you see, this guy is a conservative nuthead. Pick and choose to support his opinions is basically a must do for the conservative spin...simply quoting the whole conversation would destroy the story he is trying to tell.
The blogger is just another neocon dip****ter who only wants to see, hear and read what fits his ****ed up worldview.
Now he realized that he liked Trek and Spock without ever reflecting on the message behind it, which is basically the total opposite of his world views.
Nobody is finding therm, they feel the need to tell everybody and proclaimed moronic things like saying that they admire Putin and King Abdullah, yet cry and whine when Obama uses any type of leadership saying he is a dictator and a monarch. However, they will never get the irony.
It was nothing compared to what the GOP does and say to President Obama. Due to their jackassery, they have made the current Congress, one of the most useless in US History.
You haven't taken a very hard look then. The only reason you see more of it now is the existence of social media and how fast stupidity races across the internet. Before it was limited to only the big networks who controlled the message, and what got out. Before the advent of televsion you had radio, and it was censored. Before radio, you had newspapers which had a tendency to print what sold papers...sound familiar?
Now everything gets out, no matter how small or inconsequential, and usually without context.
I know this is getting way off topic, but the not-quite-esteemed Senator from Nevada was solely responsible for those "useless" Congresses. He wouldn't even let Democrats bring a bill to the floor.
But we never talk about that; only those "evil" Republicans who want nothing more than to reduce spending to break even levels if not actually start paying down the national debt, and refocus the federal government on the (all of) 3 things it was actually intended to do.
I wanted to stay out of this thread after my OP since I said what I came to say, but what you just said speaks volumes to the dysfunction in DC. For years we have had a right wing element who has been hell-bent on slashing aid for the disadvantaged while shoveling millions of dollars to corporations and even forcing the Pentagon to buy tanks and planes they said that they do not want or need. And yet in spite of all this, they blame the Democrats for the very things they themselves committed.
And now with the gop running both the House and Senate, what did they do on their very first day? They passed a resolution that would put everyone's Social Security in peril, and demand only deep cuts to people's benefits as the only "reforms" they will consider. What sort of inhuman sociopath do you have to be to wage war on the elderly & disabled??
To accuse Democrats of being responsible for this mess is like blaming the police for not allowing serial killers to run around having their fun.
To get back to this thread, I wasn't the only person out there to suspect that the moment our President made some kind words about Nimoy's passing, there would be some rightwing curmudgeons out there who are so fanatical in their "If Obama is for it then I'm against it" mentality that they would take a dump all over Nimoy. And lo and behold, some rightwing idjit did just that.
The right wing fear and loathe science and they detest the future, because they know in such a future, their type of "thinking" is against everything Star Trek stands for.
You haven't taken a very hard look then. The only reason you see more of it now is the existence of social media and how fast stupidity races across the internet. Before it was limited to only the big networks who controlled the message, and what got out. Before the advent of televsion you had radio, and it was censored. Before radio, you had newspapers which had a tendency to print what sold papers...sound familiar?
Now everything gets out, no matter how small or inconsequential, and usually without context.
Bush was made fun of relentlessly before the Ninth Month of 2001, mainly in his horrid speeches and the most vacationing of a sitting President despite being in office barely two years. What I am talking about, is the constant attacking of Obama ever since he said I want to run for President.
No one made fun of Bush's family nor heritage nor family history nor the fact that he existed as they do today of Obama. When Cheney shot his friend in the face, it was news for less than a week. If Biden shot anyone, he would have been brought on charges, along with Obama just because they try to shove it to him anyway they can.
Besides, it really ruins when your argument when you cannot even use spell check.
Bush was made fun of relentlessly before the Ninth Month of 2001, mainly in his horrid speeches and the most vacationing of a sitting President despite being in office barely two years. What I am talking about, is the constant attacking of Obama ever since he said I want to run for President.
No one made fun of Bush's family nor heritage nor family history nor the fact that he existed as they do today of Obama. When Cheney shot his friend in the face, it was news for less than a week. If Biden shot anyone, he would have been brought on charges, along with Obama just because they try to shove it to him anyway they can.
Besides, it really ruins when your argument when you cannot even use spell check.
I doubt Obama could have even handled what Bush had to go through.
The right wing fear and loathe science and they detest the future, because they know in such a future, their type of "thinking" is against everything Star Trek stands for.
Wrong again.
I run into this stereotype time and again, but I have no quibble with the findings of science. There are some uses I do not think are appropriate (being able to do a thing does not always make it a smart or moral thing to actually do), but science as a knowledge discipline I have zero problem with, nor do I feel I need to twist around factual information out of some sort of fear.
Also, I would point out that while the Star Trek I like most is Deep Space Nine, it is not because I "detest the future," but because I am concerned that as soon as we begin deluding ourselves into thinking we have a "perfect" society, we will forget that it is unsustainable because of our human imperfections. As soon as we think we are "perfect," we invite stagnancy and discourage critical thinking and self-examination. We will fail to recognize our own hypocrisy and how we disguise our shortcomings with a veneer of civilization, but have in fact just redirected the same impulses that once fueled more obvious, blatant atrocities, into less visible things that are just as wrong and harder to check because we know better how to disguise them.
It is not about "fearing the future," or "fearing advancement," but something that ironically, Q was the one to point out: it is distrust of self-contented complacency.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
For years we have had a right wing element who has been hell-bent on slashing aid for the disadvantaged while shoveling millions of dollars to corporations and even forcing the Pentagon to buy tanks and planes they said that they do not want or need.
I don't doubt that the same (D)Senator from Nevada had a great deal to do with the $1B+ subsidy Nevada gave Tesla, and the almost equally generous one New York gave Tesla.
You'd do well, for yourself and this country, to always investigate a Democrat for whatever it is they're whining about the other guy doing; they're usually doing the same thing, but on a larger scale.
Besides, the more "aid" you offer, the more "disadvantaged" people suddenly appear.
If "aiding the disadvantaged" really is your goal, find a better way to go about it. The federal government is a terribly ineffective method, and we've blown trillions on what amounts to a jobs program keeping public employees employed.
At some point, that national debt will cripple this country. Military spending is hardly the debt-driver you wish it was, and is actually one of the few things the federal government is obligated to engage in. I don't like some of the excesses the military-industrial complex is willing to go to ($9,000 hammers, $30,000 toilet seats, etc.), but compared to the limitless sinkhole that is "aiding the disadvantaged," they're easily managed chumps.
Besides, what ever happened to charity? Do you want to take responsibility for the War on Charity the Democrats engage in every time they want to raise taxes to pay for another misguided social program?
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
I run into this stereotype time and again, but I have no quibble with the findings of science. There are some uses I do not think are appropriate (being able to do a thing does not always make it a smart or moral thing to actually do), but science as a knowledge discipline I have zero problem with, nor do I feel I need to twist around factual information out of some sort of fear.
Also, I would point out that while the Star Trek I like most is Deep Space Nine, it is not because I "detest the future," but because I am concerned that as soon as we begin deluding ourselves into thinking we have a "perfect" society, we will forget that it is unsustainable because of our human imperfections. As soon as we think we are "perfect," we invite stagnancy and discourage critical thinking and self-examination. We will fail to recognize our own hypocrisy and how we disguise our shortcomings with a veneer of civilization, but have in fact just redirected the same impulses that once fueled more obvious, blatant atrocities.
It is not about "fearing the future," or "fearing advancement," but something that ironically, Q was the one to point out: it is distrust of self-contented complacency.
How can we ever hope to achieve warp capability if we have people in power who deny evolution and climate change?
No one made fun of Bush's family nor heritage nor family history nor the fact that he existed as they do today of Obama.
Yes they did. Also, I've never heard any real criticism about Obama's family, other than criticisms of how he treats them (his half-siblings, for example), and criticism of Michelle over her poorly conceived and terribly received school lunch program. In her defense, she's a quick study, and has largely remained silent since, reinforcing my belief that she's the smarter spouse in that marriage.
Also, if you paid attention to such things, you'd notice the vitriol political figures like Sarah Palin or Herman Cain received, from the party that alleges to support women and minorities, no less. Talk about a war on women, and ongoing racism in America.
I can't imagine Obama is all that phased by any references to his race (or his actual religion). He's always seemed to welcome such comments, knowing full well they do more to empower him than undermine him.
Then again, maybe the made dash to label every complaint against him as racist has started to wear him down.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
I don't doubt that the same (D)Senator from Nevada had a great deal to do with the $1B+ subsidy Nevada gave Tesla, and the almost equally generous one New York gave Tesla.
You'd do well, for yourself and this country, to always investigate a Democrat for whatever it is they're whining about the other guy doing; they're usually doing the same thing, but on a larger scale.
Besides, the more "aid" you offer, the more "disadvantaged" people suddenly appear.
If "aiding the disadvantaged" really is your goal, find a better way to go about it. The federal government is a terribly ineffective method, and we've blown trillions on what amounts to a jobs program keeping public employees employed.
At some point, that national debt will cripple this country. Military spending is hardly the debt-driver you wish it was, and is actually one of the few things the federal government is obligated to engage in. I don't like some of the excesses the military-industrial complex is willing to go to ($9,000 hammers, $30,000 toilet seats, etc.), but compared to the limitless sinkhole that is "aiding the disadvantaged," they're easily managed chumps.
Besides, what ever happened to charity? Do you want to take responsibility for the War on Charity the Democrats engage in every time they want to raise taxes to pay for another misguided social program?
Speaking as someone who cares for an elderly person who is on Disability, and knowing that said elderly person would certainly be dead if some certain rightwing types had their way and took away her Social Security and Medicaid, please accept both of my middle fingers, which are extended towards you are far as they can go. If you think charities can handle the load that federal assistance programs do, then you are wrong to put it mildly.
I could go on, but why bother? If life has taught me one thing, I know that conserva-trolls like you cannot be reasoned with. I just hope that when the time comes for you to be in dire need of help, there are still programs in place to help you out, and they will be there because people like me helped protect them from people like you.
How can we ever hope to achieve warp capability if we have people in power who deny evolution and climate change?
It is possible. The USSR managed to get a space program off the ground with those in power either denying science itself or at least the value in pursuing it. All they had to do was round up a few rocket scientists who could convince the government that the ICBM project would cost twenty or thirty times more than it would, and pour the excess into a space program. By the time it dawned on their superiors that there was no reason for an ICBM to enter orbit and most of those things they were launching probably weren't simulated warheads, they had accomplished enough to justify continuing.
How can we ever hope to achieve warp capability if we have people in power who deny evolution and climate change?
Speaking for myself, I see no reason why evolution conflicts with my faith or vice versa. One does not threaten the other. Science is not, and should not be used as a philosophy or moral system, and religious texts do not teach us the table of elements or the workings of cellular biology. I do not expect one to serve the other's function; where truth is found, it is of God's creation.
As for climate change, I am deeply suspicious of the intrusion of politics into science. But that does not somehow translate into wanting dirty water and dirty air, etc. I subscribe to a much simpler, common-sense approach to the environment: being that regardless of whether or not we have altered the climate, it is just wise practice to clean up after ourselves (i.e. seek to minimize the contaminants that we put into the ecosystem, recycle more of our waste, and so forth), and to minimize our waste (again, recycling/reusing, and not using more energy, food, land, resources than we really need).
I do not want a hybrid or other high gas-mileage car for my next vehicle because someone whacked me over the head about climate change, which may or may not be caused by humanity. I want it because I see no reason to use more resources than I absolutely have to, and it is common sense to put fewer things into the atmosphere that the ecosystem was not designed to disperse in the quantities that we put them there. Frankly whether one of the effects is or isn't climate change I don't consider proven, but I KNOW there are plenty of proven bad effects from pollution to not need that as a motivation to be a good steward of the resources I am entrusted with.
I think we can implement such measures, develop cleaner technology, cut our resource consumption, and so forth, without a political football that comes with a lot of baggage like cap and trade.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Speaking as someone who cares for an elderly person who is on Disability, and would certainly be dead if some certain rightwing types had their way and took away Social Security, please accept both of my middle fingers, which are extended towards you are far as they can go.
The elderly and disabled will pass regardless of how much we spend.
Just how much debt would be acceptable to you to make it last a few years longer?
Heck, my father just had hip replacement surgery this year, and spinal fusion surgery less than two years ago. I don't openly question the spending in front of him, as that would be rude. But I still think it's bat**** crazy for the federal government to pay the kind of money it did for those surgeries.
In a world of finite resources, and rational person would tell you that such spending is misguided. Invest it into the next generation, rather than keeping the current eldest generation on life support a little longer.
No offense, and you have my sympathies; with how difficult what little I've dealt with has been, I can't even imagine what you go through.
Unfortunately, I can't possibly expect the same level of financial support for myself or anyone from my generation; by that time, it's likely debt servicing will be the number one expenditure, and I won't be thanking my parents' or grandparents' generations for that.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
Millimidget, the two major caveats I would put to your comments are these: one--I do not think we can consider some lives to be more valuable than others and two--private and faith-based charity MUST step up to the plate when public assistance is reduced. We have GOT to do better in that regard.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
The intent of my OP wasn't intended to be, but you can thank millimidget for goose-stepping in here and talking smack about starving millions of old people, which would include a close and dear relative of mine so of course I take his inhuman drivel personally. He could just be trolling but when it comes to the right wing, it's hard to be sure.
As for climate change, I am deeply suspicious of the intrusion of politics into science.
I'm pretty sure they still have no idea what they're talking about, or there would be no need for the infamous (and falsified) hockey-stick graph that graced An Inconvenient Truth. This has nothing to do with any religious viewpoint, and everything to do with the skepticism that should be inherent in any scientist.
The inconvenient truth is that solar/wind will never be sufficient sources of energy; they sound nice, but scaled up to global demand and the world would be equally plastered in solar panels and shrouded by wind turbines. To actually achieve such a transition, the environmental lobby would need to totally ignore the reality of the implementation of solar/wind on that scale, and the even more massive ecological disaster it would invite.
Perhaps equally inconvenient is that only nuclear has any chance of offering anything approaching the Star Trek vision of the future, but (American) left-wingers are even more scared of nuclear than oil.
The French, at least, have made amazing progress in making nuclear a safer source of energy, by developing methods to re-process spent nuclear fuel. And nuclear plant designs have come a tremendously long way from the design the Fukushima plant utilized.
Sadly, it's leftists who are easily blinded, by crony capitalism as heinous as the variety Tesla Motors engages in. Billions (tens of billions) in subsidies, to build feel-good cars for wealthy 1%ers.
And, ironically, they have no remorse for ignoring their own viewpoints when its inconvenient.
Just look at what the Kennedy's did when Massachusetts wanted to put a windfarm within view of their estate in Hyanis Port, because it was the ideal location for the wind turbines....they got it moved (probably to the poorest stretch of real estate along the Massachusetts cost).
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
Comments
you see, this guy is a conservative nuthead. Pick and choose to support his opinions is basically a must do for the conservative spin...simply quoting the whole conversation would destroy the story he is trying to tell.
The blogger is just another neocon dip****ter who only wants to see, hear and read what fits his ****ed up worldview.
Now he realized that he liked Trek and Spock without ever reflecting on the message behind it, which is basically the total opposite of his world views.
You haven't taken a very hard look then. The only reason you see more of it now is the existence of social media and how fast stupidity races across the internet. Before it was limited to only the big networks who controlled the message, and what got out. Before the advent of televsion you had radio, and it was censored. Before radio, you had newspapers which had a tendency to print what sold papers...sound familiar?
Now everything gets out, no matter how small or inconsequential, and usually without context.
I wanted to stay out of this thread after my OP since I said what I came to say, but what you just said speaks volumes to the dysfunction in DC. For years we have had a right wing element who has been hell-bent on slashing aid for the disadvantaged while shoveling millions of dollars to corporations and even forcing the Pentagon to buy tanks and planes they said that they do not want or need. And yet in spite of all this, they blame the Democrats for the very things they themselves committed.
And now with the gop running both the House and Senate, what did they do on their very first day? They passed a resolution that would put everyone's Social Security in peril, and demand only deep cuts to people's benefits as the only "reforms" they will consider. What sort of inhuman sociopath do you have to be to wage war on the elderly & disabled??
To accuse Democrats of being responsible for this mess is like blaming the police for not allowing serial killers to run around having their fun.
To get back to this thread, I wasn't the only person out there to suspect that the moment our President made some kind words about Nimoy's passing, there would be some rightwing curmudgeons out there who are so fanatical in their "If Obama is for it then I'm against it" mentality that they would take a dump all over Nimoy. And lo and behold, some rightwing idjit did just that.
The right wing fear and loathe science and they detest the future, because they know in such a future, their type of "thinking" is against everything Star Trek stands for.
This. God forbid you have a different viewpoint than them. They just hound you if you do
Well done OP on your generalization. You set out to do what you wanted.
Bush was made fun of relentlessly before the Ninth Month of 2001, mainly in his horrid speeches and the most vacationing of a sitting President despite being in office barely two years. What I am talking about, is the constant attacking of Obama ever since he said I want to run for President.
No one made fun of Bush's family nor heritage nor family history nor the fact that he existed as they do today of Obama. When Cheney shot his friend in the face, it was news for less than a week. If Biden shot anyone, he would have been brought on charges, along with Obama just because they try to shove it to him anyway they can.
Besides, it really ruins when your argument when you cannot even use spell check.
'nuff said.
I doubt Obama could have even handled what Bush had to go through.
Wrong again.
I run into this stereotype time and again, but I have no quibble with the findings of science. There are some uses I do not think are appropriate (being able to do a thing does not always make it a smart or moral thing to actually do), but science as a knowledge discipline I have zero problem with, nor do I feel I need to twist around factual information out of some sort of fear.
Also, I would point out that while the Star Trek I like most is Deep Space Nine, it is not because I "detest the future," but because I am concerned that as soon as we begin deluding ourselves into thinking we have a "perfect" society, we will forget that it is unsustainable because of our human imperfections. As soon as we think we are "perfect," we invite stagnancy and discourage critical thinking and self-examination. We will fail to recognize our own hypocrisy and how we disguise our shortcomings with a veneer of civilization, but have in fact just redirected the same impulses that once fueled more obvious, blatant atrocities, into less visible things that are just as wrong and harder to check because we know better how to disguise them.
It is not about "fearing the future," or "fearing advancement," but something that ironically, Q was the one to point out: it is distrust of self-contented complacency.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
There's nothing bad about different opinions. Just against wrong ones.
You'd do well, for yourself and this country, to always investigate a Democrat for whatever it is they're whining about the other guy doing; they're usually doing the same thing, but on a larger scale.
Besides, the more "aid" you offer, the more "disadvantaged" people suddenly appear.
If "aiding the disadvantaged" really is your goal, find a better way to go about it. The federal government is a terribly ineffective method, and we've blown trillions on what amounts to a jobs program keeping public employees employed.
At some point, that national debt will cripple this country. Military spending is hardly the debt-driver you wish it was, and is actually one of the few things the federal government is obligated to engage in. I don't like some of the excesses the military-industrial complex is willing to go to ($9,000 hammers, $30,000 toilet seats, etc.), but compared to the limitless sinkhole that is "aiding the disadvantaged," they're easily managed chumps.
Besides, what ever happened to charity? Do you want to take responsibility for the War on Charity the Democrats engage in every time they want to raise taxes to pay for another misguided social program?
How can we ever hope to achieve warp capability if we have people in power who deny evolution and climate change?
Bush couldn't even handle it.
How can we ever make first contact when we have people who cannot even see beyond their own viewpoint?
Especially since Obama pretty much had to clean up his messes. Which is really still kind of going on.
You're robbing tomorrow's unborn children to pay for today's octogenarians.
That you don't see it as such shows just how willing you are to blind yourself with your defunct ideology.
Yes they did. Also, I've never heard any real criticism about Obama's family, other than criticisms of how he treats them (his half-siblings, for example), and criticism of Michelle over her poorly conceived and terribly received school lunch program. In her defense, she's a quick study, and has largely remained silent since, reinforcing my belief that she's the smarter spouse in that marriage.
Also, if you paid attention to such things, you'd notice the vitriol political figures like Sarah Palin or Herman Cain received, from the party that alleges to support women and minorities, no less. Talk about a war on women, and ongoing racism in America.
Yeah, but it was like what Obama received x10.
I can't imagine Obama is all that phased by any references to his race (or his actual religion). He's always seemed to welcome such comments, knowing full well they do more to empower him than undermine him.
Then again, maybe the made dash to label every complaint against him as racist has started to wear him down.
Speaking as someone who cares for an elderly person who is on Disability, and knowing that said elderly person would certainly be dead if some certain rightwing types had their way and took away her Social Security and Medicaid, please accept both of my middle fingers, which are extended towards you are far as they can go. If you think charities can handle the load that federal assistance programs do, then you are wrong to put it mildly.
I could go on, but why bother? If life has taught me one thing, I know that conserva-trolls like you cannot be reasoned with. I just hope that when the time comes for you to be in dire need of help, there are still programs in place to help you out, and they will be there because people like me helped protect them from people like you.
It is possible. The USSR managed to get a space program off the ground with those in power either denying science itself or at least the value in pursuing it. All they had to do was round up a few rocket scientists who could convince the government that the ICBM project would cost twenty or thirty times more than it would, and pour the excess into a space program. By the time it dawned on their superiors that there was no reason for an ICBM to enter orbit and most of those things they were launching probably weren't simulated warheads, they had accomplished enough to justify continuing.
Speaking for myself, I see no reason why evolution conflicts with my faith or vice versa. One does not threaten the other. Science is not, and should not be used as a philosophy or moral system, and religious texts do not teach us the table of elements or the workings of cellular biology. I do not expect one to serve the other's function; where truth is found, it is of God's creation.
As for climate change, I am deeply suspicious of the intrusion of politics into science. But that does not somehow translate into wanting dirty water and dirty air, etc. I subscribe to a much simpler, common-sense approach to the environment: being that regardless of whether or not we have altered the climate, it is just wise practice to clean up after ourselves (i.e. seek to minimize the contaminants that we put into the ecosystem, recycle more of our waste, and so forth), and to minimize our waste (again, recycling/reusing, and not using more energy, food, land, resources than we really need).
I do not want a hybrid or other high gas-mileage car for my next vehicle because someone whacked me over the head about climate change, which may or may not be caused by humanity. I want it because I see no reason to use more resources than I absolutely have to, and it is common sense to put fewer things into the atmosphere that the ecosystem was not designed to disperse in the quantities that we put them there. Frankly whether one of the effects is or isn't climate change I don't consider proven, but I KNOW there are plenty of proven bad effects from pollution to not need that as a motivation to be a good steward of the resources I am entrusted with.
I think we can implement such measures, develop cleaner technology, cut our resource consumption, and so forth, without a political football that comes with a lot of baggage like cap and trade.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Blame Obama. Seems everyone else does.
"OBAMA TURNED ME INTO A NEWT!"
Just how much debt would be acceptable to you to make it last a few years longer?
Heck, my father just had hip replacement surgery this year, and spinal fusion surgery less than two years ago. I don't openly question the spending in front of him, as that would be rude. But I still think it's bat**** crazy for the federal government to pay the kind of money it did for those surgeries.
In a world of finite resources, and rational person would tell you that such spending is misguided. Invest it into the next generation, rather than keeping the current eldest generation on life support a little longer.
No offense, and you have my sympathies; with how difficult what little I've dealt with has been, I can't even imagine what you go through.
Unfortunately, I can't possibly expect the same level of financial support for myself or anyone from my generation; by that time, it's likely debt servicing will be the number one expenditure, and I won't be thanking my parents' or grandparents' generations for that.
Best they "die off and decrease the surplus population", eh Ebeneezer?
Dude, there's obvious conserva-trolling and then there's just being an inhuman a-hole. Stop posting.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
The intent of my OP wasn't intended to be, but you can thank millimidget for goose-stepping in here and talking smack about starving millions of old people, which would include a close and dear relative of mine so of course I take his inhuman drivel personally. He could just be trolling but when it comes to the right wing, it's hard to be sure.
I'm pretty sure they still have no idea what they're talking about, or there would be no need for the infamous (and falsified) hockey-stick graph that graced An Inconvenient Truth. This has nothing to do with any religious viewpoint, and everything to do with the skepticism that should be inherent in any scientist.
The inconvenient truth is that solar/wind will never be sufficient sources of energy; they sound nice, but scaled up to global demand and the world would be equally plastered in solar panels and shrouded by wind turbines. To actually achieve such a transition, the environmental lobby would need to totally ignore the reality of the implementation of solar/wind on that scale, and the even more massive ecological disaster it would invite.
Perhaps equally inconvenient is that only nuclear has any chance of offering anything approaching the Star Trek vision of the future, but (American) left-wingers are even more scared of nuclear than oil.
The French, at least, have made amazing progress in making nuclear a safer source of energy, by developing methods to re-process spent nuclear fuel. And nuclear plant designs have come a tremendously long way from the design the Fukushima plant utilized.
Sadly, it's leftists who are easily blinded, by crony capitalism as heinous as the variety Tesla Motors engages in. Billions (tens of billions) in subsidies, to build feel-good cars for wealthy 1%ers.
And, ironically, they have no remorse for ignoring their own viewpoints when its inconvenient.
Just look at what the Kennedy's did when Massachusetts wanted to put a windfarm within view of their estate in Hyanis Port, because it was the ideal location for the wind turbines....they got it moved (probably to the poorest stretch of real estate along the Massachusetts cost).
I doubt it, but arguments should be. Mind you, if nothing else this thread belongs in Ten-Forward.