Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-30-2019, 04:09 PM
flips333

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Wow?

Where am I wrong?

ha ha ha ha ha ha...

Ya'll complain about career politicians... then complain when someone with a working stiff job wins an election. You don't know if you are coming or going.
03-30-2019, 04:12 PM
flips333

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

AOC telling farmers how they should feed cows. :shrug:

Methane is a greenhouse gas. Agriculture accounts for 10% of greenhouse gasses.. So yes we probably should tell them what to feed their animals... While we are at it we should probably stop them from using antibiotics so much too.
03-30-2019, 04:16 PM
flips333

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Did you miss the line that said "everyone on an equal basis" or the one that said "few Deferments. Even most medical deferments could do a desk job."?

I thought this was the age of inclusion of everyone. We've made every possible accommodation for the handicapped. Outside of wheelchair bound people and some with a serious mental condition, there are hundreds of jobs in the military the physically impaired soldiers could do. Believe me, fat guys could do a desk jib on the DMZ. People with bone spurs would make great company clerks.

Your first sentence reads…Drafts are a good way for more poor people to go to war.

Consider…drafts are a great way for more poor people to learn a marketable skill. Also a phenomenal way to straighten out a lot of young people that need straightening out (trust me on this one). Also a great way to build up credits to free education after you get out (trust me on this one too.) When you see so many guys just "hangin' out chillin" and doing nothing, a draft doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

It's a good way to die.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...article/217388

Quote:

All-cause mortality was 7% higher in Vietnam vs non-Vietnam veterans during 30-year follow-up (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.18).

I can't wait for your generation to die.
03-30-2019, 04:26 PM
nastynice

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

She's a bartender that couldn't get a job in her educated field of economics and struck it rich by rallying the underclass in her area.

Not really sure what she has accomplished.

Maybe that's a good thing tho. All the headlines about her are crazy, but if you actually just listen to what she's saying it seems like she has her priorities right, and in our collective best interest. That's a lot more than I can say about majority of politicians.

But I'm starting to see how being a bartender or something like that is actually good to have in politics, it adds a very reasonable voice a very unreasonable system. Tho it was a swing and a miss, I'm starting to see why you guys wanted an idiot like trump in office.
03-30-2019, 04:54 PM
Crovash

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

They don't whine and cry!!!!!!

Is the sound off on out tv???????

They won elections. Not a bad accomplishment. I fully admit I couldn't do it. But as of yet , that's all they've accomplished. Not a bad start but not worthy of all the publicity and magazine covers.

Re-read my post.

I know that sentence structure, much less nuance, can be a challenge, but I said the Congresswomen in question don’t do it the way the right-wing tweeter does it — that is, he whines and cries without putting his beliefs to the test (like running for, much less getting elected to, the US Congress — a significant accomplishment by most standards).

The Congresswomen may whine and cry (your opinion) but, if so, they do it having put their beliefs to the test in legitimate elections.

It’s America, a great country, and as a citizen, he gets a voice. They not only get a voice, they earn it every day by virtue of their active and at times risky commitment to the governance of the country.
03-30-2019, 07:25 PM
Scoots

Quote:

Originally Posted by flips333

Methane is a greenhouse gas. Agriculture accounts for 10% of greenhouse gasses.. So yes we probably should tell them what to feed their animals... While we are at it we should probably stop them from using antibiotics so much too.

Last time I looked into a study on it (admittedly it was several years ago) if we went vegetarian planetwide we'd have to kill off a bunch of people to keep them from starving to death. And most of the more environmentally more friendly agriculture processes are FAR more expensive which means much of the world can't afford them and it would lead to even more of the small farmers being bought out by the corporate farmers who have better lawyers and lobbyists so they get to write the rules rather than break them.

It's just more of that no simple answer BS.
03-30-2019, 07:28 PM
Scoots

Quote:

Originally Posted by flips333

It's a good way to die.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...article/217388

I can't wait for your generation to die.

How do you know which generation that is?
03-30-2019, 07:33 PM
flips333

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoots

Last time I looked into a study on it (admittedly it was several years ago) if we went vegetarian planetwide we'd have to kill off a bunch of people to keep them from starving to death. And most of the more environmentally more friendly agriculture processes are FAR more expensive which means much of the world can't afford them and it would lead to even more of the small farmers being bought out by the corporate farmers who have better lawyers and lobbyists so they get to write the rules rather than break them.

It's just more of that no simple answer BS.

That makes no sense. Ive always been told the amount of land and food it takes to feed a cow could feed way more if it was crops. You got a link that isn't from the cattle industry?

I admittedly know very little on this topic. I am guessing you likewise are in the dark. Often times solutions that are expensive become less expensive when we have to mass produce things. (again I know very little) But agriculture has to be part of the discussion.
03-30-2019, 07:34 PM
flips333

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoots

How do you know which generation that is?

Educated guess.
03-31-2019, 09:37 AM
ewing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

She's a bartender that couldn't get a job in her educated field of economics and struck it rich by rallying the underclass in her area.

Not really sure what she has accomplished.

Do you honestly think the fact that she worked a real job in her life is an insult?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
03-31-2019, 09:38 AM
ewing

Quote:

Originally Posted by flips333

There is... less death.

https://www.jsad.com/doi/abs/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.206

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20497803

I would be for drinking age to be lowered to 18 if all cars being driven by someone under 21 had a breathalyzer starter.

Jesus

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
03-31-2019, 10:32 AM
DeW-Star

Quote:

Originally Posted by flips333

There is... less death.

https://www.jsad.com/doi/abs/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.206

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20497803

I would be for drinking age to be lowered to 18 if all cars being driven by someone under 21 had a breathalyzer starter.

I could only read the abstracts but I don't think those studies tell us too much in particular.

The first simply states that there are more driving accidents with a lower drinking age. I think we know that to be the case in general. So why are we extending the drinking age prohibition to 21 and not just going back to prohibition in general?

The second study appears to not only fail to adjust for time periods (based on the abstract, which is all I can sse, but also has a draws what I see to be a faulty conclusion:

Among fatally injured drivers ages 16-20, the percentage with positive BACs declined from 61% in 1982 to 31% in 1995, a bigger decline than for older age groups; declines occurred among the ages directly affected by raising MLDAs (ages 18-20) and among young teenagers not directly affected (ages 16-17). Almost all studies designed specifically to gauge the effects of drinking age changes show MLDAs of 21 reduce drinking, problematic drinking, drinking and driving, and alcohol-related crashes among young people. Yet many underage people still drink, many drink and drive, and alcohol remains an important risk factor in serious crashes of young drivers, especially as they progress through the teenage years. Stepped-up enforcement of MLDA and drinking and driving laws can reduce underage drinking. Recent efforts to lower MLDAs to 18 and issue licenses to drink upon completion of alcohol education have gained local and national media attention. There is no evidence that alcohol education can even partially replace the effect of MLDA-21.

I find the last sentence to be hugely flawed, given how we know smoking use has been abated with successful targeted campaigns. It's odd how they just dismiss this.

And I think we also need to take into account we are in a new era with ride sharing companies gaining mass traction as well. That definitely should help to reduce drunk driving in general.

I think we are just targeting 18 - 21 for no reason. Of course prohibition would decrease drunk driving, but there appears to be no justification for enforcing it on 18 - 21 year olds. It's wildly inconsistent with how we dole out freedoms, since we use 18 as our benchmark for general adulthood.

Also I'd be fine with having those breathalyzers in there for all cars. Really, I think in the next decade, there should be no real reasons for humans to be driving in general. We will be able to save a ton of lives, and I'd venture quite a bit of money as well.
03-31-2019, 10:37 AM
SpecialFNK

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlakeyFool

Drafts are a good way for more poor people to go to war. Rich daddys like fred trump will get some hack of a doctor to write a doctors note saying his buffoon of a son has bone spurs

I've never understood anyone supporting the draft. why would anyone support drafting people to go to war when they don't want to go to war. not wanting to be there would not only be harmful/dangerous to them personally but anyone they would be around. if someone in the trenches and did't want to be there how could anyone trust that person and count on them in the fighting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nastynice

Good video. She has the right mentality. I find it odd that someone would oppose this.

I find this comical. how would AOC know about farming and what farmers should be feeding cows. I would be surprised if AOC had ever been on a farm before or know even the basics about farming.
this is someone who said that people should just eat less hamburgers. is she really stupid enough to think that this is the only meat that comes from cows. that doesn't even include dairy cows for milk.

AOC is like a stupid valley girl that like doesn't know like what she is talking about okay.

I don't know who this is but it made me laugh.
03-31-2019, 10:54 AM
flips333

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeW-Star

I could only read the abstracts but I don't think those studies tell us too much in particular.

The first simply states that there are more driving accidents with a lower drinking age. I think we know that to be the case in general. So why are we extending the drinking age prohibition to 21 and not just going back to prohibition in general?

The second study appears to not only fail to adjust for time periods (based on the abstract, which is all I can sse, but also has a draws what I see to be a faulty conclusion:

Among fatally injured drivers ages 16-20, the percentage with positive BACs declined from 61% in 1982 to 31% in 1995, a bigger decline than for older age groups; declines occurred among the ages directly affected by raising MLDAs (ages 18-20) and among young teenagers not directly affected (ages 16-17). Almost all studies designed specifically to gauge the effects of drinking age changes show MLDAs of 21 reduce drinking, problematic drinking, drinking and driving, and alcohol-related crashes among young people. Yet many underage people still drink, many drink and drive, and alcohol remains an important risk factor in serious crashes of young drivers, especially as they progress through the teenage years. Stepped-up enforcement of MLDA and drinking and driving laws can reduce underage drinking. Recent efforts to lower MLDAs to 18 and issue licenses to drink upon completion of alcohol education have gained local and national media attention. There is no evidence that alcohol education can even partially replace the effect of MLDA-21.

I find the last sentence to be hugely flawed, given how we know smoking use has been abated with successful targeted campaigns. It's odd how they just dismiss this.

And I think we also need to take into account we are in a new era with ride sharing companies gaining mass traction as well. That definitely should help to reduce drunk driving in general.

I think we are just targeting 18 - 21 for no reason. Of course prohibition would decrease drunk driving, but there appears to be no justification for enforcing it on 18 - 21 year olds. It's wildly inconsistent with how we dole out freedoms, since we use 18 as our benchmark for general adulthood.

Also I'd be fine with having those breathalyzers in there for all cars. Really, I think in the next decade, there should be no real reasons for humans to be driving in general. We will be able to save a ton of lives, and I'd venture quite a bit of money as well.

I could literally post 30 of those articles examining the impact of increasing the age to 21... you can go through and try to argue each one... science is flawed... but what is much harder is arguing all of them as often the strengths of one deal the with a weakness of the others. Replication is the heartbeat of knowledge.

You can also include all the developmental neuroscience that shows that 18 year olds have not developed their inhibitory control mechanism. To be fair it's not done till 25, but at 21 it's alot further along that 18.

If you have spent any amount of time around 18-22 year olds you will be able to tell a vast difference in maturity.

I don't feel a need to convince you... I just saw your statement of "no reason" as hyperbolic.
03-31-2019, 10:57 AM
flips333

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewing

Jesus

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

first thing I thought was:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPMKlEwrIs8

But seriously I am curious as to what about that got a Jesus.... shocked by the numbers...? how annoying I am with my science postings...? think people should just be able to drink...? Don't leave me hanging.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page