gozunda wrote: » Well theres a lot not to understand there... Criticism yes. 'Guff' no. Most likley its because she is being used by others. How does ranting about civilisation ending (incorrectly) in 10 years make the world a 'better place'? She has offered no solutions for a 'better place' except demand that all fossil fuels must remain in the ground immediately. And for who will this be a 'better place' exactly? When people are freezing because they can't afford to put on the heating in their homes because of increased carbon taxes? When transport is curtailed so economies go into tailspin and employers are forced to lay off their workforce? She is a teenager who doesn't have a first notion about these issues - except to repeat parrot fashion what she has been told by others. Not surprising there is real criticism tbh.
splinter65 wrote: » Again, I don’t understand what this means. Can you explain how you imagine she is “forcing” me to confront anything? Do you realize that a lot of us who are parents are concerned about what’s quite clearly the open manipulation of a very obviously vulnerable child by her politically motivated parents? Equally concerning is that you choose to ignore this?
splinter65 wrote: » Did she make her own way to NY?
Faugheen wrote: » ‘She is being used by others’. So she’s not doing any of this off her own back? Conspiracy Theories forum is that way ——>
Tell me how wrote: » You don't think opening herself up to what must be exceptional levels of abuse because she believes in a cause as being brave? People were talking about the dangers of the yacht she travelled to the US on, it that was true, was it not brave that she travelled on it for over 2 weeks?
Faugheen wrote: » Still don’t understand how a 16 year old child who wants to make the world a better place gets so much guff for it.
Tell me how wrote: » I don't believe that the child is being manipulated so I am not ignoring your concern, I do not agree with it. As a parent, I think that you would want your child, and hopefully grandchildren to live in a clean environment with moderate weather events or at the very least, not a significantly decimated environment because of the excess and inaction of previous generations.
dont bother wrote: » did any of ye see the nutjobs on Claire Byrne live last night? they interviewed some mad ould-one and she literally said "THose are our DEMANDS!"that's terrorism no? making demands??? who do these deluded nutjobs think they are? they swan in from their mansions in Dublin 4 to moan about poor developing countries trying to get a leg up. sickos. sweden loving maniacs.
splinter65 wrote: » How is she displaying backbone and courage? I don’t see it at all I’m afraid. It’s not as if she’s under any threat. It’s clear she’s merely parroting well rehearsed lines written by someone else, the same as any other child actors.Where is the bravery?!?
AudreyHepburn wrote: » If not us then what’s causing it? The ice caps aren’t melting of their own accord. Forests aren’t depleting themselves. Thousands of species aren’t on the verge of extinction for no reason.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » Perhaps because she’s forcing people to confront some very uncomfortable truths?
AudreyHepburn wrote: » I find it pathetic and laughable how so many seemingly rational thinking adults who should know better are getting so offended over a young girl with more backbone than all of them out together. Climate Change is real, it’s happening before our eyes and I commend Greta for having the courage to do what we all should have been doing long before now. After all if we don’t start making changes and taking seriously the threat we pose to our planet it is Greta’s own the generations after her that will suffer.
SafeSurfer wrote: » I agree that it can be sustainable to fund public debt permanently but you are ignoring the fact that this is only sustainable if the debt can be serviced through taxation. Do you understand this?
AudreyHepburn wrote: » What happened to the Ozone Layer that’s supposed to protect us from that? Stop hiding your head in the sand.
Tell me how wrote: » It's because he cares about the long term livelihoods of society that he is saying this is a step back. If you want to adopt the position of 'I'm only concerned about what affects me right now' then that's your prerogative, but you should own it.
KyussB wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » You don’t want to discuss it further? I’m not surprised.https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/budget-2018-where-does-all-your-tax-money-go-1.3245485?mode=amp We literally get paid for issuing debt, due to negative interest rates - and debt paid off through rolling it over, isn't paid through taxes. Furthermore, maximizing the GDP portion of Public Debt vs GDP keeps the debt sustainable. What more is there you need to know? It's perfectly manageable to sustain funding through Public Debt permanently - the main constraint is maximizing GDP throughout the economic cycle, that is what keeps it sustainable.
SafeSurfer wrote: » You don’t want to discuss it further? I’m not surprised.https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/budget-2018-where-does-all-your-tax-money-go-1.3245485?mode=amp
Micky 32 wrote: » Just keep in mind the sun has got hotter in the last 100 years, just keep that in mind. But no one wants to discuss that.
KyussB wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Government borrowing being rolled over doesn’t mean that they don’t have to be serviced and repaid through taxation. What part of that can you not understand? ? If a debt is rolled over and paid through reissuing debt, then it is not paid through taxation. Since we have negative interest rates, we actually generate a profit from rolling over debt like this. You might then say: "But we have to pay this debt off in the future" However, our GDP will have grown enormously by the time the debt matures - reducing Public Debt vs GDP - and we can just roll the debt over again. This is why you have to think about government finances, in a completely different way to personal finances. I've made enough posts in a short period of time in the thread, so I don't want to discuss that further.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Government borrowing being rolled over doesn’t mean that they don’t have to be serviced and repaid through taxation. What part of that can you not understand?
