Politics

Out of context: Reply #26532

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 33,475 Responses
  • deathboy-1

    this paris agreement thing is great. Great if you understand unlimited spending on "terrorism" is no different than unlimited spending on "climate change". Both cost a shit ton. Do little and cause chaos economically for the little people who don't want to be involved. Did the US war on drugs work? Has the war on terrorism worked? Why do we think a war against climate change work? And i say war because it would come at quite a costly price and sacrifice.

    It was only a economic weapons deal amongst renewable energy vs the typical oil war shit. I think this is good. Hopefully help dissolve Teslas valuation and tank the lobbyists and parties holding stake in this shit. No treaties he cant get subsidization for over priced shipping trucks(which wired wrote a piece the other day on how likely they are), solar roofing(which is a loss without 15k subsidy... if u stay 30 years...),and all his public bus contract stuff he was hoping for. I still find it so funny he chose the name tesla while operating similar to edison. I wonder if he did it as a joke.

    Trump is an idiot. Ill put this in his accidental win column.

    deathboy -1Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • So by the same logic government can't prevent pollution or eliminate disease. Have you ever been to a real developing country? Because that would disprove youryuekit
    • argument pretty quickly. Ironically Trump is doubling down on exactly the two things you pointed out as failures, war on terrorism and war on drugs.yuekit
    • what country has prevented pollution and disease? and i said this is an accidental win for trump who has no philosophy who is doubling down on lost causesdeathboy
    • im not a trump a fan, but lets call a win a win. since you dont disagree with my logic on war on drugs and terror and there failure i assume you agree climatedeathboy
    • is the same, just trying to figure out how to group it all into a single opinion about the guydeathboy
    • Compare a slum in India with a town in Western Europe. You're saying there's no difference in pollution or health or that government had no role in that?yuekit
    • If you look at past 100 years in terms of science, public health it's actually amazing how much was achieved.yuekit
    • public health? or private health? did india or europe kill all pollution and disease and what was the cost?deathboy
    • id say public health has without any doubt been a disaster. US is one of the last hold outs financing the rest of the worlds R&D.deathboy
    • of course at the cost of public health... which sucks for most but hurts the smallest people. A good way to keep them under gov thumbdeathboy
    • is there more sickness in new dehli vs london? is there other factors like britain owning india for ages? Need something more for your pointdeathboy
    • also you didnt address if you agree the war on climate is the same as war on drugs, etc and that it is failed effort. would u at least confirm that?deathboy
    • During the 20th century life expectancy almost doubled in developed countries. Infant mortality was reduced by 90%.yuekit
    • And yes many diseases were almost completed eliminated thanks to vaccination and better treatments. All of this happened with the growth of the social welfareyuekit
    • state. For a simple reason that the increases came from the poorest sectors of society, who wouldn't be able to afford these things if they weren't publiclyyuekit
    • provided.yuekit
    • I mean the list goes on and on...safe drinking water, sanitation, literacy...all these things that completely define the modern world. You'd really have to beyuekit
    • an ideologue to ignore all of that.yuekit
    • that is all textbook BS that it had anything to do with government. be more specific because the generalization you mentioned is too boring to be bluntdeathboy
    • and id love to hear you state u think the war on climate is as useless as drugs and terror. you already agreed, but id love a direct statementdeathboy
    • thinking yuekit you might be struggling with the same public idea fallacy that has ruined every fully realized public endeavor.deathboy
    • haha OK whatever man. I pointed out a number of specific examples which you failed to debunk.yuekit
    • that things happened because of gov/public control. maybe thats why people still humor the idea of socialism and its tendencies. a false history of thingsdeathboy
    • which wouldn't be a surprise i was raised to believe FDR was a hero. But i learned "facts" and dates before i learned realized what philosophy was.deathboy
    • maybe like diogenes i can easily change the direction i walk while other cannot.deathboy
    • You can have whatever philosophy you want. All I'm saying is that as an objective fact, government was the mechanism by which these things were achieved.yuekit
    • If your philosophy doesn't agree with the evidence, the solution is not to throw out the evidence :)yuekit
    • dude all the disease stuff was already in decline before vaccinations. mortality rates better with technology, however that is double edged and weakens genedeathboy
    • adds costs... but your talking as societies grow, not gov welfare or control. all societies in history that rely on that have faileddeathboy
    • is cooperation and having limited gov to protect rights and individuals and coordinate some complex tasks for sure. also know those systems will decaydeathboy
    • with no competition, growth, and in the end faulter. local power companies monopolies are nice for communities, but it stunts innovation.deathboy
    • a EPA standard of catalytic converters create more costs for little people at the pump and on the car. while putting in a hurdle for engineersdeathboy
    • again diesel fuel. every gov mandate comes at a cost that harms a group of people or stifles innovation. these carbon agreements would onlydeathboy
    • "dude all the disease stuff was already in decline before vaccinations."
      That's not really true at all though. Just to give one example, 50,000 people were      yuekit
    • only hurt the little guys while growing government, banks, and the corporations that jump on board. it will greatly reduce peoples liberties. its up theredeathboy
    • getting smallpox every year in the U.S. in the early 1900s and many of them died from it. Vaccination programs eventually succeeded in wiping out the diseaseyuekit
    • with the bad ideas like limited work hours or days. plus like health now if that is there cause there is almost unlimited things they can regulate in our livesdeathboy
    • not just from the U.S. but from the entire world.yuekit
    • could control number of cows a farm can have, which controls beef prices, where poor lose access to beef, it really will help kill the middleclass fasterdeathboy
    • the thing is we both want the same end. i choose the way that is scary and free, you choose the way every nation has tried and failed. you need to let go ideadeathboy
    • of control. that there are angelic omnimpotent rulers to solve the problems that hinder your daily live and offer you heaven on earthdeathboy
    • lol no one is saying heaven on earth...just that the idea that government can't achieve anything good is silly.yuekit
    • Eradicating smallpox like I posted above is a great example. Another would be the success of the EPA in reducing air pollution.yuekit
    • oh yea im not an anarchist. but the primary role of government is liberty. he who gives up liberty for security deserves neitherdeathboy
    • and on governments achieving good things. we need more of them to measure good. small locally, decentralized. need to rely less on federal govdeathboy
    • example many states have looked at single payer healthcare only to find out its impossible. if they cant make it work for them, how can it work on a nationaldeathboy
    • level. trying to push things like that at federal level is a terrible terrible idea. we've seen how health has scyrocketed right after medicare/medicaid was estdeathboy
    • was that a good? apparently not. 401k loopholes? Good for big banks, bad for peoples sovereignty. On the federal stage bad measures brign down the whole countrydeathboy
    • The thing is we're going to have to deal with climate change one way or the other. We can try to reduce how bad it is ahead of time or we can do nothingyuekit
    • and deal with the full consequences which will get progressively worse the longer we use fossil fuels.yuekit
    • Seems like the first option would be much smarter unless you are 70 year old like Donald Trump and dead soon anyway.yuekit
    • the way i see it climate change will eventually get us anyways, like old age. Can save all your money and reduce quality of life early for extended sufferingdeathboy
    • later or live now and be free. But right now there is no way to even measure quality of life to extended time... maybe trump doing this will finely spur individdeathboy
    • uals to be more self-concious or handle things locally. Which would be better than creating some gobalist carbon carteldeathboy
    • how well has NATO worked out in its goals of prevention... i see the intention yuekit, but i jsut dont see it working and in this case not doing anything seemsdeathboy
    • the better option. see what the future holds i guessdeathboy
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread