Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

How about that hole in the ozone layer 80s kids were forced to fear?

I mean, the world took action via the Montreal Protocol in 1987 that banned the CFCs that were harming the ozone layer, and we're seeing the problem begin to subside. That's why the worst predictions didn't come true - the world got together and took action.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/ozone-layer-mend-thanks-chemical-ban

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Where's the flooding? Super storms? Extinct polar bears? Hell, where's the predicted temperature increases?

I mean, I'm enjoying the irony here my friend. I'm not a scientist (I just play one on TV!), but in the last year or two we had pretty salient examples all of the things you're asking about:

I'm not a fan of climate change hyperventilation, but it's much worse to dismiss the problem. What exactly is the downside of accelerating the switch to renewable, US-based energy sources that don't pollute as much? We still extract plenty of fossil fuels but there is clearly room for both. What is the downside to leading the world in clean technology? What is the downside to energy efficiency measures and reducing waste? I really don't understand why this issue is often argued from the standard left/right points of view...

It's like Pascal's Wager. The downside of getting it wrong (i.e. climate change is #fakenews and NBD) is huge, while the cost of taking action, even if you don't believe the data and experts, is much lower.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get in a car and drive 120mph down a country road at night, driving above the speed limit never killed anyone...

 

 

 

 

Much as it’s trees and blunt force trauma that cause the death in that scenario, similarly some may try and refute that carbon emissions are causing climate change.  Are we really so careless as to not mitigate a potential risk if we have the ability?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FlyArmy said:

Returning a salute is a lot different than bowing to a king. Bowing is a sign of submission and is not a military or US custom/courtesy. Returning a salute is a sign of mutual respect and is customary, especially for the CiC. Not returning a salute is a sign of disrespect. When on a historic foreign summit, why on earth would he disrespect a general of a country with whom he is trying to mend decades long strained relations? Trump returns salutes to a brand new E2. Sign of mutual respect...he's not showing submission to said E2. I haven't been to SERE in a while, but last I checked you are required by the geneva conventions to salute enemy officers who outrank you if you are a POW. But you aren't required to bow. Trump bows to no one. Apples and oranges. Of all people, I'd think a military member would understand the distinct difference between bowing and returning a salute. If he initiated the salute, that'd be one thing (still nothing like a bow). But he didn't.

So you think it's It is wholly appropriate for the commander in chief of our armed forces to salute the military of our adversary, especially one which is responsible for a regime of terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people? 

K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Snooter said:

Get in a car and drive 120mph down a country road at night, driving above the speed limit never killed anyone...

Much as it’s trees and blunt force trauma that cause the death in that scenario, similarly some may try and refute that carbon emissions are causing climate change.  Are we really so careless as to not mitigate a potential risk if we have the ability?

By your logic/scenario above, cars shouldn't be able to drive faster than 40 mph since people have died in car accidents driving faster than 40.  Or does "mitigating potential risk" not also work in your own given scenario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I mean, I'm enjoying the irony here my friend. I'm not a scientist (I just play one on TV!), but in the last year or two we had pretty salient examples all of the things you're asking about:
I'm not a fan of climate change hyperventilation, but it's much worse to dismiss the problem. What exactly is the downside of accelerating the switch to renewable, US-based energy sources that don't pollute as much? We still extract plenty of fossil fuels but there is clearly room for both. What is the downside to leading the world in clean technology? What is the downside to energy efficiency measures and reducing waste? I really don't understand why this issue is often argued from the standard left/right points of view...
It's like Pascal's Wager. The downside of getting it wrong (i.e. climate change is #fakenews and NBD) is huge, while the cost of taking action, even if you don't believe the data and experts, is much lower.


Right. So after what, a decade of practically no major hurricane activity during the period models predicted would be hardest hit, the first big storm is evidence of GW? This is the type of shit I'm talking about. Absolutely anything that counters the theory is ignored, or scientifically-explained away after the models were wrong, while any otherwise normal or slightly abnormal occurrences are proof.

https://www.thegwpf.org/as-polar-bear-numbers-increase-gwpf-calls-for-re-assessment-of-endangered-species-status/

The downside is that diverting resources to projects that fail to deliver the promised gains are keeping us from other projects more likely to deliver results that benefit humanity. It matters because there are many, many real threats to the environment that aren't getting the attention or money they deserve because some dipshits want to control the air. And it's astounding how little climate scientists talk about the biggest threat to global warming, the sun.

Much in the same way people complain about military spending or welfare, national wealth is not finite, but neither is it infinite. I'd rather clean the oceans, or protect the rain forests, or the white rhinos, than burn it on a theory with more gaping holes in it than BQZip's family reunion, and a bunch of artists, actors, and politicians as it's biggest proponents.
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

So you think it's It is wholly appropriate for the commander in chief of our armed forces to salute the military of our adversary, especially one which is responsible for a regime of terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people? 

K.

Funny how you conveniently left out the "returning" portion when discussing the salute.

But to go with your post above, do you also then think they should not have shaken hands/greeted each other?...since their regimee is "responsible for terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people"?  Also, just a few weeks ago you were praising how Obama dealt with Iran...who is also a sponsor of terror, murder, and unspeakable terror against its own people.  Too funny lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

So you think it's It is wholly appropriate for the commander in chief of our armed forces to salute the military of our adversary, especially one which is responsible for a regime of terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people? 

K.

Yes. 

Appropriate and to the letter of protocol. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

So you think it's It is wholly appropriate for the commander in chief of our armed forces to salute the military of our adversary, especially one which is responsible for a regime of terror, murder and unspeakable horror against its own people? 

K.

Both the AFI and army reg say to salute officers of friendly foreign nations (referring to when to render a salute to a foreign officer). While NK isn't exactly a "friendly nation," in this case, it was a friendly visit, meant to come to mutually agreeable terms and develop a path ahead for a peaceful relationship. Because it was a "friendly" meeting between two heads of state trying to forge a peaceful future, the NK general rendered a salute to Trump, out of respect/custom/courtesy. Returning a salute is a standard, respectful gesture. NOT returning a salute is disrespectful. Trump didn't go over there to disrespect NK. He went over there to get shit done in a peaceful and respectful way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FlyArmy said:

Both the AFI and army reg say to salute officers of friendly foreign nations (referring to when to render a salute to a foreign officer). While NK isn't exactly a "friendly nation," in this case, it was a friendly visit, meant to come to mutually agreeable terms and develop a path ahead for a peaceful relationship. Because it was a "friendly" meeting between two heads of state trying to forge a peaceful future, the NK general rendered a salute to Trump, out of respect/custom/courtesy. Returning a salute is a standard, respectful gesture. NOT returning a salute is disrespectful. Trump didn't go over there to disrespect NK. He went over there to get shit done in a peaceful and respectful way. 

I don't believe the President is beholden to AFIs or Army regs. He's a damn civilian.

 

Heads of State do not salute or return salutes from foreign military. 

1. General salutes then offers handshake.

2. HoS nods then accepts handshake.

 

Also, wtf do you think a bow is? It's a display of respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vertigo said:

I don't believe the President is beholden to AFIs or Army regs. He's a damn civilian.

 

Heads of State do not salute or return salutes from foreign military. 

1. General salutes then offers handshake.

2. HoS nods then accepts handshake.

 

Also, wtf do you think a bow is? It's a display of respect.

The president isn't beholden to shit. He can do whatever he wants. As the CiCs, it is their prerogative to make the choice whether or not to return salutes. But since Reagan, presidents have returned salutes from those who salute them, out of respect, since not returning a salute is typically thought of as a sign of disrespect.

A bow is a sign of submission and not a military custom or courtesy. Big difference. Furthermore, obama initiated a bow, he didn't do it as a response to being bowed to. He initiated a bow to a king who then just shook his hand. 

Do you seriously not see the difference here, or are you trying to push an agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

By your logic/scenario above, cars shouldn't be able to drive faster than 40 mph since people have died in car accidents driving faster than 40.  Or does "mitigating potential risk" not also work in your own given scenario?

Maybe I was obscure in my example. As it relates to global warming making the argument that science hasn’t proven human Co2 production (speed) is causing global warming (accident) there does seem to be a pretty substantial correlation.  Dial back the Co2 production (speed) and we may prevent or minimize the effects of global warming (accident).   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Snooter said:

Maybe I was obscure in my example. As it relates to global warming making the argument that science hasn’t proven human Co2 production (speed) is causing global warming (accident) there does seem to be a pretty substantial correlation.  Dial back the Co2 production (speed) and we may prevent or minimize the effects of global warming (accident).   

 

So you're for making the maximum speed limit 40mph to minimize the effects of an accident?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Snooter said:

I was trying to be humble, feigning understanding and asking leading questions to prove your point isn’t helpful. 

You're the one who said we need speed limits to mitigate the risks of an accident at higher speeds...so I would just like to know why you're not advocating for an even further reduction in allowable speeds to further mitigate the risks afte an accident?  Or is this no longer your argument?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a metaphor for climate change, the risk to the environment of continuing to output the amount of Co2 that we have been over the past century as opposed to the risk to the economy of maintaining those industries in their current state is significantly higher.  If you dial it back and go slower ie institute controls (your 40 mph speed limit) you may not prevent all the potential fatalities but you can prevent some if not most.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Snooter said:

It was a metaphor for climate change, the risk to the environment of continuing to output the amount of Co2 that we have been over the past century as opposed to the risk to the economy of maintaining those industries in their current state is significantly higher.  If you dial it back and go slower ie institute controls (your 40 mph speed limit) you may not prevent all the potential fatalities but you can prevent some if not most.  

Got it--you're for a maximum speed limit of 40mph.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HeloDude said:

Got it--you're for a maximum speed limit of 40mph.  

I bet you’re the life of the party...

 

Enjoy your drive, wish I wasn’t in the car with you...

Edited by Snooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Again, learn to make a better argument (one you actually can/want to defend), and you'll get a much better response.

At least I brought something other than snide remarks and pointed questions.   Hey quick, I think Hannity’s on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Snooter said:

At least I brought something other than snide remarks and pointed questions.   Hey quick, I think Hannity’s on!

No, you originally used an analogy that further reduction of X results in a correlated decrease in Y.  If this were the case anything that is perceived as "bad/harmful" should be eliminated...and this is a childish argument, at best.

If you want to argue that further government regulation with regards to energy production, etc is better for the environment, regardless of the negative impacts to the economy then I would just say that is purely an opinion of yours and not rooted in factual economic science.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...