Solus
SHARE THIS PAGE
    • Solus

      Patranus, but the government did get funded trough taxes since the beginning. A person paying property taxes, for example, couldn’t dictate that his funds could fund orphanages but not the military. So since the beginning the government has forced people to pay for things they might not necessarily agree with. Their recourse was, and is, voting and free speech. So vote however you like and good luck trying to convince your fellow voters that we need to switch to usage taxes, or whatever.

    • Solus

      Who is surprised? I don’t know anyone that is. From the moment these fools were elected we were predicting that they would drag the Republicans farther to the right, polarize politics even more, and kneecap the government’s ability to function. And the proof is right in front of us that this was an accurate prediction. Congress has passed no significant legislation since they were elected and now the government is grinding to a halt because they refuse to do their basic job as outlined in the constitution.

    • Solus

      It is only negotiation if you are giving something that you don’t want in exchange for what you want. But both sides want the government to function. So what else are Republicans offering to Democrats in exchange for their fantasy wishlist? Raising taxes, fully funding welfare programs, Renewable energy and infrastructure programs, etc? No, of course not. What they are really doing is playing a game of chicken. Fortunately the American people aren’t that stupid. The polls show we don’t support their tactic and put the blame squarely on them. As it should be.

    • Solus

      So let’s get this straight. ACA is modeled on the republican alternative to what we should have really done, single payer. They have been proposing it since the 80’s and it was supported by the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich among others. It was first implemented by Mitt Romney on the state level and it is what Republicans proposed as the alternative to Clinton’s health plan in the 90’s. But now their plan actually gets put into action by spineless Democrats that took single payer off the table to cater to Republicans that refused to negotiate anyway. Republicans, getting exactly what they wanted for decades, decided that they were against it because Democrats were for it. So finally they are shutting down the government to try and force something that they know they can’t pass the regular way. And they can’t just amend the not so great parts of ACA through the regular process because it would still have Obama’s name attached to it and expose their years of propaganda as BS. Instead they want to get rid of it and replace it with nothing because this was their alternative plan and they haven’t thought up anything new. Good job Republicans, you have outwitted yourselves again!

    • Solus

      Because if it is illegal for that person to have a gun then maybe they will be caught in possession of the weapon by police and have it confiscated before they can do any harm. Of course some will go unnoticed until open fire. But having more chances for them to trip up and get arrested BEFORE they do any harm is a good thing. If this was an article about times that some psychopath was arrested for one reason or another, and then found to have a cache of weapons and/or been planning for violence, then the list would have been a lot longer than 10 items. And I’m not talking about making guns illegal. Just common sense laws about tightening up the background checks, registration, keeping weapons out of children’s reach, etc.

    • Solus

      Number
      1: 2 killed 7 injured
      2: 1 killed 3 injured
      3: 3 killed 3 injured
      4: 2 killed 1 injured
      5: 5 killed 4 injured
      6: 1 injured
      7: 1 injured
      8: 2 killed 1 injured
      9: 2 injured In other words guns make great offensive weapons, but not very good defensive weapons. The shootings were mitigated, but none of them were actually prevented. Many of the shooters on this list had warning signs and if they had been prevented from having weapons then this list may have had 15 fewer deaths and 23 fewer injuries. Unfortunately the NRA has fought against measures to keep guns out of bad guy’s hands every step of the way.

    • Solus

      Tigerkite, look up golden rice. It is a type of rice that was designed to combat vitamin A deficiency in poor populations that subsist mainly on a diet of rice. Yet anti-GMO activists destroyed a test plot recently. Look up Papaya ringspot virus resistant Papayas that were developed by the university of Hawaii. They were singlehandedly responsible for saving Hawaii’s Papaya industry. But anti-GMO activists have destroyed many acres of it. Look up the nitrogen fixing corn being developed. It would help productivity in poor soils and eliminate the need for extra fertilizers. When the Bill and Melinda gates foundation funded research into this variety an anti-GMO group called it a waste of resources. Look into Bt cotton. It helps reduce or eliminate the need for sprayed pesticides because it produces a natural pesticide in its tissues. But plots are regularly destroyed by activists. I, like many others, have a huge problem with the commercial activities of companies like Monsanto. I dislike how they are changing agriculture for their own profit, and this goes far beyond just GMOs. But there are good GMOs, like the ones I listed. GMOs can be designed to reduce the need for pesticides and fertilizers, thus preserving insect biodiversity and the eutrophication of water bodies. There are GMOs that are designed to improve nutrition or prevent the spread of otherwise unstoppable crop diseases. And yet there are many activists that oppose GMOs even if they are developed by universities or non-profits. These people, along with anti-vaxers, are the left’s equivalent of evolution and AGW deniers on the right. And frankly it sounds like this documentary is taking that stance. Look at the poster’s tagline, “Is this the end of real food?”. As if plants manipulated by humans in a lab can’t be real food but plants manipulated by humans for 10 thousand years in a field are.

    • Solus

      I think your question, what will kill more people, is a red herring. Global poverty is not problem of access to cheap energy but rather a problem of political and social structure. Look at Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria. The economic gains from access to cheap oil has gone primarily to the elites while poverty still runs rampant. Meanwhile countries like Norway have used their oil wealth to tackle things like poverty and infrastructure. If you don’t understand how our lifestyles could be impacted by climate change then you haven’t been paying attention to the scientific literature. The people climate change will have the greatest impact on are those that live in cities, hence the developed world. We (urbanized societies) depend on the continued high productivity of agriculture and access to clean water. Climate change means that once productive agricultural regions will become less productive as weather patterns change, pests once killed by cold persist longer and move farther north, and water sources are reduced. Read the literature on agricultural productivity versus climate change. And that’s not even touching on all the smaller impacts like tropical diseases moving northward, more fires, more extreme weather events, etc. As for helping the impoverished world, I don’t think more drilling is going to make that happen. We have been drilling for a long time and it hasn’t been the case so far. I don’t see why it would change now. Also I reject your dichotomy that helping the impoverished world and dealing with climate change are mutually exclusive. People in underdeveloped regions aren’t going to see much benefit from extra oil extraction. There are no power lines to get the electricity to them, roads to get the diesel to their generators, etc. But they can benefit greatly from some turbines or solar panels because the extra infrastructure, and hence the political will to develop it, isn’t needed.

    • Solus

      Well I agree that it will change on its own, as it always has. But the current change is caused by something specific and we can decide to do something different if we so choose. Of course you are correct that life will go on if we don’t change what we are doing. Life will be harder in many ways but it will go on. Sometimes when I’m feeling nihilistic like you I think that threatening the stability of our lifestyles isn’t such a big deal in the grand scheme of things. But then I remember that this isn’t something happening to us, it’s a choice we are making. As for message changes, yeah they happen all the time. Just like how anti-abortion groups renamed themselves as pro-life because it sounds better to be pro something. But you are fooling yourself if you don’t think there is a huge pitch being made by fossil fuel companies, politicians, and well funded think tanks that AGW isn’t a big deal.

    • Solus

      But he is still trying to convince us and congress that it is a good idea. I was against the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and several others. I think the outcomes have vindicated my stance. I’m not automatically anti-war but I don’t see how this particular course of action really helps. I’m not going to change now just because some rethugs oppose everything Obama wants and it happens to put me on the same side of this issue.

    • Solus

      Because your argument is a logical fallacy, the tu quoque. Scientists have identified that the properties of CO2, being transparent to shortwave radiation and opaque to long wave, are going to cause the earth warm. These properties have been known for a long time and scientists from the 50’s hypothesized that this could be an outcome. Subsequent models and measurements have backed up that this is in fact what is happening. So just because some politician comes along and decides to start talking about the issue without changing his lifestyle that doesn’t invalidate the work of the scientists. Al Gore can be a hypocrite and the issue can still be true. Do you believe in various issues because a politician is telling you one thing or another? Or do you go and find your own evidence to decide?

    • Solus

      There are plenty of articles refuting all of those points. I’m not going to waste my time writing a huge response in a comments section to all the points, only to have it end up on page 2 before I’m done. But I will gladly refute any single point you think this article gets right, or any other Romney point you choose. Unless you just want the other readers to chew on the fact that you couldn’t respond with anything but a personal attack.

    • Solus

      So you accept that our climate is changing. What then is causing the change if not for increased atmospheric CO2? Everything that deniers have proposed has turned out to be a dud. Orbital cycles, urban island heat effect, solar output, etc have all been refuted. Meanwhile they are denying that CO2 has has greenhouse properties (transparent to short wave radiation, opaque to long wave) even though it is well known and easily demonstrated.

    • Solus

      And Dark Tranquillity, and so on. Swedish metal has had a huge influence.

    • Solus

      And Amon Amarth.

Show More Responses