Thelonious Monk wrote: » It amazes me how afraid you all are of having less money and lower standard of living. That is essential for a cleaner earth. How would you ever have survived in harder times in the past? And you call us pink haired folk snowflakes... Bring on massive carbon taxes and less money and stuff for everyone I say.
KyussB wrote: » I'll make this current for posters again, seeing as it got drowned out in the last pages: Predictably - given that the supposed climate change 'skeptics' on this thread, have a complete lack of skepticism towards the sources they shit out onto this thread, so long as it backs their rhetoric - the 'eat your babies' woman at the AOC town hall meeting, was a Trump supporter and member of the LaRouche cult:https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1180104921678569473
The movement originated in radical leftist student politics of the 1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of candidates, some with only limited knowledge or connection to LaRouche or the movement, ran as Democrats in the United States on the LaRouche platform.[1][2][3] In 1988, LaRouche and 25 associates were convicted on fraud charges related to fund-raising. The movement called the prosecutions politically motivated.source
lleti wrote: » It's all a massive plan to take power away from the Saudis and Russia. Not that I like Saudi Arabia or anything but the whole "save the planet" thing is just a cover so they take power back from SA.
Warren Buffett has admitted as much. In 2014 he explained: “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate [. . .] We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit.”source
KyussB wrote: » I'll make this current for posters again, seeing as it got drowned out in the last pages: Predictably - given that the supposed climate change 'skeptics' on this thread, have a complete lack of skepticism towards the sources they shit out onto this thread, so long as it backs their rhetoric - the 'eat your babies' woman at the AOC town hall meeting, was a Trump supporter and member of the LaRouche cult:https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1180104921678569473 Direct thread, here:https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/1180000492707024897
KyussB wrote: » Here I am careful to point out that the Green New Deal is based upon a transformation of capitalism, to preserve capitalism from the effects of climate change - yet other posters accuse me of being the one to bring up communism, when it's always other posters accusing me of that... Face it: You lot don't support Capitalism, you support Oligarchy (which is anathema to true capitalism), and the preservation of the current order of fossil fuel oligarchs like the Kochs. I support Capitalism - and I provide the template, in the Green New Deal, that Capitalism needs to survive the threat of climate change (a threat which capitalism itself produces). Nobody has challenged the ideas I put forward - they only have ideological objections, not practical ones.There is no popular consensus that market solutions will arrest climate change fast enough, as you claim - cite that. 100% Green Energy is simply a matter of producing enough renewable energy production and storage - that still requires a lot of R&D to reduce rare-earth usage, before it's viable, but it's perfectly possible.Nobody has suggested a 100% Job Guarantee. Do some actual reading up on the JG - it's for providing jobs when the private sector doesn't want the unemployed.You accused me of engaging in alarmism and scaremongering earlier: That's precisely what you're doing with your 'hammer and sicle' bullshit. I'm more of a capitalist than you/others who object are - you lot support oligarchy, not capitalism.The Green New Deal supports massive investment in science - in a R&D program that is a couple/few orders of magnitude greater than what private industry can support. Calling that 'anti-science' is bollocks. Climate change denialism is anti-science.
KyussB wrote: » Predictably - given that the supposed climate change 'skeptics' on this thread, have a complete lack of skepticism towards the sources they shit out onto this thread, so long as it backs their rhetoric - the 'eat your babies' woman at the AOC town hall meeting, was a Trump supporter and member of the LaRouche cult:https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1180104921678569473 Direct thread, here:https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/1180000492707024897
KyussB wrote: » Media Bias Fact Check has direct links to a member of a propaganda think thank (it's founder, no less...) - what more do you need to know? Are you so gullible that you will trust someone who is a member of a think-tank that is proven to put out bullshi, as being an arbiter of truth?
KyussB wrote: » Media Bias Fact Check has direct links to a member of a propaganda think thank (it's founder, no less...) - what more do you need to know? Are you so gullible that you will trust someone who is a member of a think-tank that is proven to put out bullshit, as being an arbiter of truth? If it was the reverse situation - someone publishing e.g. climate change research which justifies immediate-action/alarm, with membership of a Soros-linked think-tank - you'd be all over it...you're a hypocrite, so long as it aligns with your rhetoric/views.
KyussB wrote: » Media Bias/Fact Check is run by a member of the NeoLiberal 'Council of Foreign Relations' propaganda think tank - perhaps check your own fact-checkers bias? Oh but wait, you don't give a shit about that, so long as it aligns with your views/rhetoric...
KyussB wrote: » I haven't given an opinion on the Green Party in Ireland - neither will I - and any claims from you that I support their policies are wrong. Any policies they happen to support, which match what I put forward here, do not mean I support them.
KyussB wrote: » If you don't give a shit what my post says, then don't attribute views to my post that I didn't express...
KyussB wrote: » Media Bias/Fact Check is run by a member of the NeoLiberal 'Council of Foreign Relations' propaganda think tank - perhaps check your own fact-checkers bias?
windy shepard henderson wrote: » i dont give one ****e what you post says , you say the green deal is the way forward , in ireland the green party see the green deal as a way of eliminating the agri buisness full stop you have said in several posts you back the green deal , if this happens we are back to the 1930s economically
Veritas Libertas wrote: » That source of yours is about as extreme left as mediabiascheck goes. This is what they say about 'theweek'. In the specific case of this article it was all going well for the first seven paragraphs until the author suddenly switches into activist mode for the remaining 15 paragraphs. He could have saved himself the trouble of the last 15 paragraphs with one word; taxes.
KyussB wrote: » You're either not reading what I posted, or you're being wilfully thick. That you reduce what I posted, to the quoted piece, renders everything you say not worth responding to - because it looks precisely like you're stirring shit, instead of providing a genuine response.
KyussB wrote: » For example, this is the kind of R&D that is needed - and it needs trillions of investment put into it, worldwide, in order to advance fast enough - only governments can achieve this:https://theweek.com/articles/869461/why-remaking-heavy-industry-crucial-part-green-new-deal
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
