Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Cancel “Rice”
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #221
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 10:45 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:32 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This might be a good example of getting non-responses ("running away"). There are plenty of topics in which I have no insight (or interest in researching the topic/time to do so). The question of when cops should enforce the law or let suspects walk falls into that category. There simply isn't enough time to get educated on every topic that pops up here.

To be blunt 93, those last two sentences are diametrically opposed to your throwing out your 'truism about the Atlanta shooting' *and* your 'truism about systemic blahbitty blah'. And yes, when those broad based truisms are tossed out here, I would expect one to have to answer for them.

In fact your defense of the 'truism about Atlanta' was an article -- an article in which the explicitly largest component of the 'question' was 'why didnt the cops just drive him to his sister's place'. (and I hate to tell you, there are a lot of problems with that approach in that circumstance -- issues that the 5 inch analysis in the article seems blithely unaware of, or, just fails to note).

No offense, but the defense of 'I just dont read so much about it, nor do I wish to' isnt a really cogent response in support of already stated broad-based 'truisms'.

No offense 93, but when you yourself toss out such broad based truisms, then refuse to engage in discussion of cogent points of *your* trusim, how do *you* think that might reflect upon those truisms?

If you are saying "I (93) dont get irritated tossing out broad based truisms, but dont deem the time important enough to engage in any form of cogent discussion of those broad based truisms", just exactly *how* are we supposed to view that weird marriage of actions and inactions there?

It seemingly appears that you have the unabashed ability to toss out wide ranging statements of 'fact', and wow, you get *irritated* when you have to back them up. Mercy me. How dare that happen. And yes, the last two statements are churlish, but that is probably an accurate assessment of the combination of 'tossing out broad based and unsubstantiated truism' with the 'refusing to engage in any discussion except by being pulled by a yoke' has with some.

One other way to do this is, if it is so irritating and not worth your time to defend a broad based truism, why toss it out there at all?

The irritation to which I referred when it comes to being on this forum stems from dealing with certain behavior patterns, not from being asked to defend positions.

If those behavior patterns are mine, tell me what they are.

otherwise answer my questiions.

Your questions about tax policy? No thanks. The far left's position on taxes is not something I care to champion. We all effectively have two choices. Most of us disagree with certain aspects of the platforms of those for whom we vote. I'm not going to argue for the side of every single Democratic policy.

But you will vote for them. When the economy slows to a trickle, you guys can blame Trump, or COVID, but in any case not your own policies.

I am sure you feel similar to some Republican positions, such as fracking. The difference is I will be glad to defend fracking. Just ask.
06-29-2020 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #222
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 10:32 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Then I would say I'm not surprised. "Questionable" \= "absolute". How many times can I tell you that I don't personally find this shooting to be very problematic? I have heard/read more than one police officer describe this is a bad shooting. They know more than I do about this matter. That's why I said it was questionable.

If I was on the jury for this shooting, I'm pretty sure I would exonerate this cop based on the information that I have. Does that help?

I dont find much question in the Atlanta issue in the slightest. As noted, the only 'question' is based on 'should the cops have let him walk'.

The only thing I note is the counter-questions 'Why should the cops have let him walk? In what circumstances should cops 'overlook' the law'.

The only times that seems to be answered is 'in this instance' and *only* after a police fatality. In that regards that question has perfect hindsight record.

Turn it to the Floyd death. Not the 'after the arrest, resisting, and putting the knee on his neck'. One truism that keeps popping up is Floyd was arrested for passing phony bills. I have seen on more than one instance that the cops, in hindsight, should have simply let Floyd walk. Much like the question posed in the first article you posted.

Why, in either the Atlanta instance or the Floyd instance should it be a viable rationale to let either 'walk'? (as is ostensibly championed by not just a few.)

*That* is the biggest question in the Atlanta case for me, and, hate to say it, it really doesnt even rise to that in my view.

This might be a good example of getting non-responses ("running away"). There are plenty of topics in which I have no insight (or interest in researching the topic/time to do so). The question of when cops should enforce the law or let suspects walk falls into that category. There simply isn't enough time to get educated on every topic that pops up here.

To be blunt 93, those last two sentences are diametrically opposed to your throwing out your 'truism about the Atlanta shooting' *and* your 'truism about systemic blahbitty blah'. And yes, when those broad based truisms are tossed out here, I would expect one to have to answer for them.

In fact your defense of the 'truism about Atlanta' was an article -- an article in which the explicitly largest component of the 'question' was 'why didnt the cops just drive him to his sister's place'. (and I hate to tell you, there are a lot of problems with that approach in that circumstance -- issues that the 5 inch analysis in the article seems blithely unaware of, or, just fails to note).

No offense, but the defense of 'I just dont read so much about it, nor do I wish to' isnt a really cogent response in support of already stated broad-based 'truisms'.

No offense 93, but when you yourself toss out such broad based truisms, then refuse to engage in discussion of cogent points of *your* trusim, how do *you* think that might reflect upon those truisms?

If you are saying "I (93) dont get irritated tossing out broad based truisms, but dont deem the time important enough to engage in any form of cogent discussion of those broad based truisms", just exactly *how* are we supposed to view that weird marriage of actions and inactions there?

It seemingly appears that you have the unabashed ability to toss out wide ranging statements of 'fact', and wow, you get *irritated* when you have to back them up. Mercy me. How dare that happen. And yes, the last two statements are churlish, but that is probably an accurate assessment of the combination of 'tossing out broad based and unsubstantiated truism' with the 'refusing to engage in any discussion except by being pulled by a yoke' has with some.

One other way to do this is, if it is so irritating and not worth your time to defend a broad based truism, why toss it out there at all?

The irritation to which I referred when it comes to being on this forum stems from dealing with certain behavior patterns, not from being asked to defend positions.

Currently irritated that there is not a plug in this waiting room where I can recharge my sister’s phone, such a difficult task being beyond her capabilities.
06-29-2020 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,632
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 21
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #223
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:45 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:32 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To be blunt 93, those last two sentences are diametrically opposed to your throwing out your 'truism about the Atlanta shooting' *and* your 'truism about systemic blahbitty blah'. And yes, when those broad based truisms are tossed out here, I would expect one to have to answer for them.

In fact your defense of the 'truism about Atlanta' was an article -- an article in which the explicitly largest component of the 'question' was 'why didnt the cops just drive him to his sister's place'. (and I hate to tell you, there are a lot of problems with that approach in that circumstance -- issues that the 5 inch analysis in the article seems blithely unaware of, or, just fails to note).

No offense, but the defense of 'I just dont read so much about it, nor do I wish to' isnt a really cogent response in support of already stated broad-based 'truisms'.

No offense 93, but when you yourself toss out such broad based truisms, then refuse to engage in discussion of cogent points of *your* trusim, how do *you* think that might reflect upon those truisms?

If you are saying "I (93) dont get irritated tossing out broad based truisms, but dont deem the time important enough to engage in any form of cogent discussion of those broad based truisms", just exactly *how* are we supposed to view that weird marriage of actions and inactions there?

It seemingly appears that you have the unabashed ability to toss out wide ranging statements of 'fact', and wow, you get *irritated* when you have to back them up. Mercy me. How dare that happen. And yes, the last two statements are churlish, but that is probably an accurate assessment of the combination of 'tossing out broad based and unsubstantiated truism' with the 'refusing to engage in any discussion except by being pulled by a yoke' has with some.

One other way to do this is, if it is so irritating and not worth your time to defend a broad based truism, why toss it out there at all?

The irritation to which I referred when it comes to being on this forum stems from dealing with certain behavior patterns, not from being asked to defend positions.

If those behavior patterns are mine, tell me what they are.

otherwise answer my questiions.

Your questions about tax policy? No thanks. The far left's position on taxes is not something I care to champion. We all effectively have two choices. Most of us disagree with certain aspects of the platforms of those for whom we vote. I'm not going to argue for the side of every single Democratic policy.

But you will vote for them. When the economy slows to a trickle, you guys can blame Trump, or COVID, but in any case not your own policies.

I am sure you feel similar to some Republican positions, such as fracking. The difference is I will be glad to defend fracking. Just ask.

My guess is that you have some Republican positions that you agree with and some that you don't. Are you interested in defend those Republican positions with which you don't agree (or perhaps you don't care about)?
06-29-2020 01:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #224
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 11:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 09:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why don't the liberals on here post more often?

(proceeds to mock a liberal poster they're talking about and then paint a personal picture of liberals as being ignorant and short sighted, which they expect the liberal posters to defend/address)

Why do you guys always misunderstand my posts? I guess I will just have to go hide until you learn some manners.

I don't know... I kind of view this forum like I view Rice sports. I attend games when I find them worth carving out time for. When I get zero enjoyment out of them (the end of the WW era in BB for example) I don't go.

I don't think it's "hiding" per se... I think it's deciding where your priorities lie (and we all have different priorities). When I find myself feeling irritated from time spent here, I back off. I have plenty of irritation in my daily life and I find little reason add more unnecessarily. Sorry if that's not considered "brave".

We hear all sorts of excuses for disappearing, and I guess yours is as good or better than any.

I think all of us have plenty of irritation in our lives. If anybody here is posting from Nirvana, speak up.

I am irritated by my sister, and the local tax office, and the noise from the nearby construction, and people whose dogs run loose, and, and, and....


I am irritated by the negative impact of Democratic policies on my life and on the life of my family. Before Covid, I was enjoying the positive impacts on my life and the life of my family through Trump's economic policies. I would not want to give those up because he was rude to a journalist. It does irritate me greatly that the supporters of the left seem to either ignore or worse, support, those bad policies advocated for by the socialists. Now, THAT is truly irritating.

I don't think any of the leftists here support those socialistic policies, which would explain why they would rather ignore the questions. But it is frustrating to me that they support them indirectly, with their votes.

I feel the same way. It is frustrating to me that you guys support probable irreversible environmental catastrophes, indirectly, with your votes. That may hyperbole and I recognize that you guys aren't on the same page as me when it comes to climate change.

But climate change is one of my "show stoppers" (to use #'s term). I care much more about a candidate's approach to climate change than I do their tax platform.

To each their own.

Yep, to each their own, which takes back to my opinion that one reason we have so much acrimony is a difference in priorities.

I take exception to a lot of climate change policies, left and right, because I see most of them as about as effective as farting in a hurricane. Also, I am bothered by the lack of clear objectives. What do we want to get CO2 down to? Not 20% less, not 40% less, but to what measurable level in PPM? Never can get a lefty to commit to a goal on anything other than more of this or less of that. How the hell are we supposed to know when/if we have achieved success?

But on a personal level, I think we will see a global catastrophe based not on pollution or climate change in either direction, but based on overpopulation. It won’t happen for 2 or 3 more centuries, so I focus on me and my sons and grandsons, in the here and now, and that means preserving my capital to pass on to them, an action the left hates.
06-29-2020 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #225
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 01:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:45 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:32 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The irritation to which I referred when it comes to being on this forum stems from dealing with certain behavior patterns, not from being asked to defend positions.

If those behavior patterns are mine, tell me what they are.

otherwise answer my questiions.

Your questions about tax policy? No thanks. The far left's position on taxes is not something I care to champion. We all effectively have two choices. Most of us disagree with certain aspects of the platforms of those for whom we vote. I'm not going to argue for the side of every single Democratic policy.

But you will vote for them. When the economy slows to a trickle, you guys can blame Trump, or COVID, but in any case not your own policies.

I am sure you feel similar to some Republican positions, such as fracking. The difference is I will be glad to defend fracking. Just ask.

My guess is that you have some Republican positions that you agree with and some that you don't. Are you interested in defend those Republican positions with which you don't agree (or perhaps you don't care about)?


Tanq and Numbers and I have expressed disagreement with certain positions many times and the result was accusations that we were trying to deny our Trumpbotness.

But if you ask me about a position I disagree with, I will reply. I may not defend it but I won’t just leave you hanging.

So, any in particular?
06-29-2020 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,632
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 21
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #226
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 01:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 11:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why do you guys always misunderstand my posts? I guess I will just have to go hide until you learn some manners.

I don't know... I kind of view this forum like I view Rice sports. I attend games when I find them worth carving out time for. When I get zero enjoyment out of them (the end of the WW era in BB for example) I don't go.

I don't think it's "hiding" per se... I think it's deciding where your priorities lie (and we all have different priorities). When I find myself feeling irritated from time spent here, I back off. I have plenty of irritation in my daily life and I find little reason add more unnecessarily. Sorry if that's not considered "brave".

We hear all sorts of excuses for disappearing, and I guess yours is as good or better than any.

I think all of us have plenty of irritation in our lives. If anybody here is posting from Nirvana, speak up.

I am irritated by my sister, and the local tax office, and the noise from the nearby construction, and people whose dogs run loose, and, and, and....


I am irritated by the negative impact of Democratic policies on my life and on the life of my family. Before Covid, I was enjoying the positive impacts on my life and the life of my family through Trump's economic policies. I would not want to give those up because he was rude to a journalist. It does irritate me greatly that the supporters of the left seem to either ignore or worse, support, those bad policies advocated for by the socialists. Now, THAT is truly irritating.

I don't think any of the leftists here support those socialistic policies, which would explain why they would rather ignore the questions. But it is frustrating to me that they support them indirectly, with their votes.

I feel the same way. It is frustrating to me that you guys support probable irreversible environmental catastrophes, indirectly, with your votes. That may hyperbole and I recognize that you guys aren't on the same page as me when it comes to climate change.

But climate change is one of my "show stoppers" (to use #'s term). I care much more about a candidate's approach to climate change than I do their tax platform.

To each their own.

Yep, to each their own, which takes back to my opinion that one reason we have so much acrimony is a difference in priorities.

I take exception to a lot of climate change policies, left and right, because I see most of them as about as effective as farting in a hurricane. Also, I am bothered by the lack of clear objectives. What do we want to get CO2 down to? Not 20% less, not 40% less, but to what measurable level in PPM? Never can get a lefty to commit to a goal on anything other than more of this or less of that. How the hell are we supposed to know when/if we have achieved success?

But on a personal level, I think we will see a global catastrophe based not on pollution or climate change in either direction, but based on overpopulation. It won’t happen for 2 or 3 more centuries, so I focus on me and my sons and grandsons, in the here and now, and that means preserving my capital to pass on to them, an action the left hates.

I'm "the left" and I don't hate it.
06-29-2020 01:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #227
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 12:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you know who's NOT going to be a good steward? Somebody who thinks climate change (and the human contribution to it) is a hoax.

And that is argument by absurdity. I will grant you there are people who thing human based climate change is a 'hoax' -- most likely counted as hundredths of a percent of the US population.

But here you are saying 'wow, have to protect against THAT'.

The issue, which seems prevalent on the left, is to seemingly conflate *any* skeptic of any magnitude of the full force CATASTROPHE!!!! as such.

So why do you, being ostensibly a Rice-educated person, need to stoop to the bull**** rhetorical flourish?

Try this on for size for the scope of what I just noted: Do you know who's NOT going to be a good steward? Somebody who knows undoubtedly and without reservation that climate change (and the human contribution to it) is going to lead inexorably to a catastrophe.

Perhaps you dont realize what an irrational comment that was to Ham's comment, mind you. Or perhaps you do, and just dont give a flip.

So, please denote with particularity *any* national politician who states that "climate change (and the human contribution to it) is a hoax". I am interested to see your examples of such. I will grant you there are scores who are critics of the extent, but that isnt what you denoted in your rhetorical flourish above, is it.
06-29-2020 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,632
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 21
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #228
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 12:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you know who's NOT going to be a good steward? Somebody who thinks climate change (and the human contribution to it) is a hoax.

And that is argument by absurdity. I will grant you there are people who thing human based climate change is a 'hoax' -- most likely counted as hundredths of a percent of the US population.

But here you are saying 'wow, have to protect against THAT'.

The issue, which seems prevalent on the left, is to seemingly conflate *any* skeptic of any magnitude of the full force CATASTROPHE!!!! as such.

So why do you, being ostensibly a Rice-educated person, need to stoop to the bull**** rhetorical flourish?

To avoid these flourishes in the future, please expand on the "sum certain truism" that you accuse me of using in my response to OO earlier today. Exactly what was the truism of which I am accused?

Quote:Try this on for size for the scope of what I just noted: Do you know who's NOT going to be a good steward? Somebody who knows undoubtedly and without reservation that climate change (and the human contribution to it) is going to lead inexorably to a catastrophe.

Perhaps you dont realize what an irrational comment that was to Ham's comment, mind you. Or perhaps you do, and just dont give a flip.

So, please denote with particularity *any* national politician who states that "climate change (and the human contribution to it) is a hoax". I am interested to see your examples of such. I will grant you there are scores who are critics of the extent, but that isnt what you denoted in your rhetorical flourish above, is it.







To be fair, Trump has backtracked on some of these (or said that he was joking after getting called out on it).
06-29-2020 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #229
RE: Cancel “Rice”
Quote:To be fair, Trump has backtracked on some of these (or said that he was joking after getting called out on it).

Since you feel the need to snark off on the comment, perhaps you can point us to comments that have not been backtracked, or such?

Or perhaps to some that have been said by other than the "Great Cheet-o Whom Is Everything Bad To Some"?

Seriously, you brought it up as though 'a complete hoax' is prevalent mindset. Much like your comment about 'systemic blahbitty blah blah blah'.

I will undoubtedly grant you the Orange Hair is a far from perfect steward for a variety of items. But yet you feel compelled to tag what could be construed as 'anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your Biblical theism of utter catastrophe, no questions asked' as such heretical creatures.

Funny that.
06-29-2020 03:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,632
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 21
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #230
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
Quote:To be fair, Trump has backtracked on some of these (or said that he was joking after getting called out on it).

Since you feel the need to snark off on the comment, perhaps you can point us to comments that have not been backtracked, or such?

Snark? What in the world was snark in my comment?

Quote:Or perhaps to some that have been said by other than the "Great Cheet-o Whom Is Everything Bad To Some"?

Oh... so not this:

Quote:please denote with particularity *any* national politician who states that "climate change (and the human contribution to it) is a hoax

I'm sure there are more Republican politicians who have referred to global warming as a hoax. I'll get more names for you when I get a chance. Lamar Smith probably has.


Quote:Seriously, you brought it up as though 'a complete hoax' is prevalent mindset. Much like your comment about 'systemic blahbitty blah blah blah'.

I will undoubtedly grant you the Orange Hair is a far from perfect steward for a variety of items. But yet you feel compelled to tag what could be construed as 'anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your Biblical theism of utter catastrophe, no questions asked' as such heretical creatures.

Wrong. I just said there are politicians out there who consider global warming to be a hoax. I don't think they would be good stewards.
06-29-2020 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #231
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 01:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 11:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I don't know... I kind of view this forum like I view Rice sports. I attend games when I find them worth carving out time for. When I get zero enjoyment out of them (the end of the WW era in BB for example) I don't go.

I don't think it's "hiding" per se... I think it's deciding where your priorities lie (and we all have different priorities). When I find myself feeling irritated from time spent here, I back off. I have plenty of irritation in my daily life and I find little reason add more unnecessarily. Sorry if that's not considered "brave".

We hear all sorts of excuses for disappearing, and I guess yours is as good or better than any.

I think all of us have plenty of irritation in our lives. If anybody here is posting from Nirvana, speak up.

I am irritated by my sister, and the local tax office, and the noise from the nearby construction, and people whose dogs run loose, and, and, and....


I am irritated by the negative impact of Democratic policies on my life and on the life of my family. Before Covid, I was enjoying the positive impacts on my life and the life of my family through Trump's economic policies. I would not want to give those up because he was rude to a journalist. It does irritate me greatly that the supporters of the left seem to either ignore or worse, support, those bad policies advocated for by the socialists. Now, THAT is truly irritating.

I don't think any of the leftists here support those socialistic policies, which would explain why they would rather ignore the questions. But it is frustrating to me that they support them indirectly, with their votes.

I feel the same way. It is frustrating to me that you guys support probable irreversible environmental catastrophes, indirectly, with your votes. That may hyperbole and I recognize that you guys aren't on the same page as me when it comes to climate change.

But climate change is one of my "show stoppers" (to use #'s term). I care much more about a candidate's approach to climate change than I do their tax platform.

To each their own.

Yep, to each their own, which takes back to my opinion that one reason we have so much acrimony is a difference in priorities.

I take exception to a lot of climate change policies, left and right, because I see most of them as about as effective as farting in a hurricane. Also, I am bothered by the lack of clear objectives. What do we want to get CO2 down to? Not 20% less, not 40% less, but to what measurable level in PPM? Never can get a lefty to commit to a goal on anything other than more of this or less of that. How the hell are we supposed to know when/if we have achieved success?

But on a personal level, I think we will see a global catastrophe based not on pollution or climate change in either direction, but based on overpopulation. It won’t happen for 2 or 3 more centuries, so I focus on me and my sons and grandsons, in the here and now, and that means preserving my capital to pass on to them, an action the left hates.

I'm "the left" and I don't hate it.

No, you are a foot soldier for the left. I meant the movers and shakers in the Democratic party.

The people in Congress, for example, who propose higher taxers, and the people who then vote for them.
06-29-2020 04:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #232
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
Quote:To be fair, Trump has backtracked on some of these (or said that he was joking after getting called out on it).

Since you feel the need to snark off on the comment, perhaps you can point us to comments that have not been backtracked, or such?

Or perhaps to some that have been said by other than the "Great Cheet-o Whom Is Everything Bad To Some"?

Seriously, you brought it up as though 'a complete hoax' is prevalent mindset. Much like your comment about 'systemic blahbitty blah blah blah'.

I will undoubtedly grant you the Orange Hair is a far from perfect steward for a variety of items. But yet you feel compelled to tag what could be construed as 'anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your Biblical theism of utter catastrophe, no questions asked' as such heretical creatures.

Funny that.

Has James Inhofe changed his tune since the snowball days and since he published a book titled "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future"?

The Republican party for years (early to mid-2010s) was all about denying that climate change was real. Then, the rhetoric shifted to a more subtle, it is real, but we either don't know the contributions of man or we don't know if we can affect it, etc. And that subtle shift allows Republicans to at least avoid being outright deniers, but still not advocate for ANY legislation-based changes to address the issue.
06-29-2020 04:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,773
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 875
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #233
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 12:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you know who's NOT going to be a good steward? Somebody who thinks climate change (and the human contribution to it) is a hoax.

But I don't want to turn this into yet another climate change argument. I brought it up simply as an example of my personal priorities.

I think that's a ridiculous, like really beneath Rice people intelligence over-simplification of Trump's position on climate change. He does like to use insane hyperbolic and inflamatory language... but let's be real...

He made the comment in 2012 in response to 'global warming', which the left soon thereafter changed to 'climate change' because the data they were using to make predictions was proving to be so far off.... they couldn't justify 'global warming' anymore. Global warming at the time was very much about having the US pay other nations 'reparations'.... That part WAS BS.

There are numerous Republicans like me supportive of reasonable goals and actions to curb/limit/react to climate change.... but nobody from the left supports those. It's 'my way' or 'you're a science denier deplorable'.
06-29-2020 04:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #234
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 04:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 12:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you know who's NOT going to be a good steward? Somebody who thinks climate change (and the human contribution to it) is a hoax.

But I don't want to turn this into yet another climate change argument. I brought it up simply as an example of my personal priorities.

I think that's a ridiculous, like really beneath Rice people intelligence over-simplification of Trump's position on climate change. He does like to use insane hyperbolic and inflamatory language... but let's be real...

He made the comment in 2012 in response to 'global warming', which the left soon thereafter changed to 'climate change' because the data they were using to make predictions was proving to be so far off.... they couldn't justify 'global warming' anymore. Global warming at the time was very much about having the US pay other nations 'reparations'.... That part WAS BS.

There are numerous Republicans like me supportive of reasonable goals and actions to curb/limit/react to climate change.... but nobody from the left supports those. It's 'my way' or 'you're a science denier deplorable'.

Can you list the policy proposals that these Republicans support?
06-29-2020 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,632
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 21
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #235
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 04:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 12:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you know who's NOT going to be a good steward? Somebody who thinks climate change (and the human contribution to it) is a hoax.

But I don't want to turn this into yet another climate change argument. I brought it up simply as an example of my personal priorities.

I think that's a ridiculous, like really beneath Rice people intelligence over-simplification of Trump's position on climate change. He does like to use insane hyperbolic and inflamatory language... but let's be real...

I guess it's hard for me to get used to the notion that we're not supposed to listen to the words that come directly from the President of the United States because he is prone to using "insane, hyperbolic" language. It's so weird that that's where we're at right now.

*edit* BTW... the bolded is unnecessary IMO.
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2020 04:16 PM by Rice93.)
06-29-2020 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,773
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 875
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #236
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The Republican party for years (early to mid-2010s) was all about denying that climate change was real. Then, the rhetoric shifted to a more subtle, it is real, but we either don't know the contributions of man or we don't know if we can affect it, etc. And that subtle shift allows Republicans to at least avoid being outright deniers, but still not advocate for ANY legislation-based changes to address the issue.

Another ridiculous over-simplification of the position.

We had this conversation before... I showed you the facts and the legislation... you apparently forgot all about them.

FTR, in 2010, the argument was about 'global warming'... the rhetoric about which shifted to a more subtle, climate change.. etc and that subtle shift allows Democrats to at least avoid having their science quite literally not disprove their theories.

Yes, in general Republicans are about as interested in climate change as Democrats are in ACTUALLY 'taxing the rich'. I'm still waiting for the ACA's Cadillac Tax to kick in.
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2020 04:22 PM by Hambone10.)
06-29-2020 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #237
RE: Cancel “Rice”
I guess it is time for me to explain my thoughts on globalwarming/globalcooling/climate change for the 1,000th (est) time, since nobody was listening the first 999 (est) times.

Climate change is natural and normal. It has been going on for billions of years. Ask the Neanderthals. Ask the Woolly mammoths. Do the people quoting science have any scientists claiming that natural change ceased a couple of hundred years ago. at a time when the climate was perfect? No? Then why is it assumed?

Pick a number from 1-99. Then pick another.

The first is the contribution to climate change from humanity. The second is how much of that we can reverse.

So for any pair of numbers neither 0 or 100, all we can do is slow it down. Buy some time.

So let's say the numbers are 60% and 20%. We can reverse 12% of the change. Is that worth doing? maybe. Maybe not. That is a different debate. But one thing (I think) we can all agree on - slowing the heating of the Earth by 12% still leaves it getting hotter.

That is what I think is happening. 93 is committed to a program of change that cannot solve the problem, and by definition is not trying to. All it is trying to do is slow things down. There is no goal, no target. We have a runaway train and the goal is to slow it down 12%. Then it goes off the cliff.

For me, I don't think sacrificing the economic future of my kids and grandkids is warranted by a 12% reduction in the rate of going to hell.

Especially since I believe the real problem is overpopulation.

Sorry to be so pessimistic, but the longer my outlook, the less Optimistic I am. Sometimes it is a great comfort to me to realize I am close to, as the Brits say, extinction.

Do I want my great-great-grandkids to face a life without snow, or skiing, or cool nights? heck no, but if they must face it anyway, I want them to have the financial means to get airconditioning. If setting $100 bills on fire would help forestall that bleak future, I would be all for the bonfire. But it won't.

Anyway, that is my take. No hoax. Just an admission that it is neither all natural nor all manmade.
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2020 04:42 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
06-29-2020 04:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #238
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
Quote:To be fair, Trump has backtracked on some of these (or said that he was joking after getting called out on it).

Since you feel the need to snark off on the comment, perhaps you can point us to comments that have not been backtracked, or such?

Or perhaps to some that have been said by other than the "Great Cheet-o Whom Is Everything Bad To Some"?

Seriously, you brought it up as though 'a complete hoax' is prevalent mindset. Much like your comment about 'systemic blahbitty blah blah blah'.

I will undoubtedly grant you the Orange Hair is a far from perfect steward for a variety of items. But yet you feel compelled to tag what could be construed as 'anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your Biblical theism of utter catastrophe, no questions asked' as such heretical creatures.

Funny that.

Has James Inhofe changed his tune since the snowball days and since he published a book titled "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future"?

The Republican party for years (early to mid-2010s) was all about denying that climate change was real. Then, the rhetoric shifted to a more subtle, it is real, but we either don't know the contributions of man or we don't know if we can affect it, etc. And that subtle shift allows Republicans to at least avoid being outright deniers, but still not advocate for ANY legislation-based changes to address the issue.

Funny, if you had bothered to read Inhofe, you would have noted that he is mainly a skeptic of the scope of the AGW claims, not of its existence. And he is fierce proponent of actually weighing the effects of any AGW against the 'solutions'.

And yes, I have actually read the book. The book is a tome on such issues as the necessity of weighing the counter effects, questions on the scope of any change, a section dealing with the email scandal and the 'hide the effects' line, and the issues of scientists (like those in the email issue) who ostensibly place a political agenda in a co-equal stance with the pursuit of science.

Honestly, the book sucked. Lot of arm waving and lip flapping. Kind of reminds me of some places... Have you read it? What are *your* impressions of the book? Or, are you simply bootstrapping a title into an inference without ever bothering to read it? I will lay $200 ($100 to the Innocence Project, and $100 to the Tanq Beermaking Supplies Charitable Foundation) that the answer to the question is 'havent bothered to read it, I am simply flapping my arms.'

And funny, you fail to understand the 'nuance' of the title and immediately leap to the learned position that you do above. Good job.

As for your last two sentences, I guess your learned world cannot deal with the concept of 'gee, lets prove up the scope of it before we jump off a cliff'.' As opposed to your oh-so-cute distinction of, perhaps *any* skeptic, being one who "avoid[s] being outright deniers."

Seems like the heresy of being a skeptic is just as bad bad as being a 'denier'. Funny thing about theisms there, lad. Perhaps you might notice it in your own writings.

And, to be blunt, must of the outright 'it doesnt exist' types pretty much vanished by the turn into 2000. But I will excuse your timing consideration, because, quite bluntly I dont think you really followed the issue a score years ago to the level that you do now, in your mid 30's.

I suggest you get a refund on on that Climate Deniers in a Nutshell book you pulled most of the above from -- it really didnt help. Nor did it help when you did *precisely* what the Church of AGW promotes with the last part of your comment --- cannot be a denier, cannot be a skeptic. They are one and the same. Praise the Lord and Hallelujah!!!
06-29-2020 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,773
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 875
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #239
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 04:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Can you list the policy proposals that these Republicans support?

Already did it in the thread about iirc, Utah. You asked for it, I gave it to you... you found ways to ignore it and continue to make the debunked claim anyway.... and now you've completely forgotten about them. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... shame on me.
06-30-2020 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,773
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 875
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #240
RE: Cancel “Rice”
(06-29-2020 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Has James Inhofe changed his tune since the snowball days and since he published a book titled "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future"?

This only proves that you don't understand the complaint... or perhaps better said... it doesn't get you what you want so you dismiss it and argue in the absurd about it.

The 'hoax' part is not that man damages the eco-system and that we need to do better... The hoax is that 'government' actually cares about solving the problem.

This, from the Feb 21 2019 NY Times article on the green new deal:

After all, it has been trumpeted by its supporters as the way to avoid planetary destruction,
So the scope has been set... that we're talking about planetary destruction, or at least severe impingement on man's time on earth. This is why it's so important to you... because of the 'scope of the issue'.

The goal of the Green New Deal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change while also trying to fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice.

So here we have something that could potentially wipe out the planet (which of course would first impact those who lacked resources and certainly 'brown people' first) but 'saving the planet' isn't worth it if it means income inequality continues apparently. That's a big red flag to me. It essentially means either a) you don't have enough support even from the left to get them onboard if you don't add in some other people's priorities or b) you're not letting this 'crisis' go to waste.

While 'hoax' may be a bombastic comment, I'd say it roughly applies here. NOT that 'climate change' is a hoax, but that the 'reaction' supposedly to address it includes all sorts of other unrelated things. If we're even remotely saving the planet (or man's place on it) if that means that someone gets rich while we do it, then so be it. That's not the goal, but it's amazing how often letting someone make a profit on something leads to incredible innovation.

Do critics offer alternative proposals?
Some Republicans have called for a technology-oriented solution to climate change, but so far no critic has come out with an alternative that matches the scale or scope of the Green New Deal.


Which absolutely lays bare your belief that Republicans don't offer solutions. And this is from the Times.

It doesn't match the scope of the GND... well of course, because it likely wouldn't specifically involve addressing income inequality or racial injustice... scope

As for scale, the scale of the GND is undefined. I'd sure hope that other people's proposals would be defined. Maybe the reason the GND is undefined is because they know that if they said what it might really cost, that they'd lose some support?

I mean, everyone wants all the bells and whistles on their cars... right? Until they see the pricetag. Then many start saying... hey... the goal here is supposed to be transportation.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2020 10:28 AM by Hambone10.)
06-30-2020 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.