OT: Violence is the Leftist' Tool

I do not agree with about half of your list. But am too lazy to rebut all I disagree with.

One I disagree with is cutting all funds for climate change. I think we ne ed to continue to research climate change. My reasoning is that understand ing climate is worth while. We certainly do not understand everything abou t climate.

What we should not do is fund alternate energy sources or come up with car bon taxes at this time. Maybe when we know more in about another 10 years. Mean while we could fund extinguishing underground coal fires. That woul d not cause problems in the economy and would reduce pollution. Sure it w ould not solve anything, but it would be something that the politicians cou ld vote for and they could claim they did something.

Dan

l I disagree with.

need to continue to research climate change. My reasoning is that understa nding climate is worth while. We certainly do not understand everything ab out climate.

arbon taxes at this time. Maybe when we know more in about another 10 year s. Mean while we could fund extinguishing underground coal fires. That wo uld not cause problems in the economy and would reduce pollution. Sure it would not solve anything, but it would be something that the politicians c ould vote for and they could claim they did something.

I think it's commendable you do want to fund climate research. But at what point do we know "enough"? And why not fund alternate energy? Fossil fue ls aren't infinite, and ignoring CO2 for a moment, cause other pollution.

Both the left and right can be violent, but traditionally there is a difference...

The left wants to demonstrate the "solidarity of the masses" (cough), so its large gang confronts rival large gangs in street battles in broad daylight.

The right has large very uneven "battles" (cough) down alleys in darkness. In the US I am told this can still lead to strange fruit growing on the (southern) poplar trees.

Which is less bad?

This is interesting. It compares extreme right and Islamic terrorism. The far right is responsible for about twice as many victims if 9/11 and OK city bombings are excluded.

ause problems in the economy and would reduce pollution. Sure it would not solve anything, but it would be something that the politicians could vote for and they could claim they did something.

h carb> >

at point do we know "enough"? And why not fund alternate energy? Fossil f uels aren't infinite, and ignoring CO2 for a moment, cause other pollution.

Know enough for what? To create government incentives? There is no need for government programs. They just distort the economics. When alternate e nergy is more economical than fossil fuels, there will be no need for gover nment programs. When alternate energy is not more economical than fossil f uels, the government is not big enough to do anything worthwhile.

Fossil fuels are not infinite, but there is still enough fossil fuels that oil is less than $50 a barrel. Back when I was in grade school, I think kn own oil reserves were less than twenty years. Now about 70 years later, I t hink oil reserves are over twenty years and coal reserves are still more th an 50 years. Natural gas is as cheap as it has ever been.

Dan

Have patience. There are giant incentives for development of alternate ene rgy already without government intervention. And the research will not hap pen faster with government incentives.

Putting out underground coal fires would reduce pollution.

Same here.

Jim's gone a bit too far this time...

For example, I see no difference in funding operations for those born blind and those born with errors in gender.

None of them asked to be born that way. A civilised society needs to take care of its own.

-- Kevin Aylward

Certainly... civilized... but I'd hardly rate Planned Parenthood as 'civilized. ...Jim Thompson

In most cases it will be more civilised than unplanned parenthood :(

Looks like we choose different evils.

sause problems in the economy and would reduce pollution. Sure it would n ot solve anything, but it would be something that the politicians could vot e for and they could claim they did something.

ith carb> > >

what point do we know "enough"? And why not fund alternate energy? Fossil fuels aren't infinite, and ignoring CO2 for a moment, cause other pollutio n.

d for government programs. They just distort the economics. When alternate energy is more economical than fossil fuels, there will be no need for gov ernment programs. When alternate energy is not more economical than fossil fuels, the government is not big enough to do anything worthwhile.

This rather ignores economies of scale. If you stick government seed money to a project for making solar cells in ten times the volume that anybody el se does, you have an excellent chance of being about to make solar cells th at you can sell at half the price - per kilowatt of generating capacity - t han anybody else.

Germany did it at the turn of the century and more or less monopolised the market - to their considerable economic benefit - for about a decade, when China pulled the same trick (which required a whole lot more capital invest ment).

Dan's grasp of economics is distinctly narrow and parochial.

t oil is less than $50 a barrel. Back when I was in grade school, I think known oil reserves were less than twenty years. Now about 70 years later, I think oil reserves are over twenty years and coal reserves are still more than 50 years. Natural gas is as cheap as it has ever been.

But the space in the atmosphere for dumping the CO2 that you generate when you burn oil, coal and natural gas, is now a whole lot more restricted.

Because nobody runs around billing the fossil-carbon-burning agents for the damage done by their CO2 emissions, simple-minded economists ignore this c ost.

Slightly smarter economists talk about "externalities".

Dan has a habit of snipping that bit of the argument from any post he wants to respond to. It makes it easier for him to construct a response he finds convincing, but it isn't clever.

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson hasn't got much of grasp of what might constitute civilisation.

Mike Pence - with his rabid fundamentalist hat on - shut down Planned Parenthood in his state.

They not only gave out birth control advice, but also ran a needle exchange program (which Pence didn't like either). Shutting them down produced a small, local HIV epidemic.

This does strike me as religious barbarism. Jim may differ - he does seem to be a barbarian.

That fool is doing the same thing, painting the whole left with the same br ush. The progressive left is in the process of condemning and shaming the a ntifa for their actions. The antifa are not a very cerebral bunch, the educ ational background level is low. Speaking of non-cerebral, the establishmen t DINOs are reinforcing the antifa actions, making them out to be victims.

There were few to none students among the counter protesters in C'ville. Th ey were all 30-somethings and not attending UVA. It looks to me like few to none have a university degree.

All of the above are off the table, not subject to negotiation. The funding will continue.

That infrastructure will be next. The establishment has been asked nicely t o keep it in the ground.

sause problems in the economy and would reduce pollution. Sure it would n ot solve anything, but it would be something that the politicians could vot e for and they could claim they did something.

ith carb> > >

what point do we know "enough"? And why not fund alternate energy? Fossil fuels aren't infinite, and ignoring CO2 for a moment, cause other pollutio n.

d for government programs. They just distort the economics. When alternate energy is more economical than fossil fuels, there will be no need for gov ernment programs. When alternate energy is not more economical than fossil fuels, the government is not big enough to do anything worthwhile.

t oil is less than $50 a barrel. Back when I was in grade school, I think known oil reserves were less than twenty years. Now about 70 years later, I think oil reserves are over twenty years and coal reserves are still more than 50 years. Natural gas is as cheap as it has ever been.

nergy already without government intervention. And the research will not h appen faster with government incentives.

We don't have the time left for your ideas. It's getting to the point where the government will be forced to nationalize the entire energy industry, s hut down ALL fossil fuel burning power generation, and embark on a program of emergency acceleration of conversion to 100% renewable energy production and storage. That won't take a year. Energy industry revenues, now the pro perty of the government, will be used to fund both universal healthcare and a program of universal basic income in perpetuum.

We don't have the time left for your ideas. It's getting to the point where the government will be forced to nationalize the entire energy industry, shut down ALL fossil fuel burning power generation, and embark on a program of emergency acceleration of conversion to 100% renewable energy production and storage. That won't take a year. Energy industry revenues, now the property of the government, will be used to fund both universal healthcare and a program of universal basic income in perpetuum.

You mean like Venezuela?

we

uld

uld

her

eed

te

e.

hat

r,

not

re

am

on

Venezuela was an oil economy. When the market took a dive, so did their cur rency. Since they depend on imports for most of their essential needs, as t hey always have even before their socialism, the price of everything became became unaffordable. Canada is another one whose currency fell about 35 pt s compared to the dollar. And they're semi-socialist.

y to a project for making solar cells in ten times the volume that anybody else does, you have an excellent chance of being about to make solar cells that you can sell at half the price - per kilowatt of generating capacity - than anybody else.

e market - to their considerable economic benefit - for about a decade, whe n China pulled the same trick (which required a whole lot more capital inve stment).

And if we tried to pull the same trick, it probably would require a whole l ot more money than the amount China required. In other words we would be foolish to try.

My grasp of economics is much better than yours. Remember I went to a bett er school than you and took a course in economics from a world renown econo mics professor. And applied that knowledge along with brains to amass a bu nch of money.

hat oil is less than $50 a barrel. Back when I was in grade school, I thin k known oil reserves were less than twenty years. Now about 70 years later, I think oil reserves are over twenty years and coal reserves are still mor e than 50 years. Natural gas is as cheap as it has ever been.

n you burn oil, coal and natural gas, is now a whole lot more restricted.

Please tell how the atmosphere is restricted.

he damage done by their CO2 emissions, simple-minded economists ignore this cost.

snipping that bit of the argument from any post he wants to respond to. It makes it easier for him to construct a response he finds convincing, but i t isn't clever.

I snip to save readers from reading again things that are not germane. I wish you would do that. I find myself reading several pages and finally ge tting to the two line comment you posted. You should snip a lot more than you do.

Economy of scale does not work well in the U.S. We tried that with some so lar panel company and the result was that the company went bankrupt. Just g oes to show that economies of scale is not guaranteed to work.

Economists may talk of externalities , but it is just talk.

Dan

You were fine up until the "foolish" statement. I don't know if it would be practical or not, that depends entirely on the numbers which you don't show.

Lol! The fact that you are here arguing about who has more brains shows me how little you truly have.

He is referring to the fact that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is causing accumulating effects that will ultimately do us much harm long before we exhaust our carbon reserves.

BTW, I'm pretty sure I've read that we have coal enough to last for 100's of years, not decades.

If you knew anything about the supply of energy you would know the benefits of fracking are responsible for the low price of natural gas, but just like the green revolution, it has a limited impact. As we continue to consume at increasing rates the supply of gas as well as oil will not only rise in cost, but will be limited.

A company fails so you conclude that business area is not subject to economies of scale? And you say you understand economics?

Lots of things people say is "just talk".

Err.. Why?

As I noted in another post:

The reality is, up to at least 3 months, until any semblance of a brain is constructed, a foetus is just an amorphous blob of biological tissue.

If something has *never* been conscious, it matters as much as a carrot. End of story.

People just confuse "life" with "consciousness".

So, certainly no ethical problem in "Planned Parenthood". It solves real problems that do matter.

-- Kevin Aylward

You obviously don't follow the behavior of Planned Parenthood... they're fond of killing feti in the most expeditious way... so they can sell to experimenters.

As I've opined before, I have no problem with abortion itself... I just object to being taxed to pay for it... let the Democrats pay for it... it's their 'secret' method to keep Blacks under their welfare thumb (*).

(*) Repeating myself... since no one listens... Planned Parenthood was formed by Margaret Sanger to keep the Black population down... look it up. ...Jim Thompson

Snort.

"Power is like being a lady... if you have to tell people you are, you aren't." Margaret Thatcher

ISTR James Cagney saying something similar a few decades earlier.