CultureCitizen
Silver Member
- Jun 1, 2013
- 1,932
- 140
- 95
- Thread starter
- #141
Well , I can only say I am astounded by the strength and elloquence of your arguments.1) The GOP is villanizing itself for not admitting global warming ( even without the anthropogenic part). And while we are far from being at a life or death situation there are clear signs of warming: just try to take a look at the glaciers, also , sea level seems to have risen about 10 cm in the last 40 years or so. Again this is not an immediate threat, but something to keep an eye on.But then the question is WHAT specific point of the agenda will be pursued and how AGW will help pursue them.Many conservatives call global warming a hoax. Ok , for a moment I'll assume it is a hoax, but to what end?
Plain fun? Government controll ? International plot ?
To push the left wing agenda. I can't see how that is hard to see or understand.
That is easy as well.
1. Electing Democrats. Villainize the GOP for opposing it, create panic and worry over AGW, tell the sheeple that only electing Democrats will prevent DOOM.
2. Take control over people's lives, tell them what they can and cannot do or eat.
3. Taxes taxes taxes.
4. Damage oil and coal industries, promote "green" industries.
5. Appease major factions of the Democrat Party; environmentalists, Animal Activists, etc.
Mostly #1 and #2.
2) I think that's unrelated to AWG, specially in the US, where there is a clear tendency to overeating: mostly everyone can get whatever food he likes, even if it is a receipe for early diabetes. The "doing" part is even less clear to me. What is it that the government doesn't allow you to do which is not a criminal activity ?
3) Taxes , yea , taxes are a pain in the ass. But the three bigest expenses are healthcare, defense and pensions, Both healthcare and defense can be optimized in many ways ( but discussing that would require a separate thread). Whatever grants or subsidies have been granted in renewables are not significant compared to healthcare and defense, so I find this argument weak.
4. Well, yes, they do get harmed , slightly , but so far the greatest harm has not come from green industry but from the Saudi kingdom. Many fracking companies are going south because of low oil prices, and the same goes for tar sands companies. You can't truly blame it on green industries.
I don't like nuclear very much , but if I had to choose between nuclear and tar sands or fracking , I would pick up nuclear.
5. That seems a legitimate motive to me, not a perverse agenda.
1) Bull shit. 100% bull shit.
2) You are wrong.
3) Deflection
4) No, they get harmed a lot.
5) of course it would seem like that to you. To destroy companies, cripple the economy, and lie to the American People, well that's a small price to pay for paying back DNC supporters isn't it?
You asked my for clarification, I gave it to you. You are a left wing nut, and an AGW cultist. Of course you disagree. All of your points have been debunked many times over. I answered your question, good bye.
Farewell