs, changed processes to eliminate liquid paints and solvents, changed to point of use machinery instead of large presses and mills, used cyclical internal packaging and transportation methods, went to recycled external packaging and cut our packaging use in half, we changed almost all of our lift trucks to electric. Not only did we reduce our footprint significantly, we saved almost $120K per month in the process. Being green can be profitable. Instead of assuming what I am doing as some way to justify not doing anything yourself, why not just say nothing or maybe look around your house and find a few things you could do to cut your energy usage? Offline
Posts: 4394
Jetackuu said: » No more of that you not only don't realize what you said, you're attributing your lack of reading comprehension on me, I'm basically saying "no" to your "no u." Altimaomega said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » How's business lately, AO? Not to bad considering the Historic low temperatures and early snow. There's a thing called scientific literacy, something (like literacy) you apparently aren't very good at, I almost feel bad for you. Lets see you use some of that awesome scientific literacy in place of what I said. inb4 "no u" again... Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » Oh, hi. I've been meaning to check in, see where things are now. Do mainstream conservatives still think the scientific community is split on man-made global warming or have they moved on to accusing the scientific community of fabricating it just so they can get grant money? No, it's not a jab, I'm legitimately curious. It's not just Republicans creating the problem, honestly. Fault lies with Dems for not playing harder and the media's bias of fairness in reporting both sides instead of focusing on the facts. There are things we know about it, and things we can only make educated guesses at, and nobody who has the power to truly influence the debate is reporting the actuality of it. Everything is spun and mashed up into a brand for every special little snowflake out there. There are real advantages to keeping this debate going rather than getting down to brass tax and figuring out what exactly we know for sure, what we need can about it, what we need to spend more time studying, and how we're going to go about doing it. That about sums it up doesn't it. Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » Oh, hi. I've been meaning to check in, see where things are now. Do mainstream conservatives still think the scientific community is split on man-made global warming or have they moved on to accusing the scientific community of fabricating it just so they can get grant money? No, it's not a jab, I'm legitimately curious. It's not just Republicans creating the problem, honestly. Fault lies with Dems for not playing harder and the media's bias of fairness in reporting both sides instead of focusing on the facts. There are things we know about it, and things we can only make educated guesses at, and nobody who has the power to truly influence the debate is reporting the actuality of it. Everything is spun and mashed up into a brand for every special little snowflake out there. There are real advantages to keeping this debate going rather than getting down to brass tax and figuring out what exactly we know for sure, what we need can about it, what we need to spend more time studying, and how we're going to go about doing it. That about sums it up doesn't it. It would, except, at least 2 of those questions have had answers for at least a decade and people like you refuse to even admit you either don't understand the research or just don't care to and get out of the way. If a group of pilots were discussing the best way to land a broken plane, do you know what I'd do? I sit down and shut up and let the people that know what they're doing actually fix the problem. Offline
Posts: 4394
Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » In your example, how does cutting off any tax benefits the oil companies get affect green energy production? When we cut off those benefits, companies use tax inversion or other evasive ways to move their profits overseas. According to you, we make poor businesses go overseas and evade taxes because we charge them way too much on their profits. How does cutting the existing incentives we've had to levy just to keep them from leaving the country incentivize them to repatriate their money and invest it on green infrastructure? I'm throwing you a softball, how does that model work and how do you rectify it being in strong opposition to business friendly positions you take whenever people question the purity of corporations? So you want green energy but can't bring yourself to stop supporting Big Oil despite the fact you believe Global warming is going to end civilization. I have never defended a Corporation, its sad that you confuse them with small business. I never said "global warming" is going to end civilization... I do what I can to minimize my personal emissions. I use energy efficient appliances, I drive an older and fuel efficient passenger car, I have a newer and super high efficiency HVAC system and on-demand water heater, I walk or ride a bicycle often (though less in the winter obviously), we keep electronics and such for years and years, we grow our own vegetables, etc. I do many many things personally to minimize my carbon footprint. I spearheaded a campaign to lower the carbon footprint for the manufacturing company I worked for. We cut our scrap metal by almost 40%, setup recycling programs, changed processes to eliminate liquid paints and solvents, changed to point of use machinery instead of large presses and mills, used cyclical internal packaging and transportation methods, went to recycled external packaging and cut our packaging use in half, we changed almost all of our lift trucks to electric. Not only did we reduce our footprint significantly, we saved almost $120K per month in the process. Being green can be profitable. Instead of assuming what I am doing as some way to justify not doing anything yourself, why not just say nothing or maybe look around your house and find a few things you could do to cut your energy usage? It's hilarious that you assume I don't like to save money. The more energy and material you use the more money you spend. Obviously you save your company money by cutting down on all the excess and expensive stuff they use. That's the mark of a good Owner/Manager/Employee. PS. Those electric lift trucks are not as "green" as people claim. Offline
Posts: 4394
Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » Oh, hi. I've been meaning to check in, see where things are now. Do mainstream conservatives still think the scientific community is split on man-made global warming or have they moved on to accusing the scientific community of fabricating it just so they can get grant money? No, it's not a jab, I'm legitimately curious. It's not just Republicans creating the problem, honestly. Fault lies with Dems for not playing harder and the media's bias of fairness in reporting both sides instead of focusing on the facts. There are things we know about it, and things we can only make educated guesses at, and nobody who has the power to truly influence the debate is reporting the actuality of it. Everything is spun and mashed up into a brand for every special little snowflake out there. There are real advantages to keeping this debate going rather than getting down to brass tax and figuring out what exactly we know for sure, what we need can about it, what we need to spend more time studying, and how we're going to go about doing it. That about sums it up doesn't it. It would, except, at least 2 of those questions have had theoretical answers for at least a decade and people like Me refuse to even admit our data is flawed. If a group of pilots were discussing the best way to land a broken plane, Blah blah blah horrible analogy because "I never said "global warming" is going to end civilization.". ftfy Odin.Jassik said: » If a group of pilots were discussing the best way to land a broken plane, do you know what I'd do? I sit down and shut up and let the people that know what they're doing actually fix the problem. 1970s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 1980s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 1990s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 2000s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 2010s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. Looks like they're doing a great job of fixing the problem. Offline
Posts: 4394
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » If a group of pilots were discussing the best way to land a broken plane, do you know what I'd do? I sit down and shut up and let the people that know what they're doing actually fix the problem. 1970s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 1980s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 1990s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 2000s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 2010s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. Looks like they're doing a great job of fixing the problem. You forgot. 1940s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global cooling. We should deal with it. 1950s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global cooling. We should deal with it. 1960s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global cooling. We should deal with it. And add "lets ask the government for money to study it" to the end of all of those. Altimaomega said: » Lets see you use some of that awesome scientific literacy in place of what I said. inb4 "no u" again... Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » If a group of pilots were discussing the best way to land a broken plane, do you know what I'd do? I sit down and shut up and let the people that know what they're doing actually fix the problem. 1970s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 1980s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 1990s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 2000s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 2010s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. Looks like they're doing a great job of fixing the problem. Sadly, scientists aren't able to make the changes that would need to be made and research is expensive. Are you saying that green technologies have not made any significant progress in the last 50 years? Offline
Posts: 4394
Jetackuu said: » Altimaomega said: » Lets see you use some of that awesome scientific literacy in place of what I said. inb4 "no u" again... No really actually put some substance into what you preach. What should I have said while saying the exact same thing using your awesome scientific literacy. I'm gonna bet you'll start pulling my hair before you back up your statement. Offline
Posts: 4394
Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » If a group of pilots were discussing the best way to land a broken plane, do you know what I'd do? I sit down and shut up and let the people that know what they're doing actually fix the problem. 1970s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 1980s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 1990s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 2000s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 2010s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. Looks like they're doing a great job of fixing the problem. Sadly, scientists aren't able to make the changes that would need to be made and research is expensive. Are you saying that green technologies have not made any significant progress in the last 50 years? So now green tech is only around because of the evil global warming monster? /faccepalm Altimaomega said: » PS. Those electric lift trucks are not as "green" as people claim. I'm well aware of the drawbacks of electric lifts vs CNG. We replaced a fleet of 5K counterbalance lift trucks with 4K electric reach lifts that weighed about half as much. Pound for pound they aren't much greener than traditional lift trucks in the same way that a Hummer is greener than a Prius. Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » If a group of pilots were discussing the best way to land a broken plane, do you know what I'd do? I sit down and shut up and let the people that know what they're doing actually fix the problem. 1970s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 1980s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 1990s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 2000s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 2010s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. Looks like they're doing a great job of fixing the problem. Sadly, scientists aren't able to make the changes that would need to be made and research is expensive. Are you saying that green technologies have not made any significant progress in the last 50 years? So now green tech is only around because of the evil global warming monster? /faccepalm Are you HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE or something? Offline
Posts: 4394
Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » PS. Those electric lift trucks are not as "green" as people claim. I'm well aware of the drawbacks of electric lifts vs CNG. We replaced a fleet of 5K counterbalance lift trucks with 4K electric reach lifts that weighed about half as much. Pound for pound they aren't much greener than traditional lift trucks in the same way that a Hummer is greener than a Prius. Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » If a group of pilots were discussing the best way to land a broken plane, do you know what I'd do? I sit down and shut up and let the people that know what they're doing actually fix the problem. 1970s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 1980s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 1990s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 2000s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. 2010s scientists: Hey guys, there's this thing called global warming. We should deal with it. Looks like they're doing a great job of fixing the problem. Sadly, scientists aren't able to make the changes that would need to be made and research is expensive. Are you saying that green technologies have not made any significant progress in the last 50 years? So now green tech is only around because of the evil global warming monster? /faccepalm Are you HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE or something? I'm wondering the same thing about you.. You make a horrible analogy about a group of pilots, Rav owns you on it. Then you jump to boohoo scientists can on do so much because research is expensive and blah blah green tech. Meanwhile that plane you let fly into the ground because of your blinding trust has rusted away into nothingness. |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|