(03-23-2018, 02:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The difference between guns and automobiles is clear. There are accidents that happen with all tools, just about. The purpose of a car is to get from one place to another. Accidents are incidental. The purpose of a gun is to kill someone. Fatal "accidents" are the result of using a gun every time (excepting practice, of course; but what are you practicing for?).
A burglar doesn't threaten your life per se, only your property. If the burglar is also a murderer, (s)he will be armed with something. Killing a burglar is taking the law into your hands instead of taking them to Court. It is illegal. If they threaten your life, or you have good cause to think that they do, then you have cause to use your gun. However, our point is that using the gun is dangerous and often useless. Having a gun is unsafe unless it is unloaded and locked up. Otherwise, kids or robbers can take it and use it, or murders can happen in fits of passion, mistakes, etc. But a locked and unloaded gun probably can't be used for self-defense in time. Other methods work better against burglars who are not armed, at least.
Your gun may work, but the result is a shootout in which you are at least as much at risk as the burglar. So, it's better to use other methods of defense even against robbers armed with guns. There are many other methods of defense, as I have pointed out. But since rural people think that calling the police is not an option, and wild animals threaten their farm animals, they still want to have their guns. Compromise on this is better for the time being. But that does not mean a farmer or rancher needs an AR-15 or some other semi-automatic with a large magazine.
Really, the only reason gun violence is higher in rural red states is because of so many guns around, and liberal carry laws. Otherwise, they have less crime than urban states. In 2nd-amendment America, the most-violent developed country in the world, and the country with by far the most guns per capita, the difference between red and blue states is clear. The facts are clear. More murders, suicides and gun violence happens in states and countries with permissive guns laws, than in states and countries with gun laws and bans.
Gun accidents are as incidental as car accidents. The difference between the accident is one involves a gun and the other involves a car. The difference between a car and a gun is one is a tool and the other is a machine. The issue isn't legal firearms, the issue is criminals who are using firearms and governments inability to stop them from getting their hands on them. Why are liberals always ignoring the criminals and the governments inability to stop the flow of illegal guns and inability to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people like Mateen and the Florida school shooter.
Eric, if I were to get into a shootout with a criminal like Mateen, I'd be accepting the risk of being shot, the risk of being killed and the risk of harming someone else with a stray bullet. If the two of us were in the situation with Mateen, I wouldn't be listening to you because you'd be trying to escape or huddled in a corner or hiding under a table shaking and praying for your life or you'd already be dead or injured or in the process of being executed or remaining in an easy/ helpless position for being executed by Mateen. I don't know what your history is with armed cops and history with people who own guns. I just know that you seem to have issues with both of them.
(03-23-2018, 01:20 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]The shooter may very well be suicidal and simply doesn't care if he (almost always a 'he') survives. In any case, he has had the time to psyche himself up for the task, and, nominally, is in charge of the event. Responders have no time to do anything but react or to prepare mentally. That's part of the asymmetry.
If I said, a person would tend to do what comes natural to them in situations like that, would you agree with me.
(03-23-2018, 01:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Come now, you know that I have recognized in my posts that red used to be the color of communism. I go back a ways.
I developed an election board game in 1980. Back then, blue was commonly used for Republicans and red for Democrats on network TV maps. I thought that was appropriate because after all, Democrats were kinda pinko. So I used those colors for my game pieces. Brower as you know posts maps that still have those colors.
But by the year 2000, as the Bush v Gore standoff occurred, it had become established during network TV coverage of presidential elections, that red was used on the big USA map for states won by Republicans, and blue for Democrats. That's only where the red and blue meanings come from, and not from liberals who want to call Republicans commies. Blue is also a commonly-used color for labor unions, which usually align with Democrats. So there was some justification for the blue = Democrats on that basis, even though labor is also somewhat related to red socialism. Red could be kinda appropriate too for Republicans now, since nowadays most staunch Republicans are rural "rednecks."
It's just symbolism. You have a hard time separating symbols from reality. Desecrating the flag is a sin, and "American" means old-fashioned white Christian values. So be it.
If you don't like your posts being called racist, then don't make racist posts.
Most people did better under Obamacare. I hear you that you are worse off. The real solution is single payer, but Republicans and Libertarians won't hear of it. Yes, it does take taxes to truly help the less fortunate. Voluntary methods don't work and never have. Taxes used to help the less fortunate go back thousands of years. It is your party that is the radical one that is trying to send us back to the 18th century.
Red is still associated with communism and other reactionary forms of government. The Democratic party still seems pretty pinko to me. From a liberal marketing stand point, blue is better choice of color to use for the Democratic party. I think it was a very clever move to switch the Democratic color from Red to Blue. Blue is much more appealing and doesn't have the stigma associated with red.
I say say something bad about welfare or welfare recipients, you automatically associate it with racism or label me racist. I say something about illegal immigration or securing borders, you automatically associate with racism or label me racist. You've been trained/conditioned by your liberal/Progressive masters well old grass hopper. I don't think burning an American flag is a wise thing to do in America today. I don't think it's wise for liberal groups to support it either. Me, I just just view it as anti-American and associate it anti-American groups who are burning over seas.
I assume most people on the blue side did better under Obamacare. I don't know how you can do better than free healthcare or damn near free healthcare. The less fortunate got a helluva deal. I wasn't fortunate enough to get a hell of a deal like them.
(03-24-2018, 02:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Red is still associated with communism and other reactionary forms of government. The Democratic party still seems pretty pinko to me. From a liberal marketing stand point, blue is better choice of color to use for the Democratic party. I think it was a very clever move to switch the Democratic color from Red to Blue. Blue is much more appealing and doesn't have the stigma associated with red.
The change, if there ever was a change, was more the media's than the Democrats. Red, white and blue are patriotic colors for Americans. White is rather bland. Red is definitely patriotic to communists. It is rather ironic that after the Republicans got milage out of fighting the communists during the Cold War they end up sharing a color. There are just not enough good patriotic colors to go around?
I remember taking an X Windows class, and the instructor going on about what colors should be included in the list of X Window colors. In particular, he obsessed with X Windows not including chartreuse. I looked it up, and found they did. Not only was it included, it was a basic color as defined. I think it was 0, 255, 255, max settings for all three basic colors except... Red.
You will have to have the Republicans emphasize chartreuse in their advertising.
As the token Whig, I find it amusing that the Republicans and Communists ended up sharing a color. I consider both to be the opposite of progressive, of Whig, clinging to old values and economic theories. They cling to different old value systems, true, but older none the less.
(03-24-2018, 07:53 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2018, 02:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Red is still associated with communism and other reactionary forms of government. The Democratic party still seems pretty pinko to me. From a liberal marketing stand point, blue is better choice of color to use for the Democratic party. I think it was a very clever move to switch the Democratic color from Red to Blue. Blue is much more appealing and doesn't have the stigma associated with red.
The change, if there ever was a change, was more the media's than the Democrats. Red, white and blue are patriotic colors for Americans. White is rather bland. Red is definitely patriotic to communists. It is rather ironic that after the Republicans got milage out of fighting the communists during the Cold War they end up sharing a color. There are just not enough good patriotic colors to go around?
I remember taking an X Windows class, and the instructor going on about what colors should be included in the list of X Window colors. In particular, he obsessed with X Windows not including chartreuse. I looked it up, and found they did. Not only was it included, it was a basic color as defined. I think it was 0, 255, 255, max settings for all three basic colors except... Red.
You will have to have the Republicans emphasize chartreuse in their advertising.
As the token Whig, I find it amusing that the Republicans and Communists ended up sharing a color. I consider both to be the opposite of progressive, of Whig, clinging to old values and economic theories. They cling to different old value systems, true, but older none the less.
I don't really know what a Whig is today. I don't know what the Whig's were about, what the Whigs stood for, what their values were way back when while they were still around as a political force and politically active as a group. As far as blue, I thought it was a clever move for a politically bias group to switch their political color from red to blue. The color seems to mean more to the blues and the blue narrative than it does to the reds. According to the blues, I'm a red. OK, whatever, I'm a red. According to the blues, reds are racists. OK, whatever, I must be a red who isn't a racist.
I think the Republicans should stick with good old red white blue and stick with America first and stick with American tradition and the American dream. The Democrats seem to have no clue as to what their loosing, what groups/who their actually supporting and what they're voting to let go of/ loose at this point.
I watched a documentary series on Netflix yesterday. It's called Wild Wild Country. It's about a clash between a small rural town in Oregon and a liberal cult from India. You should watch it and I think you'll understand where America is at right now. I emphasis (LIBERAL) cult and you should focus on the cult. You should focus on how the cult acts, how the cult operates, the cults view of the American people living in the small town and be honest with yourself as you watch it. You will see many similarities between the cult and the liberal progressives today. I see a similar clash coming between the liberal progressives and the United States of America. The old Democrats involved in the struggle are either dead or no longer physically/mentally able to fight. But, there's a new political breed representing them today.
(03-24-2018, 10:52 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really know what a Whig is today. I don't know what the Whig's were about, what the Whigs stood for, what their values were way back when while they were still around as a political force and politically active as a group. As far as blue, I thought it was a clever move for a politically bias group to switch their political color from red to blue. The color seems to mean more to the blues and the blue narrative than it does to the reds. According to the blues, I'm a red. OK, whatever, I'm a red. According to the blues, reds are racists. OK, whatever, I must be a red who isn't a racist.
I think the Republicans should stick with good old red white blue and stick with America first and stick with American tradition and the American dream. The Democrats seem to have no clue as to what their loosing, what groups/who their actually supporting and what they're voting to let go of/ loose at this point.
I watched a documentary series on Netflix yesterday. It's called Wild Wild Country. It's about a clash between a small rural town in Oregon and a liberal cult from India. You should watch it and I think you'll understand where America is at right now. I emphasis (LIBERAL) cult and you should focus on the cult. You should focus on how the cult acts, how the cult operates, the cults view of the American people living in the small town and be honest with yourself as you watch it. You will see many similarities between the cult and the liberal progressives today. I see a similar clash coming between the liberal progressives and the United States of America. The old Democrats involved in the struggle are either dead or no longer physically/mentally able to fight. But, there's a new political breed representing them today.
For most of my career I worked around Route 128 and MIT, but for a while I was in Colorado Springs. They had so much open space, enough to abuse. Population density does effect how people think. What seems right in one place to one resident is very wrong elsewhere to another resident of somewhere else. The better educated one is, the more you see the results of a bunch of people living together, the more you see the consequences, the more you see the reality of many people in a small place.
I was first called a Whig on this web site. I was called so by Virgil Saari, who was emphatically not a Whig. In fact, he advocated the return of certain royal lines. What is a Whig these days? Other than long gone? We believe that progress is nigh on inevitable, and the direction if change is human rights, democracy and inclusiveness. Does that mean the opposition seeks to abuse others, to advance the 1%, to protect privileged positions? Yes and no. They cling to old privileged positions. They resist change. They seek to mess up other people's lives in order to improve their own.
I am sympathetic with the modern blue, but perhaps take a longer term perspective. The modern reds are heirs to monarchy, to slaveowners, to robber barons. They see nothing wrong with advancing their own cause at the expense of others. I see the ever increasing productivity and population as a solvable problem, but the gap between the haves and have nots must be looked at. You cannot be as blind to consequences as many reds seem to be.
I gained benefit from progress, and want to share a minimum amount of it with others. I am very aware of progress. I do not want to share lightly, or dismiss its importance. Global warming and the limits to expansion are real. So are reds with their heads in the sand. Ignoring problems and wishing for yesterday won't hack it in the long term, though clinging to the past may last the lifetimes of those living.
(03-23-2018, 08:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2018, 06:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]The only appropriate deal involving a burglar is a plea bargain.
That's funny!!!! What would you offer to give him/them to keep him/them from taking it/whatever they want away from you? A silly police threat or silly religious threat or moral opinion aren't much of a threat or bargaining chip to use with a criminal.
The practical reality is that our economic order fosters sociopaths. This is a crassly-materialistic society in which the commercial and (most of the time) political leadership tells people to dream big and not care how they get what they want -- and have little regard for the welfare of the common man. Just think of the tax 'reform' intended to give America a new Gilded Age that implies much the same suffering without the justification of creating new prosperity. The harsh reality is that the commercial elites want most people other than themselves to live miserable lives that make possible the indulgence of the elites. Those elites now control the po0liticians to a large enough extent that the USA is a cruel, corrupt plutocracy.
I look at the defense of the 'massacre weapon' industry. The small clique of people in the business of making and selling military weapons for the civilian market has well protected itself from legal scrutiny. If a few hundred people die of gun violence, then the profits from dealings in guns are well worth it, as those elites say is the 'patriotic' view of profit and death.
Donald Trump is doing the one thing that no prior President has done -- making Marxist analysis relevant. Someone who believes that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as it turns, indulges, and enforces a profit by default makes the extreme pessimism that Marx has in the profit motive and elite consumerism a possible view of the world. The belief that one can inflict no excess of human suffering so long as it leads to personal gain, indulgence, and power as well reflects the garden-variety criminal as it does a plutocrat like Donald Trump.
(03-24-2018, 02:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2018, 01:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Come now, you know that I have recognized in my posts that red used to be the color of communism. I go back a ways.
I developed an election board game in 1980. Back then, blue was commonly used for Republicans and red for Democrats on network TV maps. I thought that was appropriate because after all, Democrats were kinda pinko. So I used those colors for my game pieces. Brower as you know posts maps that still have those colors.
But by the year 2000, as the Bush v Gore standoff occurred, it had become established during network TV coverage of presidential elections, that red was used on the big USA map for states won by Republicans, and blue for Democrats. That's only where the red and blue meanings come from, and not from liberals who want to call Republicans commies. Blue is also a commonly-used color for labor unions, which usually align with Democrats. So there was some justification for the blue = Democrats on that basis, even though labor is also somewhat related to red socialism. Red could be kinda appropriate too for Republicans now, since nowadays most staunch Republicans are rural "rednecks."
It's just symbolism. You have a hard time separating symbols from reality. Desecrating the flag is a sin, and "American" means old-fashioned white Christian values. So be it.
If you don't like your posts being called racist, then don't make racist posts.
Most people did better under Obamacare. I hear you that you are worse off. The real solution is single payer, but Republicans and Libertarians won't hear of it. Yes, it does take taxes to truly help the less fortunate. Voluntary methods don't work and never have. Taxes used to help the less fortunate go back thousands of years. It is your party that is the radical one that is trying to send us back to the 18th century.
Red is still associated with communism and other reactionary forms of government. The Democratic party still seems pretty pinko to me. From a liberal marketing stand point, blue is better choice of color to use for the Democratic party. I think it was a very clever move to switch the Democratic color from Red to Blue. Blue is much more appealing and doesn't have the stigma associated with red.
I say say something bad about welfare or welfare recipients, you automatically associate it with racism or label me racist. I say something about illegal immigration or securing borders, you automatically associate with racism or label me racist. You've been trained/conditioned by your liberal/Progressive masters well old grass hopper. I don't think burning an American flag is a wise thing to do in America today. I don't think it's wise for liberal groups to support it either. Me, I just just view it as anti-American and associate it anti-American groups who are burning over seas.
I assume most people on the blue side did better under Obamacare. I don't know how you can do better than free healthcare or damn near free healthcare. The less fortunate got a helluva deal. I wasn't fortunate enough to get a hell of a deal like them.
It wasn't marketing, as I pointed out. The TV networks chose those colors; nobody else.
I associate what you say with racism, because you make it clear that you imply it in your statements. When you don't make racist statements, then I don't call them that. I understand that someone can be against welfare and yet not be a racist. I also know that many times, people against welfare are racists. It depends on the statements they make.
I think some middle class people did better under Obamacare. A lot of Trump voters have turned on him because he's dismantling Obamacare. Obamacare won't work unless everyone's in.
(03-24-2018, 02:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]For most of my career I worked around Route 128 and MIT, but for a while I was in Colorado Springs. They had so much open space, enough to abuse. Population density does effect how people think. What seems right in one place to one resident is very wrong elsewhere to another resident of somewhere else. The better educated one is, the more you see the results of a bunch of people living together, the more you see the consequences, the more you see the reality of many people in a small place.
I was first called a Whig on this web site. I was called so by Virgil Saari, who was emphatically not a Whig. In fact, he advocated the return of certain royal lines. What is a Whig these days? Other than long gone? We believe that progress is nigh on inevitable, and the direction if change is human rights, democracy and inclusiveness. Does that mean the opposition seeks to abuse others, to advance the 1%, to protect privileged positions? Yes and no. They cling to old privileged positions. They resist change. They seek to mess up other people's lives in order to improve their own.
I am sympathetic with the modern blue, but perhaps take a longer term perspective. The modern reds are heirs to monarchy, to slaveowners, to robber barons. They see nothing wrong with advancing their own cause at the expense of others. I see the ever increasing productivity and population as a solvable problem, but the gap between the haves and have nots must be looked at. You cannot be as blind to consequences as many reds seem to be.
I gained benefit from progress, and want to share a minimum amount of it with others. I am very aware of progress. I do not want to share lightly, or dismiss its importance. Global warming and the limits to expansion are real. So are reds with their heads in the sand. Ignoring problems and wishing for yesterday won't hack it in the long term, though clinging to the past may last the lifetimes of those living.
Al Gore was an heir to an old slave owner. Rockefeller was an heir to an old robber baron. Kennedy was an heir of an old bootlegger. Virgil Saari was an owner of a piece of land that had been passed on/down from generation to generation. I didn't speak with him much at the time. We both lived Minnesota and we only spoke about stuff going on in Minnesota at the time. I'm familiar with the area that he lived. As I recall, he was into selling cattle.
I'm not going to get into it with you on Global warming. I view global warming as an issue that's pretty much out of our control at this point. We can change some things now but whatever we do now will have little to no impact on the negative effects caused global warming. We've done our part. It's time for countries like India and China to do their part. China is pumping out raw coal fumes like we did during the 50- 60's and you're bitching at us like its our fault.
(03-24-2018, 04:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It wasn't marketing, as I pointed out. The TV networks chose those colors; nobody else.
I associate what you say with racism, because you make it clear that you imply it in your statements. When you don't make racist statements, then I don't call them that. I understand that someone can be against welfare and yet not be a racist. I also know that many times, people against welfare are racists. It depends on the statements they make.
I think some middle class people did better under Obamacare. A lot of Trump voters have turned on him because he's dismantling Obamacare. Obamacare won't work unless everyone's in.
I know you associate what I say with racism. I know if I say anything bad about a minority, support anything that may hurt a minority in any way or upset a minority in any way, you are going associate me with racism and accuse me of being racist. That's fine. That's the way it is with blues. We're not in the market for blues. We're in the market for working class voters of all shapes and colors.
(03-24-2018, 05:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2018, 04:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It wasn't marketing, as I pointed out. The TV networks chose those colors; nobody else.
I associate what you say with racism, because you make it clear that you imply it in your statements. When you don't make racist statements, then I don't call them that. I understand that someone can be against welfare and yet not be a racist. I also know that many times, people against welfare are racists. It depends on the statements they make.
I think some middle class people did better under Obamacare. A lot of Trump voters have turned on him because he's dismantling Obamacare. Obamacare won't work unless everyone's in.
I know you associate what I say with racism. I know if I say anything bad about a minority, support anything that may hurt a minority in any way or upset a minority in any way, you are going associate me with racism and accuse me of being racist. That's fine. That's the way it is with blues. We're not in the market for blues. We're in the market for working class voters of all shapes and colors.
You are in the market, but it's drying up. I hope the trends continue as they are going. The blues will corner the market on the working class, as they always should. It's their color. Youth are shifting big time away from those who say bad things about "minorities," and guess what, they aren't going to be "minorities" for long. I usually don't use that word anymore; it's out of date.
(03-24-2018, 05:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2018, 02:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]For most of my career I worked around Route 128 and MIT, but for a while I was in Colorado Springs. They had so much open space, enough to abuse. Population density does effect how people think. What seems right in one place to one resident is very wrong elsewhere to another resident of somewhere else. The better educated one is, the more you see the results of a bunch of people living together, the more you see the consequences, the more you see the reality of many people in a small place.
I was first called a Whig on this web site. I was called so by Virgil Saari, who was emphatically not a Whig. In fact, he advocated the return of certain royal lines. What is a Whig these days? Other than long gone? We believe that progress is nigh on inevitable, and the direction if change is human rights, democracy and inclusiveness. Does that mean the opposition seeks to abuse others, to advance the 1%, to protect privileged positions? Yes and no. They cling to old privileged positions. They resist change. They seek to mess up other people's lives in order to improve their own.
I am sympathetic with the modern blue, but perhaps take a longer term perspective. The modern reds are heirs to monarchy, to slaveowners, to robber barons. They see nothing wrong with advancing their own cause at the expense of others. I see the ever increasing productivity and population as a solvable problem, but the gap between the haves and have nots must be looked at. You cannot be as blind to consequences as many reds seem to be.
I gained benefit from progress, and want to share a minimum amount of it with others. I am very aware of progress. I do not want to share lightly, or dismiss its importance. Global warming and the limits to expansion are real. So are reds with their heads in the sand. Ignoring problems and wishing for yesterday won't hack it in the long term, though clinging to the past may last the lifetimes of those living.
Al Gore was an heir to an old slave owner. Rockefeller was an heir to an old robber baron. Kennedy was an heir of an old bootlegger. Virgil Saari was an owner of a piece of land that had been passed on/down from generation to generation. I didn't speak with him much at the time. We both lived Minnesota and we only spoke about stuff going on in Minnesota at the time. I'm familiar with the area that he lived. As I recall, he was into selling cattle.
I'm not going to get into it with you on Global warming. I view global warming as an issue that's pretty much out of our control at this point. We can change some things now but whatever we do now will have little to no impact on the negative effects caused global warming. We've done our part. It's time for countries like India and China to do their part. China is pumping out raw coal fumes like we did during the 50- 60's and you're bitching at us like its our fault.
Another topic; another endless debate. We Americans haven't done S**T about it. We've been arguing while the planet burns. A lot of future disaster is baked in, but if we actually DID something, as people will demand in the 2020s, it would lessen the disaster. That's all we can hope for now.
And it's totally our fault. We continue to frack and mine, refuse to tax, and otherwise dilly-dally, having set the example for China and others about how to burn up the planet. Meanwhile China and India are shifting to renewables faster than we are.
(03-24-2018, 06:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2018, 05:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2018, 04:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It wasn't marketing, as I pointed out. The TV networks chose those colors; nobody else.
I associate what you say with racism, because you make it clear that you imply it in your statements. When you don't make racist statements, then I don't call them that. I understand that someone can be against welfare and yet not be a racist. I also know that many times, people against welfare are racists. It depends on the statements they make.
I think some middle class people did better under Obamacare. A lot of Trump voters have turned on him because he's dismantling Obamacare. Obamacare won't work unless everyone's in.
I know you associate what I say with racism. I know if I say anything bad about a minority, support anything that may hurt a minority in any way or upset a minority in any way, you are going associate me with racism and accuse me of being racist. That's fine. That's the way it is with blues. We're not in the market for blues. We're in the market for working class voters of all shapes and colors.
You are in the market, but it's drying up. I hope the trends continue as they are going. The blues will corner the market on the working class, as they always should. It's their color. Youth are shifting big time away from those who say bad things about "minorities," and guess what, they aren't going to be "minorities" for long. I usually don't use that word anymore; it's out of date.
I've never met white people who hated white people so much. If I didn't know you were white, I'd say you're racist. Do you know the difference between a purple Democrat and a purple Republican? I don't know but we'll find out. The minorities are already the majority in most blue cities. Is your city there yet or is it still majority white? I sure hope Red America doesn't do anything and start saying things to piss minorities off, your white head might end up on a stake. You probably don't want to play mind games with me. I know how to play mind games too.
(03-24-2018, 06:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Another topic; another endless debate. We Americans haven't done S**T about it. We've been arguing while the planet burns. A lot of future disaster is baked in, but if we actually DID something, as people will demand in the 2020s, it would lessen the disaster. That's all we can hope for now.
And it's totally our fault. We continue to frack and mine, refuse to tax, and otherwise dilly-dally, having set the example for China and others about how to burn up the planet. Meanwhile China and India are shifting to renewables faster than we are.
Actually, Americans have done quite a bit. You're not seeing it considering how polluted your state is compared to mine and others in the region. I get the impression, you'd go fucking crazy banning stuff and start a depression considering how scared you are of global warming. I hope China does something fast, the poor Chinese need clean air to breath for Christ sake. Can you imagine what it be like not being able to walk outside and breath without a mask? My mother thought China was disgusting. Chinese people walking around coughing up and spiting out brown stuff. I bet their hospitals are going to be full of people dying from lung diseases.
(03-24-2018, 09:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]That's ma boy!
Wow, even in Republican Ft. Worth Texas, and in Classic Xer's state, people came out, unafraid:
https://youtu.be/1n__pCNo0nw
Wow. That's your boy all right. He's making quite a name for himself. I'd like to sit down with him and pick his brain a bit. I'd like to see him sitting across the table from a dude his age who about to have his 2nd amendment rights taken away from him/her. I don't know why they'd be afraid to come out and voice their opinions.
Here's another one. I already called the chapter on the 2020s in my Horoscope for the New Age book, "revving up the engines!" (see @ 4 min) Maybe my prediction will come true.
My prediction:
https://youtu.be/cyVolXreDXY?t=43m30s
vrmmm vrmmm vrmmmm! I hear the engines revving up!
(03-24-2018, 09:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2018, 09:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]That's ma boy!
Wow, even in Republican Ft. Worth Texas, and in Classic Xer's state, people came out, unafraid:
https://youtu.be/1n__pCNo0nw
Wow. That's your boy all right. He's making quite a name for himself. I'd like to sit down with him and pick his brain a bit. I'd like to see him sitting across the table from a dude his age who about to have his 2nd amendment rights taken away from him/her. I don't know why they'd be afraid to come out and voice their opinions.
Here he is, sitting down with some students at Harvard, no less: Yeah!
You won't want to sit through all of this one with David and Emma and Cameron, Alex Wind, Matt and Ryan Deitsch. But they'll be ready to talk and face down your guys who want to keep their rights to shoot AR-15s, and defend the rights of crazy people to buy them. I don't know, but speaking to a Harvard forum with Q&A might be a pretty good prep. Yea!
https://youtu.be/IoyQ8_A2xPQ
OH, and in this discussion, Ryan and David pointed out how their school training and education helped prepare them for stepping up to this issue so fast. David had already appeared at a Harvard debate 2 years before.
(03-24-2018, 08:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2018, 06:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2018, 05:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-24-2018, 04:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It wasn't marketing, as I pointed out. The TV networks chose those colors; nobody else.
I associate what you say with racism, because you make it clear that you imply it in your statements. When you don't make racist statements, then I don't call them that. I understand that someone can be against welfare and yet not be a racist. I also know that many times, people against welfare are racists. It depends on the statements they make.
I think some middle class people did better under Obamacare. A lot of Trump voters have turned on him because he's dismantling Obamacare. Obamacare won't work unless everyone's in.
I know you associate what I say with racism. I know if I say anything bad about a minority, support anything that may hurt a minority in any way or upset a minority in any way, you are going associate me with racism and accuse me of being racist. That's fine. That's the way it is with blues. We're not in the market for blues. We're in the market for working class voters of all shapes and colors.
You are in the market, but it's drying up. I hope the trends continue as they are going. The blues will corner the market on the working class, as they always should. It's their color. Youth are shifting big time away from those who say bad things about "minorities," and guess what, they aren't going to be "minorities" for long. I usually don't use that word anymore; it's out of date.
I've never met white people who hated white people so much. If I didn't know you were white, I'd say you're racist. Do you know the difference between a purple Democrat and a purple Republican? I don't know but we'll find out. The minorities are already the majority in most blue cities. Is your city there yet or is it still majority white? I sure hope Red America doesn't do anything and start saying things to piss minorities off, your white head might end up on a stake. You probably don't want to play mind games with me. I know how to play mind games too.
My city has become so damn diverse that we whities may not even be the second largest race there now. I'm game for any game you want to play. But I try not to hate people. Love is the only way. So I speak the truth, and I remember that all people are people. And purple is my favorite color.
(03-24-2018, 05:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Al Gore was an heir to an old slave owner. Rockefeller was an heir to an old robber baron. Kennedy was an heir of an old bootlegger. Virgil Saari was an owner of a piece of land that had been passed on/down from generation to generation. I didn't speak with him much at the time. We both lived Minnesota and we only spoke about stuff going on in Minnesota at the time. I'm familiar with the area that he lived. As I recall, he was into selling cattle.
Yep. What was once acceptable now is not. The fathers thought much differently than the sons. Monarchy, slavery, and pollution were once acceptable, a normal part of doing business. It is the role of the reds to be behind the curve, to not see the need for change.
(03-24-2018, 05:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not going to get into it with you on Global warming. I view global warming as an issue that's pretty much out of our control at this point. We can change some things now but whatever we do now will have little to no impact on the negative effects caused global warming. We've done our part. It's time for countries like India and China to do their part. China is pumping out raw coal fumes like we did during the 50- 60's and you're bitching at us like its our fault.
I see China and India as burning and spreading health care problems as well as global warming and global dimming. It is only a matter of time before they start putting scrubbers on smokestacks as the West did to ease the health problems. That will ease global dimming considerably and be a last straw on the global warming side. Global dimming is currently putting breaks on global warming. It will not be there forever. I anticipate something like that will be necessary before the youngsters will pressure the decision makers to begin to act fully. Ecological values will force the reds to get out of blame everyone but ourselves mode finally.