Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 177 of 610 FirstFirst ... 77127167175176177178179187227277 ... LastLast
Results 2,641 to 2,655 of 9139
  1. #2641
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46,290
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashBolt View Post
    I'm not the politician calling for a change with millions of supporters. I'm not the one who creates legislation. I'm not the one who writes a draft about changing the environment with 100% reduction of gas vehicles, fully environmentally friendly buildings, trains to replace airplanes as much as possible, and I'm not the one pushing for all of this in ten years. Ten years isn't a long time relatively speaking. I am seriously having difficulty on where you draw your analogies from. They aren't compatible. If she is in a position to debate legislation that affects billions of people on various degrees, she should be preaching what she says. And that doesn't mean she shouldn't take a gas vehicle or airplane when she needs to. It's the fact that she DIDN'T need to and still did. As for the border wall, let me just answer it even though it doesn't apply here: Because it's the responsibility of Congress (the people who are paid $200k) to work these issues out. It's not the responsibility of taxpayers to fulfill these issues and if so, we don't need the Congress to exist. This is just a poor argument.
    Again, how do you know she isn't preaching what she says? How do you know she hasn't reduced her carbon footprint from what it used to be? Your mad she's not doing it enough for your taste, or that she's not doing it in a way that satisfies you.

    And you don't get to hide behind not being a politician. If you actually cared about a border wall, you'd become a politician to enact change and build the wall. The fact you haven't shows you don't really actually care about building the wall and are therefore a hypocrite when you call for one to be built.

    Do more.

  2. #2642
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,535
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    He said the bill has more support than just AOC and gave an example.

    "The best part of all this whining is that there are many other supporters of the Green New Deal (as were there many other people of influence who questioned, even opposed Amazonís NY gambit) and yet youíd think that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is the entire thng."

    You laughed him off and I gave even more examples with actual data then you just ignored it as well. I have already shown multiple links with data on individual ideas/policies and shown the independent split (more against but it was like mid 30's to mid 40's for/against). Considering you are just talking democrats this is from the same IBD report as the independents support given:

    The numbers tell the story. Among Republicans, 77% said they'd be less likely to vote for a Green New Deal supporter. Just 3% said it would make them more likely to vote for the candidate. Meanwhile, 56% of Democrats said they'd be more likely to vote for a GND supporter, versus just 7% who said they wouldn't. Among independents, who now make up more than a third of the electorate, 41% said they would be less likely to vote for a Green New Deal candidate, versus 35% that said they'd be more likely.

    So again it has more support than just her, plenty within the party and even independents are a bit split but plenty say being for it makes them more likely to vote for a candidate just like it makes many more likely to be against one (partisan split aka dems do support, republicans don't). That doesn't mean this is something with overwhelming support by all that is going to pass, again he was just saying "there are so many other supporters of the new green deal and yet you'd think AOC is the entire thing". You just can't allow yourself to admit there are other supporters for some weird reason to keep attacking AOC, doing exactly what he is calling out lol. Harris, Booker, Warren, Gillibrand, and Sanders have signed on of presidential hopefuls from what I have seen as well.

    This is being backed by presidential candidates, with some mixed support from independents in polls, with support from dems in polls, with many individual policies or general ideas within having huge support and all that was really said is that it isn't just AOC and you laughed him off without reason and continually ignoring evidence provided.
    I didn't laugh him off without reason I provided a very key point that is - the republicans want to vote on it...

    You can continue to tell me how much support it has but as it stands the democrats don't want to vote on it. According to Feinstein's speech to 12 year olds they have their own green new deal. My guess is it probably doesn't shoehorn in every socialist agenda there is. Doesn't surprise me considering most dems aren't raging socialists (trigger warning).
    Bachelors III . . . In the Inn. . . Lanas Garage 4/18/75 . . . lpswitch with Snake, Hards and Mendy . . .B.D.W.B. . . Ambition: I want Dooleys Job . . . Saturday Night Live . . . Bathroom Brawls . . . Living at Snakes . . . WHERE IS MUSKY. - John Tortorella

  3. #2643
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,348
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    It's a tired, stupid argument. It's as inane as me saying "if you really cared about building a border wall how come you aren't down there right this moment building it yourself?"
    I donít know, I kind of enjoyed ranting and raving to people back in the day ó many of whom who were of age at the time ó who were all about invading Iraq, if you are so gung-ho about this war, how about you get your butt in gear to go over there.

    They never did. As one kid in the YAF said, ďWe have poor people to do that.Ē Got to hand it to him: he was not wrong. Didnít keep him from being a tool.

    As for Ocasio-Cortez, this kind of scrutiny is part of of the package.

    As for an individualís impact on the environment ó there is no free lunch (no solution) none of us is the solution. All of us is the best we will get.

  4. #2644
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    19,138
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Again, how do you know she isn't preaching what she says? How do you know she hasn't reduced her carbon footprint from what it used to be? Your mad she's not doing it enough for your taste, or that she's not doing it in a way that satisfies you.

    And you don't get to hide behind not being a politician. If you actually cared about a border wall, you'd become a politician to enact change and build the wall. The fact you haven't shows you don't really actually care about building the wall and are therefore a hypocrite when you call for one to be built.

    Do more.
    So let me get this straight: I pay taxdollars to the government to do their job and now you're suggesting I should go build a wall because I believe it can be more beneficial to our country? How do you figure this is even an appropriate analogy? How do I know? I don't have to know. She said that we should be the change but if she is using gas to travel, then she isn't being the change. Why do I have to know what she is doing when that is literally irrelevant here? She's the one saying we shouldn't do it but then she is doing it? Do you just defend her because you disagree (I know you dislike me) with me or are you genuinely trying to defend her? Okay, I don't get to hide behind a politician. You think there should be less guns, right? Can you please go seize guns from peoples homes without their permission, show me evidence of you doing it and I will be on a flight to Texas with some cement and a trowel by the following week.

    Do more.

  5. #2645
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46,290
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashBolt View Post
    So let me get this straight: I pay taxdollars to the government to do their job and now you're suggesting I should go build a wall because I believe it can be more beneficial to our country? How do you figure this is even an appropriate analogy? How do I know? I don't have to know. She said that we should be the change but if she is using gas to travel, then she isn't being the change. Why do I have to know what she is doing when that is literally irrelevant here? She's the one saying we shouldn't do it but then she is doing it? Do you just defend her because you disagree (I know you dislike me) with me or are you genuinely trying to defend her? Okay, I don't get to hide behind a politician. You think there should be less guns, right? Can you please go seize guns from peoples homes without their permission, show me evidence of you doing it and I will be on a flight to Texas with some cement and a trowel by the following week.

    Do more.
    This is my point. You're saying if she uses any gas at all to travel she's a hypocrite? It's laughable.

    And you accusing me of being a hypocrite for not going around seizing people's guns despite thinking we should have more gun control is exactly the point. Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of your "if you don't do X, you are a hypocrite for wanting change".

  6. #2646
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,348
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerbang View Post
    I didn't laugh him off without reason I provided a very key point that is - the republicans want to vote on it...
    The point I have made several times (which, characteristically, you havenít the integrity to admit ó not surprising by the way) is that you intentionally misconstrued what I said, and itís pretty clear that the reason you did so is because I was right. Simple and straightforward.

    Over and out.

  7. #2647
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    66,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    The point I have made several times (which, characteristically, you havenít the integrity to admit ó not surprising by the way) is that you intentionally misconstrued what I said, and itís pretty clear that the reason you did so is because I was right. Simple and straightforward.

    Over and out.
    Breaker breaker 1-9 there is a bear with ears on here [emoji2958]


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  8. #2648
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    The point I have made several times (which, characteristically, you havenít the integrity to admit ó not surprising by the way) is that you intentionally misconstrued what I said, and itís pretty clear that the reason you did so is because I was right. Simple and straightforward.

    Over and out.
    I didn't ignore squat. My first post was.

    Quote Originally Posted by fingerbang View Post
    Trump is ****ing insane but he's WAYYYY more realistic than Cortez and it ain't even close. A lot of people don't like his policies and that's to be expected but they're very reasonable compared to her bs.

    The Green New Deal is what a bunch of junior high students would mock up if you gave them 45 minutes, lol.
    Then you responded to my "whining" by boasting about the support by dropping Ed Marky's name.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    The best part of all this whining is that there are many other supporters of the Green New Deal (as were there many other people of influence who questioned, even opposed Amazonís NY gambit) and yet youíd think that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is the entire thng.

    Ever heard of Ed Markey?

    Check out the list of proponents at the bottom of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal
    So I pointed out the obvious - it ain't so popular if the dems aren't even in agreement not to mention every republican on the planet who would vote no on it.
    Bachelors III . . . In the Inn. . . Lanas Garage 4/18/75 . . . lpswitch with Snake, Hards and Mendy . . .B.D.W.B. . . Ambition: I want Dooleys Job . . . Saturday Night Live . . . Bathroom Brawls . . . Living at Snakes . . . WHERE IS MUSKY. - John Tortorella

  9. #2649
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hell on Earth- Missouri
    Posts
    19,268
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerbang View Post
    I didn't ignore squat. My first post was.



    Then you responded to my "whining" by boasting about the support by dropping Ed Marky's name.



    So I pointed out the obvious - it ain't so popular if the dems aren't even in agreement not to mention every republican on the planet who would vote no on it.
    Stop picking on the voluntary jobless people. He really likes that proposal to pay for those unwilling to work.

  10. #2650
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,535
    The best part is he responded to a post by me which called the plan stupid, I mentioned nothing about support of the deal. Crovash CHOSE to talk about that stuff. So I did, lol.

    Notice the dem socialists on the site are the least willing to talk about what's actually in the deal. Just defend defend defend.
    Bachelors III . . . In the Inn. . . Lanas Garage 4/18/75 . . . lpswitch with Snake, Hards and Mendy . . .B.D.W.B. . . Ambition: I want Dooleys Job . . . Saturday Night Live . . . Bathroom Brawls . . . Living at Snakes . . . WHERE IS MUSKY. - John Tortorella

  11. #2651
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hell on Earth- Missouri
    Posts
    19,268
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerbang View Post
    The best part is he responded to a post by me which called the plan stupid, I mentioned nothing about support of the deal. Crovash CHOSE to talk about that stuff. So I did, lol.

    Notice the dem socialists on the site are the least willing to talk about what's actually in the deal. Just defend defend defend.
    Yep. The deal is nothing more than promoting their party, but they can't state one good thing about the deal outside of 'climate change'. It's pretty funny.

    Gopher is the funniest. He supports this deal due to it's energy factor but can't seem to allow himself to pick apart the clear flaws in it.
    GJO- You will never be forgotten. "MORE THAN MINFINITY"!

  12. #2652
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,535
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo View Post
    Yep. The deal is nothing more than promoting their party, but they can't state one good thing about the deal outside of 'climate change'. It's pretty funny.

    Gopher is the funniest. He supports this deal due to it's energy factor but can't seem to allow himself to pick apart the clear flaws in it.
    I even pointed out that they wouldn't support the same energy proposal if it shoehorned in all conservative agenda points and they acted like I was wildly off topic. The Green New Deal is every socialist talking point crammed into an "energy" deal and if you point that out they get pissed. I can't tell if they're hellbent on duping people or they're that blind to see it.
    Bachelors III . . . In the Inn. . . Lanas Garage 4/18/75 . . . lpswitch with Snake, Hards and Mendy . . .B.D.W.B. . . Ambition: I want Dooleys Job . . . Saturday Night Live . . . Bathroom Brawls . . . Living at Snakes . . . WHERE IS MUSKY. - John Tortorella

  13. #2653
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    66,123
    Quote Originally Posted by fingerbang View Post
    The best part is he responded to a post by me which called the plan stupid, I mentioned nothing about support of the deal. Crovash CHOSE to talk about that stuff. So I did, lol.

    Notice the dem socialists on the site are the least willing to talk about what's actually in the deal. Just defend defend defend.
    I really donít see anyone really talking about what is in the deal. Seems like everyone had a judgement based in weather they see her as a teammate or not


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  14. #2654
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,535
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    I really donít see anyone really talking about what is in the deal. Seems like everyone had a judgement based in weather they see her as a teammate or not


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Well I have.

    -100% renewable in 10 years which is asinine
    -working with farmers to cure cow farts
    -government guaranteed housing
    -government guaranteed (good) job
    -government assistance for those unwilling to work
    -abolish ice (what does this have to do with energy)
    -free tuition (again)
    -pointing out that there's no actual plan in there besides a lofty goal and buzzwords like "invest in" or "work with"
    -some weird thing about our food
    Bachelors III . . . In the Inn. . . Lanas Garage 4/18/75 . . . lpswitch with Snake, Hards and Mendy . . .B.D.W.B. . . Ambition: I want Dooleys Job . . . Saturday Night Live . . . Bathroom Brawls . . . Living at Snakes . . . WHERE IS MUSKY. - John Tortorella

  15. #2655
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    19,138
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    This is my point. You're saying if she uses any gas at all to travel she's a hypocrite? It's laughable.

    And you accusing me of being a hypocrite for not going around seizing people's guns despite thinking we should have more gun control is exactly the point. Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of your "if you don't do X, you are a hypocrite for wanting change".
    I don't think you read correctly. I said she didn't "need" to take a plane over a train and she didn't need to take a car over a subway train. Need is different from want. She wanted to take a gas operated method and that is the problem. Did you not follow along or did you get lost somewhere in all of this?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •