Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bornontheblue

Kristen Sinema is a blessing to our country and should be cherished

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Maji said:

Social Democracy isn't necessarily socialist. Many early leaders of social democracy were reformist socialists, and some social Democrats identify as socialist, but not all of them do.

Also, as is commonly the case with labels, I don't fit perfectly under any one category. I use Social Democracy because it's probably closest to what I am

https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/social-democracy-socialism

Social democracy is the strand of socialism closest to the centre of the political spectrum. 

 

Just ignore that they spelled center wrong.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/social-democracy-socialism

Social democracy is the strand of socialism closest to the centre of the political spectrum. 

 

Just ignore that they spelled center wrong.....

I'm telling you, if you looked around you'd find tons of different definitions. It's still debated somewhat. In today's environment, many self-labeled SocDems are not outright socialist (and also don't identify as such). The opposite is also true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

They are not outperforming NASA.  NASA messed up deciding to go with the Shuttle program instead of exploring other worlds.  But they are back on the right track now.  Let me know When Space X lands on foreign moons like NASA has recently, or flies a helicopter on Mars.  NASA realizes it is cheaper to contract payload delivery to the ISS out than to start a new program to do that and is more research focused.
 

NASA is the best spent federal money dollar for dollar 

Bullshit. NASA is wasted taxpayer dollars and the commercial spaceflight industry is exposing that very fact 

NASA now is forced, FORCED to concede that the free market can provide at a huge discount what state-sponsored programs pretend to be economical at providing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CV147 said:

Bullshit. NASA is wasted taxpayer dollars and the commercial spaceflight industry is exposing that very fact 

NASA now is forced, FORCED to concede that the free market can provide at a huge discount what state-sponsored programs pretend to be economical at providing.

I think you're reading a bit too much in to this lol

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CV147 said:

Bullshit. NASA is wasted taxpayer dollars and the commercial spaceflight industry is exposing that very fact 

NASA now is forced, FORCED to concede that the free market can provide at a huge discount what state-sponsored programs pretend to be economical at providing.

 

You are clueless.  No offense.  NASA has a completely different mission than payload delivery to the ISS or creating an internet service, which is all Space X does.
 

The commercial spaceflight industry cares little for the scientific research NASA performs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maji said:

I'm telling you, if you looked around you'd find tons of different definitions. It's still debated somewhat. In today's environment, many self-labeled SocDems are not socialist (and also don't identify as such)

If I don't identify as an asshole, it doesn't make me not one.  I'm not saying this in the normal negative of socialism are evil communists kind of thing, but Social Dems still fall into the category of socialists based on the various economic markers that define socialism, no matter what they identify as.  

But we are probably not going to agree which is ok. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, happycamper said:

This is completely inaccurate born. Like wildly inaccurate. We're seeing mass loss of biomass, loss of bio diversity, increasing carbonization of the oceans. 

It isn't in search of a problem. I mean FFS Exxon predicted our current issues in the '70s and '80s. You are burying your head in the sand; we cleaned up surface level stuff but we are still seeing extraordinarily damaging levels of pollution. 

No, it was way worse just 50 years ago. They used to inject nuclear waste directly into the Snake  River aquifer from the INEEL  back in the 50s and 60s. before the EPA put a stop to it. That same aquifer that supplies drinking water and irrigation water all across southern. Idaho. Talk to people who lived in the rust belt  industrial centers in the 50s and 60s . The air was filled with a black nasty smog filled with mercury. The air is way cleaner than it used to be in major populated areas. They used to clear cut forests to just a mountainside of stumps. The typical family car spewed out 100 x more particulates in the 50s abs 60s including lead, than the typical modern vehicle of the last 25 years. I’m not saying we have a pristine environment now, but we have come a long way. 
 

We are beginning to make   headway on carbon pollution without massive government intervention, but we have a long way to go Consumers are beginning to prefer electric vehicles. Many electricity suppliers like Idaho Power have committed and made great progress to clean energy without massive gov mandates. I believe climate change is real, that it will have negative consequences, but I dont buy into the hysteria that human civilization will come to an end in the next 10 to 15 years because of it. Politicians love talking about climate change too because if you scare the shit out of people they will be more likely to let you pass legislation that you normally wouldn’t let them pass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, happycamper said:

meh. libertarians tend to get extremely myopic about only government control. part of why I stopped taking it seriously. 

 

he isn't very far left lol

i'm pretty milquetoast i just have very strong opinions on a couple arenas.  

 

11 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

It wouldn’t be if it was presented that way and included heavy investment in nuclear power. 

bro i +++++ing wish nuclear power investment was a thing but neither side gives a rat's ass and it's been permanently memoryholed.  Nuclear, offshore wind farms like the biden admin has taken tentative steps towards (the oil industry has already begun screeching at this intrusion upon their sacred right to +++++ up and spill oil every few years), the EV charging station funding that got almost completely stripped out of the bipartisan bill...there's a lot that could be done and it's (largely) only one team balking.

 

24 minutes ago, happycamper said:

This is completely inaccurate born. Like wildly inaccurate. We're seeing mass loss of biomass, loss of bio diversity, increasing carbonization of the oceans. 

It isn't in search of a problem. I mean FFS Exxon predicted our current issues in the '70s and '80s. You are burying your head in the sand; we cleaned up surface level stuff but we are still seeing extraordinarily damaging levels of pollution. 

i really don't want to be alive when the ocean ph buffer finally pops. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Maji said:

NASA is great, and iirc studies show there's a huge societal return for the money spent

Space X will never go to Mars unless they can make money doing so and if/when they send a spacecraft there, NASA will have drilled into the icecaps of Europa and Enceladus in an attempt to add another piece to the puzzle of the human condition and our place in the universe.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

If I don't identify as an asshole, it doesn't make me not one.  I'm not saying this in the normal negative of socialism are evil communists kind of thing, but Social Dems still fall into the category of socialists based on the various economic markers that define socialism, no matter what they identify as.  

You can easily find definitions online defining it as a non-socialist, reformist project. It was a reformist socialist project at first, but it is now used and defined differently in some cases. Here in the US, it's become somewhat of a useless term because it means different things to different people.

In any case, we're talking about my political stances here, so whether social democracy should be viewed as socialist or not doesn't particularly matter. If I view myself as a SocDem, but I'm not comfortable with labeling myself as a socialist, then I guess you should just consider me a fraud for using the SocDem label

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

No, it was way worse just 50 years ago. They used to inject nuclear waste directly into the Snake  River aquifer from the INEEL  back in the 50s and 60s. before the EPA put a stop to it. That same aquifer that supplies drinking water and irrigation water all across southern. Idaho. Talk to people who lived in the rust belt  industrial centers in the 50s and 60s . The air was filled with a black nasty smog filled with mercury. The air is way cleaner than it used to be in major populated areas. They used to clear cut forests to just a mountainside of stumps. The typical family car spewed out 100 x more particulates in the 50s abs 60s including lead, than the typical modern vehicle of the last 25 years. I’m not saying we have a pristine environment now, but we have come a long way. 
 

We are beginning to make   headway on carbon pollution without massive government intervention, but we have a long way to go Consumers are beginning to prefer electric vehicles. Many electricity suppliers like Idaho Power have committed and made great progress to clean energy without massive gov mandates. I believe climate change is real, that it will have negative consequences, but I dont buy into the hysteria that human civilization will come to an end in the next 10 to 15 years because of it. Politicians love talking about climate change too because if you scare the shit out of people they will be more likely to let you pass legislation that you normally wouldn’t let them pass. 

None of this is even an argument dude.

We're experiencing a biological catastrophe that we weren't seeing 50 years ago. That is simply a fact. I mean... civilization essentially ended in Syria because of a single poor harvest. That can easily happen to your family. Easily. 

The idea that pollution isn't a major issue is, frankly, insane my guy. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bornontheblue said:

Read up on the living conditions fir the typical human in the early to mid industrial revolution.  We are WAY better off than we used to be 

Dude, no we are not.  8 million metric tons of plastic gets dumped into the ocean every year.  Air quality is worsening for half of the global population.  The amount of plastics and trash in Americas river systems and wild lands has never, ever been higher.  The carbon stored in the Oceans is at the highest point in the history of human civilization and getting higher every year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maji said:

You can easily find definitions online defining it as a non-socialist, reformist project. It was a reformist socialist project at first, but it is now used and defined differently in some cases. Here in the US, it's become somewhat of a useless term because it means different things to different people.

In any case, we're talking about my political stances here, so whether social democracy should be viewed as socialist or not doesn't particularly matter. If I view myself as a SocDem, but I'm not comfortable with labeling myself as a socialist, then I guess you should just consider me a fraud for using the SocDem label

 

It's useless because the maniancs defining people think that Eisenhower was a communist lol

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, happycamper said:

None of this is even an argument dude.

We're experiencing a biological catastrophe that we weren't seeing 50 years ago. That is simply a fact. I mean... civilization essentially ended in Syria because of a single poor harvest. That can easily happen to your family. Easily. 

The idea that pollution isn't a major issue is, frankly, insane my guy. 

I’m just saying the  living conditions and the environment and it’s impact on the typical human is light years ahead of where it was 125 years ago, and substantially ahead of where it was 60 years ago. That is not an argument, that is a fact. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

I’m just saying the  living conditions and the environment and it’s impact on the typical human is light years ahead of where it was 125 years ago, and substantially ahead of where it was 60 years ago. That is not an argument, that is a fact. 
 

I'm not disagreeing with that. However the danger that our current pollution levels are creating is much higher than it was 50 or 60 years ago for civilization. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...