Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 "World Coming to an End!!!! Women and Minorities Hardest Hit!!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 23 minutes ago, Gavin in Va Beach said: "World Coming to an End!!!! Women and Minorities Hardest Hit!!!!!" how many days since 12 YEARS TO DOOM was declared by AOC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Looks like our soft racist has issues differentiating causation and correlation? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Boy, this thread went off the rails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 10 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Boy, this thread went off the rails. Dems have absolutely no game at this point in time they are looking to 2024 now, hoping to hold the House in 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 He couldn't fit in the clown car? Or, he knows something is gonna happen to his gal Hillary and the blowback will be too much even for NE Virginia? Ex-Virginia Gov. McAuliffe won’t run for president in 2020 Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe won’t run for president in 2020, meaning establishment, centrist Democrats will have one less option in a nominating free-for-all that so far has highlighted the party’s leftward shift. McAuliffe said Wednesday night that instead of joining a crowded Democratic field vying to challenge President Donald Trump, he will concentrate his efforts on helping Democrats win this year in Virginia — with the possibility that he runs for governor or president in the future. </snip> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, GG said: Looks like our soft racist has issues differentiating causation and correlation? So far I'm through 2. The first is an abstract for an issue of a quarterly journal. The issue was published in 2006 and it's been cited 46 times. The Journal as a whole has an impact factor of 2.316, so it's impact on the larger discussion seems rather minimal. From what I could gather from the abstract, the basis of the paper is about inequity in access to, and control of, natural resources and not climate change. Since it is the abstract and not the report, there are no sources or studies to refer to. The second is also an abstract with no sources or studies linked. This abstract literally implies that everyone else is not conceptualizing the problem correctly - because the author is right and everyone else is wrong. Here's a quite from the abstract Quote I review how the devaluation of nonwhite bodies has been incorporated into economic processes and advocate for extending such frameworks to include pollution. It's interesting that the author believes nonwhite bodies are devalued, yet we are seeing a rash of white people pretending to be non-white for political gain, among other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/1526380054794835 This is an abstract for an issue of a quarterly journal. The issue was published in 2006 and it's been cited 46 times. The Journal as a whole has an impact factor of 2.316, so it's impact on the larger discussion seems rather minimal. From what I could gather from the abstract, the basis of the paper is about inequity in access to, and control of, natural resources and not climate change. Since it is the abstract and not the report, there are no sources or studies to refer to. 7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132516646495 The second is also an abstract with no sources or studies linked. This abstract literally implies that everyone else is not conceptualizing the problem correctly - because the author is right and everyone else is wrong. Here's a quote from the abstract Quote I review how the devaluation of nonwhite bodies has been incorporated into economic processes and advocate for extending such frameworks to include pollution. It's interesting that the author believes nonwhite bodies are devalued, yet we are seeing a rash of white people pretending to be non-white for political gain, among other things. 7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: https://www.opencanada.org/features/inequality-explained-7-ways-climate-change-and-inequality-are-connected/ This one has 7 points! 1) This one boils down to Journalism is bad and the Trans Pacific Partnership (which we backed out of in 2017) is also bad. 2) This cites projections 30-80 years in the future, which is hardly fact based. It also points out that it is unfair that poor countries want to industrialize, but cannot due to environmental regulations. 3) Again, based on a 30 year projection - this time with a broken link as a citation. Says the Syrian migration is due to 'human-induced global warming' and political unrest. Somehow the latter seems to be the primary factor if you talk to any migrants. 4) Cites a broken link in the first part, then mentions 2008 economic impacts, but links to a graphic of agricultural projections for 2030. 5) Cites a study from 1987 that frankly is no longer valid to due the natural change in where people live. Cites the "white flight" to suburbs, but urban settings are where the majority, including the affluent, want to be. Cites whatever.scalzi 6) The primary document backing this point shows negative effects for indigenous people in a few place, but not North America. It then shows opportunity presented to indigenous people in North America by climate change. Seems like a good thing to me, not a negative. 7) The only citation in this point is a broken link. The rest seems to favor a relatively socialist perspective about everyone having a right to their share as opposed to everyone having a right to earn their share. 7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: https://inequality.org/great-divide/confronting-climate-change-in-a-deeply-unequal-world/ This one cites 2 separate reports with no visible connection to each other. The first is the 30-80 year climate projections, of which I am skeptical since getting the weather right for next week is a challenge. The second is an oxfam study which mostly seems to be an index of what countries have the most socialist policies for wealth redisribution. It has a clear partisan stance on taxes and tax reform. It points out that the US spends a lot on education, but the system is inefficient (thanks gov't). It appears to rate healthcare quality strictly on how much of the population is insured, which seems like a flawed metric as opposed to evaluating the actual care provided. It offers a complaint about minimum wage without weighing the pros and cons of why it is where it is. Other than the two reports cited, it seems to be an opinion piece. 7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: http://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-412 This is a study on different demographics and their perception of climate change and climate change policy. It is not about how demographics are unequally impacted. 7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/02/15/how-racial-and-regional-inequality-affect-economic-opportunity/amp/ This mentions environment and climate a combined 0 times. 7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/global-warming-american-south/532200/ This cites a study of cost estimates based on the projected climate from 2080-2099. There is incredibly high variability in all of the data presented. The 2 highest factors of uncertainty are the climate projections and the low-risk labor - the two key points. It has been sourced in policy exactly once. and it focuses on the southeast region. Not a specific demographic. 7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=2106693b39454f0eb0abc5c2ddf9ce40 The intro tries to incorporate a racial basis for the article, but no citations are given to back any of the key statements. It clearly states that the majority of New Orleans residents are African-American, and then claims that there is environmental racism because the majority impacted are African-American. Isn't that result expected? The majority demographic is impacted the most? It also goes out of it's way to point out how racism has progressively gotten worse in the city. A city which has had only Democrat mayors since 1872. 7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theroot.com/race-and-class-are-the-biggest-issues-around-hurricane-1798536183/amp The Root. No further comment needed. 2 of your tweets are nearly identical and incestuous, I'm not going to dive into the other 2. So, did you have any points you wanted to make? 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: He couldn't fit in the clown car? Or, he knows something is gonna happen to his gal Hillary and the blowback will be too much even for NE Virginia? Ex-Virginia Gov. McAuliffe won’t run for president in 2020 Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe won’t run for president in 2020, meaning establishment, centrist Democrats will have one less option in a nominating free-for-all that so far has highlighted the party’s leftward shift. McAuliffe said Wednesday night that instead of joining a crowded Democratic field vying to challenge President Donald Trump, he will concentrate his efforts on helping Democrats win this year in Virginia — with the possibility that he runs for governor or president in the future. </snip> But you didn't post the best part: where he said he could "beat Bush - I mean Trump - like a rented mule." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: This is an abstract for an issue of a quarterly journal. The issue was published in 2006 and it's been cited 46 times. The Journal as a whole has an impact factor of 2.316, so it's impact on the larger discussion seems rather minimal. From what I could gather from the abstract, the basis of the paper is about inequity in access to, and control of, natural resources and not climate change. Since it is the abstract and not the report, there are no sources or studies to refer to. The second is also an abstract with no sources or studies linked. This abstract literally implies that everyone else is not conceptualizing the problem correctly - because the author is right and everyone else is wrong. Here's a quote from the abstract It's interesting that the author believes nonwhite bodies are devalued, yet we are seeing a rash of white people pretending to be non-white for political gain, among other things. This one has 7 points! 1) This one boils down to Journalism is bad and the Trans Pacific Partnership (which we backed out of in 2017) is also bad. 2) This cites projections 30-80 years in the future, which is hardly fact based. It also points out that it is unfair that poor countries want to industrialize, but cannot due to environmental regulations. 3) Again, based on a 30 year projection - this time with a broken link as a citation. Says the Syrian migration is due to 'human-induced global warming' and political unrest. Somehow the latter seems to be the primary factor if you talk to any migrants. 4) Cites a broken link in the first part, then mentions 2008 economic impacts, but links to a graphic of agricultural projections for 2030. 5) Cites a study from 1987 that frankly is no longer valid to due the natural change in where people live. Cites the "white flight" to suburbs, but urban settings are where the majority, including the affluent, want to be. Cites whatever.scalzi 6) The primary document backing this point shows negative effects for indigenous people in a few place, but not North America. It then shows opportunity presented to indigenous people in North America by climate change. Seems like a good thing to me, not a negative. 7) The only citation in this point is a broken link. The rest seems to favor a relatively socialist perspective about everyone having a right to their share as opposed to everyone having a right to earn their share. This one cites 2 separate reports with no visible connection to each other. The first is the 30-80 year climate projections, of which I am skeptical since getting the weather right for next week is a challenge. The second is an oxfam study which mostly seems to be an index of what countries have the most socialist policies for wealth redisribution. It has a clear partisan stance on taxes and tax reform. It points out that the US spends a lot on education, but the system is inefficient (thanks gov't). It appears to rate healthcare quality strictly on how much of the population is insured, which seems like a flawed metric as opposed to evaluating the actual care provided. It offers a complaint about minimum wage without weighing the pros and cons of why it is where it is. Other than the two reports cited, it seems to be an opinion piece. This is a study on different demographics and their perception of climate change and climate change policy. It is not about how demographics are unequally impacted. This mentions environment and climate a combined 0 times. This cites a study of cost estimates based on the projected climate from 2080-2099. There is incredibly high variability in all of the data presented. The 2 highest factors of uncertainty are the climate projections and the low-risk labor - the two key points. It has been sourced in policy exactly once. and it focuses on the southeast region. Not a specific demographic. The intro tries to incorporate a racial basis for the article, but no citations are given to back any of the key statements. It clearly states that the majority of New Orleans residents are African-American, and then claims that there is environmental racism because the majority impacted are African-American. Isn't that result expected? The majority demographic is impacted the most? It also goes out of it's way to point out how racism has progressively gotten worse in the city. A city which has had only Democrat mayors since 1872. The Root. No further comment needed. 2 of your tweets are nearly identical and incestuous, I'm not going to dive into the other 2. So, did you have any points you wanted to make? Imagine that, someone went through the effort to read the links and comment on the content. Bravo. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 55 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: This is an abstract for an issue of a quarterly journal. The issue was published in 2006 and it's been cited 46 times. The Journal as a whole has an impact factor of 2.316, so it's impact on the larger discussion seems rather minimal. From what I could gather from the abstract, the basis of the paper is about inequity in access to, and control of, natural resources and not climate change. Since it is the abstract and not the report, there are no sources or studies to refer to. The second is also an abstract with no sources or studies linked. This abstract literally implies that everyone else is not conceptualizing the problem correctly - because the author is right and everyone else is wrong. Here's a quote from the abstract It's interesting that the author believes nonwhite bodies are devalued, yet we are seeing a rash of white people pretending to be non-white for political gain, among other things. This one has 7 points! 1) This one boils down to Journalism is bad and the Trans Pacific Partnership (which we backed out of in 2017) is also bad. 2) This cites projections 30-80 years in the future, which is hardly fact based. It also points out that it is unfair that poor countries want to industrialize, but cannot due to environmental regulations. 3) Again, based on a 30 year projection - this time with a broken link as a citation. Says the Syrian migration is due to 'human-induced global warming' and political unrest. Somehow the latter seems to be the primary factor if you talk to any migrants. 4) Cites a broken link in the first part, then mentions 2008 economic impacts, but links to a graphic of agricultural projections for 2030. 5) Cites a study from 1987 that frankly is no longer valid to due the natural change in where people live. Cites the "white flight" to suburbs, but urban settings are where the majority, including the affluent, want to be. Cites whatever.scalzi 6) The primary document backing this point shows negative effects for indigenous people in a few place, but not North America. It then shows opportunity presented to indigenous people in North America by climate change. Seems like a good thing to me, not a negative. 7) The only citation in this point is a broken link. The rest seems to favor a relatively socialist perspective about everyone having a right to their share as opposed to everyone having a right to earn their share. This one cites 2 separate reports with no visible connection to each other. The first is the 30-80 year climate projections, of which I am skeptical since getting the weather right for next week is a challenge. The second is an oxfam study which mostly seems to be an index of what countries have the most socialist policies for wealth redisribution. It has a clear partisan stance on taxes and tax reform. It points out that the US spends a lot on education, but the system is inefficient (thanks gov't). It appears to rate healthcare quality strictly on how much of the population is insured, which seems like a flawed metric as opposed to evaluating the actual care provided. It offers a complaint about minimum wage without weighing the pros and cons of why it is where it is. Other than the two reports cited, it seems to be an opinion piece. This is a study on different demographics and their perception of climate change and climate change policy. It is not about how demographics are unequally impacted. This mentions environment and climate a combined 0 times. This cites a study of cost estimates based on the projected climate from 2080-2099. There is incredibly high variability in all of the data presented. The 2 highest factors of uncertainty are the climate projections and the low-risk labor - the two key points. It has been sourced in policy exactly once. and it focuses on the southeast region. Not a specific demographic. The intro tries to incorporate a racial basis for the article, but no citations are given to back any of the key statements. It clearly states that the majority of New Orleans residents are African-American, and then claims that there is environmental racism because the majority impacted are African-American. Isn't that result expected? The majority demographic is impacted the most? It also goes out of it's way to point out how racism has progressively gotten worse in the city. A city which has had only Democrat mayors since 1872. The Root. No further comment needed. 2 of your tweets are nearly identical and incestuous, I'm not going to dive into the other 2. So, did you have any points you wanted to make? You've done yeoman's work in reading through Abby Normal's mountains of trash. Alas, you've wasted your time. Anyone reasonable here knows he's fullofshit and relies on volume to discourage anyone refuting his nonsense. Well, you've refuted his nonsense but you've done nothing to change his mind. You would have better luck in herding cats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: You've done yeoman's work in reading through Abby Normal's mountains of trash. Alas, you've wasted your time. Anyone reasonable here knows he's fullofshit and relies on volume to discourage anyone refuting his nonsense. Well, you've refuted his nonsense but you've done nothing to change his mind. You would have better luck in herding cats. I said my piece on the response not really being a good faith response. I opted to reply in good faith anyway in this instance. We'll see how it goes. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Mayor Pete plays piano. I've only been able to find one really short clip of him playing. I propose that he and Condoleezza Rice have a piano off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 4 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: Uh huh. So after informing me that I don't know what you think or really mean you make a post with no salient points. Just links, and you expect me to form your conclusion for you? I am genuinely confused on what you expect me to 'counter'. Look, this type of post honestly has no business here and is not in good faith imo. A good faith post would have presented points and backed them up, as necessary, with linked source material. This feels like, and I could be mistaken, a post where you had no actual informed points, so you googled the topic and pasted some links - even admitting that some of your sources are lacking credibility. It legitimately boils down to ' Well, there are some studies out there from the past 15 years.' Regardless, I will take a look at them over time (my office blocks all foreign domains and social media, so 75% has to wait until 6 or later). If inundating with links of articles and tweets have no business here, why is it that they seem to happen here so often? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 16 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: The feeling is mutual In other words, you brought up gender, not me. Thanks for providing evidence of that! are you honestly trying to take the dooshnoozles title away from him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 28 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said: If inundating with links of articles and tweets have no business here, why is it that they seem to happen here so often? So, to be clear, you don't care to make any of your own points or address any of mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said: So, to be clear, you don't care to make any of your own points or address any of mine? No. He just wants to talk at you. This person educates our youth. Terrifying. Great job on your thoughtful response to his links though. Most wouldn't waste their time on him. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Just now, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said: No. He just wants to talk at you. This person educates our youth. Terrifying. Great job on your thoughtful response to his links though. Most wouldn't waste their time on him. It's incredibly disappointing that the person coming in to say it's a giant circle jerk doesn't actually want to engage in honest discussion. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said: It's incredibly disappointing that the person coming in to say it's a giant circle jerk doesn't actually want to engage in honest discussion. A clear indicator was his preemptive attack on how no one would refute it and rather ad hominem attack him. You called his bluff and now all he has is deflection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts