RochesterRob Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Free trade is free trade Part of free trade is proprietary material being properly compensated for by the users of that same material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: Part of free trade is proprietary material being properly compensated for by the users of that same material. Yes, just a part. Zzzzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Yes, just a part. Zzzzzzzz Even your boy Chuck Schumer admitted that certain powers in Asia greatly disproportionately benefitted by never paying for the technology they reproduced. Are you telling me that you no longer will be a good DNC soldier by backing Chuck up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted March 6, 2019 Author Share Posted March 6, 2019 11 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Oh man! That happened faster than I thought it would. So Obamacare is no longer the great socialist devil, huh? Wow!!! This shows how the sh it throwing is all histrionics. You guys have just moved on to the next mud slinging yelping and are leaving the "Socialist Dogs" of years past to lay sleeping. Anti-Slavery, Medicare, Social Security, and Obamacare are ok now, its the Green New Deal that is the battleground now, until it won't be and you guys will accept it! And you will!! Bi tches! ? Oh, and Tibs is back to FULL RE-TARD! Thought we could have a conversation and then he just ######ed it all up. 12 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: Obama could have been following the old communist mantra of "using their own methods to ultimately defeat them." So that does not mean that he was a free market lover but saw bad trade treaties as a way to bring defeat sooner at home. Obama saw unfavorable trade deals is a means of buying American influence, and he wasn't wrong to know we need American influence, especially in the Pacific. TTP wasn't a trade deal, it was a defense deal dressed as a trade deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 9 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Oh, and Tibs is back to FULL RE-TARD! Thought we could have a conversation and then he just ######ed it all up. Once this form of "socialism" got done you'd be barking up another tree. Quote “Right now, we have about ninety per cent or ninety-five per cent of the technology we need,” Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, told me. In a series of papers, Jacobson and his colleagues have laid out “roadmaps” to a zero-emissions economy for fifty states, fifty-three towns and cities, and a hundred and thirty-eight other countries, with a completion date of 2050. Just as in the Democrats’ Green New Deal, the central element of these roadmaps (and others) is converting the electric grid to clean energy by shutting down power stations that rely on fossil fuels and making some very large investments in wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal facilities. Jacobson said this could be completed by 2035, which is only five years beyond the target set out in the Green New Deal. At the same time, policymakers would introduce a range of measures to promote energy efficiency, and electrify other sectors of the economy that now rely heavily on burning carbon, such as road and rail transport, home heating, and industrial heating. “We don’t need a technological miracle to solve this problem,” Jacobson reiterated. “‘The bottom line is we just need to deploy, deploy, deploy.” https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-good-news-about-a-green-new-deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 7 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Oh, and Tibs is back to FULL RE-TARD! Thought we could have a conversation and then he just ######ed it all up. Obama saw unfavorable trade deals is a means of buying American influence, and he wasn't wrong to know we need American influence, especially in the Pacific. TTP wasn't a trade deal, it was a defense deal dressed as a trade deal. If it was a defense deal then it was a pretty bad one by my estimate. The only country that you are attempting to buy favor from being China continues to ramp up its military. A glaring example being island building in the South China Sea. The only reason to build islands is to establish a defense perimeter against American forces by making US carriers vulnerable hundreds of miles off of the Chinese mainland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 14 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Once this form of "socialism" got done you'd be barking up another tree. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-good-news-about-a-green-new-deal I don't know if it is intentional but you are leaving out the single biggest issue of that will take nearly 100 trillion dollars to do in a short period of time which will create hardship and financially destabilize a broad section of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted March 6, 2019 Author Share Posted March 6, 2019 17 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: If it was a defense deal then it was a pretty bad one by my estimate. The only country that you are attempting to buy favor from being China continues to ramp up its military. A glaring example being island building in the South China Sea. The only reason to build islands is to establish a defense perimeter against American forces by making US carriers vulnerable hundreds of miles off of the Chinese mainland. Um, so China was the defense thinking behind TPP but they were the target. China is the bully TPP revolved around. We were buying favor and influence with Vietnam, Malaysia, and of course our friends Australia and New Zealand. TPP was a bloc of pacific allies to help against China. China was the target not the goal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 Market forces could theoretically be used to drive fossil fuels out of the market. Poor states like West Virginia would never go along green energy, but if the more advanced states simply move ahead with now increasingly cheaper green energy, they could simply reduce to demand of dirty energy so much, it won't be profitable. Not saying that's how it will happen, but man that would be the coolest way to get there. Drain the swamp! Putin and the Saudis would be left holding their limp *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Um, so China was the defense thinking behind TPP but they were the target. China is the bully TPP revolved around. We were buying favor and influence with Vietnam, Malaysia, and of course our friends Australia and New Zealand. TPP was a bloc of pacific allies to help against China. China was the target not the goal. I'm not seeing how Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. were being bought where they were not aligned before. Care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted March 6, 2019 Author Share Posted March 6, 2019 26 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Once this form of "socialism" got done you'd be barking up another tree. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-good-news-about-a-green-new-deal "According to Jacobson, his plan to convert the United States to clean energy would cost between ten trillion and fifteen trillion dollars, in total, depending on how it was implemented. " Holy crap! If there's one think I've learned from life and history is that things never cost what they are initially estimated to cost. So, this thing will cost $45 trillion and isn't guaranteed to work. Great. Good thinkin', AOC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 1 minute ago, The_Dude said: "According to Jacobson, his plan to convert the United States to clean energy would cost between ten trillion and fifteen trillion dollars, in total, depending on how it was implemented. " Holy crap! If there's one think I've learned from life and history is that things never cost what they are initially estimated to cost. So, this thing will cost $45 trillion and isn't guaranteed to work. Great. Good thinkin', AOC! 10-15 trillion by far is the lowest estimate I have heard on this idea. I still would bet on 100 trillion or close to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted March 6, 2019 Author Share Posted March 6, 2019 Just now, RochesterRob said: I'm not seeing how Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. were being bought where they were not aligned before. Care to elaborate? "Sphere of influence." That's what Obama was buying with TPP in my humble opinion. 'Hey, we'll give you a favorable trade deal' and of course there are strings attached. "Hey Vietnam, member how we gave you a good trade deal? Yeah, we'd like you support in our cause to maintain international shipping lanes in the S. China Sea.' "....hey China, we Vietnamese don't support your bull#### island building." That's what TPP was about in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCoBills Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 2 hours ago, BringBackOrton said: I feel bad for Bernie. It’s hard being the voice for the poor and downtrodden with 3 houses. I may throw him a vote. Ahh the 3 house argument. Listen, it's not a crime or bad to be well off. His homes are all modest but Senators make close to $200K annually. Being in Congress as long as he has of course he's ammassed personal wealth and there is nothing wrong with that. Bernie is still willing to pay his fair share of taxes on his wealth. He also is far less wealthy than all other members of Congress who have been there even half as long as he has because he hasn't sold out to lobby's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Market forces could theoretically be used to drive fossil fuels out of the market. Poor states like West Virginia would never go along green energy, but if the more advanced states simply move ahead with now increasingly cheaper green energy, they could simply reduce to demand of dirty energy so much, it won't be profitable. Not saying that's how it will happen, but man that would be the coolest way to get there. Drain the swamp! Putin and the Saudis would be left holding their limp *****. Market forces have as a cornerstone competitive pricing. Fossil fuels are entrenched because they are the most economical and reliable to the consumer. Alternative energy for heating homes has been around for decades but not widely caught on because the initial investment was sky high therefore out of reach for the ordinary American or was not reliable. Bid on a bundle of Popular Science magazines on Ebay from the 1960's and 1970's and you will see what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, SoCoBills said: Ahh the 3 house argument. Listen, it's not a crime or bad to be well off. His homes are all modest but Senators make close to $200K annually. Being in Congress as long as he has of course he's ammassed personal wealth and there is nothing wrong with that. Bernie is still willing to pay his fair share of taxes on his wealth. He also is far less wealthy than all other members of Congress who have been there even half as long as he has because he hasn't sold out to lobby's. "Democracy and socialism are not interdependent concepts. They are not only different, but opposing philosophies. ... Democracy extends the sphere of personal independence; socialism confines it. Democracy values each man at his highest; socialism makes of each man an agent, an instrument, a number. Democracy and socialism have but one thing in common—equality. But note well the difference. Democracy aims at equality in liberty. Socialism desires equality in constraint and in servitude." Tocqueville At its core, socialism is inherently selfish and cuts against the fundamental nature of man. It incentivizes doing nothing to help your fellow man, society, or neighbors. At its core capitalism is inherently altruistic and incentivizes helping your fellow man. You have to make a product which brings value to others' lives in order to make a profit. This incentivizes progress, change, development, and harmony. If you believe socialism is a net force for good in the world, you're ignorant of not only history, but human nature. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 17 minutes ago, SoCoBills said: Ahh the 3 house argument. Listen, it's not a crime or bad to be well off. His homes are all modest but Senators make close to $200K annually. Being in Congress as long as he has of course he's ammassed personal wealth and there is nothing wrong with that. Bernie is still willing to pay his fair share of taxes on his wealth. He also is far less wealthy than all other members of Congress who have been there even half as long as he has because he hasn't sold out to lobby's. It’s a crime. Give away your excess means Mr Socialist. You don’t need that. Someone else built that 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCoBills Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 14 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: It’s a crime. Give away your excess means Mr Socialist. You don’t need that. Someone else built that Bernie has never said being successful is a crime. He's embraced the term socialist rather than fight it constantly of late but he is a Democratic Socialist. Socialism aspects only provide what should be human rights - access to education and healthcare. He believes in the ability to achieve the American Dream. Crony Capitalism and a corrupt and rigged economy is the greatest threat to that issue. 22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: "Democracy and socialism are not interdependent concepts. They are not only different, but opposing philosophies. ... Democracy extends the sphere of personal independence; socialism confines it. Democracy values each man at his highest; socialism makes of each man an agent, an instrument, a number. Democracy and socialism have but one thing in common—equality. But note well the difference. Democracy aims at equality in liberty. Socialism desires equality in constraint and in servitude." Tocqueville At its core, socialism is inherently selfish and cuts against the fundamental nature of man. It incentivizes doing nothing to help your fellow man, society, or neighbors. At its core capitalism is inherently altruistic and incentivizes helping your fellow man. You have to make a product which brings value to others' lives in order to make a profit. This incentivizes progress, change, development, and harmony. If you believe socialism is a net force for good in the world, you're ignorant of not only history, but human nature. Can you date that quote for me? I disagree with everything in this response but appreciate your attempt at a logical debate. The idea that a core value of capitalism today in America is altruism and not profit and greed above all else sounds absolutely bonkers to me. Profit and greed is the name of the game today. Not helping our neighbors. This profit and greed is what got us here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, SoCoBills said: Can you date that quote for me? I disagree with everything in this response but appreciate your attempt at a logical debate. The idea that a core value of capitalism today in America is altruism and not profit and greed above all else sounds absolutely bonkers to me. Profit and greed is the name of the game today. Not helping our neighbors. This profit and greed is what got us here. It's Tocqueville - 1835-1840. The mistake you're making is thinking we have capitalism today. We don't. We have a kleptocracy which has allowed certain monopolies to grow unchecked. The solution to the nation's problems isn't a dramatic shift to an entirely new (and doomed) form of government like socialism - which is a regressive system - but to remove the corruption and break up the monopolies. Capitalism requires vigilance. As does our republic. We've let our responsibilities as citizens slide on both counts for far too long. Shifting to socialism won't end the kleptocracy. It will embolden it. Edited March 6, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 The Jamestown colony tried socialism and almost completely failed. When a form of capitalism was introduced it prospered. Bernie has stated in the past that bread lines are a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts