(03-27-2019, 05:51 PM)TheeKB Wrote: [ -> ]So many cogs in the fossil fuel wheel up in this forum. Do u wipe ur faces off everyday after u take one from the man or do u look in the mirror and actually aspire to be better and make the US a better place?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Ooo, so edgy. Bonus points for the homosexual innuendo and the use of internet shorthand. I give 2.6 on the JDub scale.
(03-27-2019, 05:51 PM)TheeKB Wrote: [ -> ]So many cogs in the fossil fuel wheel up in this forum. Do u wipe ur faces off everyday after u take one from the man or do u look in the mirror and actually aspire to be better and make the US a better place?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
AOC, is that you? You do realize your plan was a pipedream? It's full of really nice things that could never be accomplished in 10 years. By the way, where would the money come for all this? Fixing all of the problems in the United States within 10 years would be great, but it would literally cost hundreds of billions of dollars, more likely, trillions. That would put this country into a depression, the likes of which the world has never seen. The 10 year timetable is totally unrealistic. If we could do 50% of the things in the GND within 25 years, that would be a win. To do all of it in 10 years is laughable.
(03-27-2019, 05:51 PM)TheeKB Wrote: [ -> ]So many cogs in the fossil fuel wheel up in this forum. Do u wipe ur faces off everyday after u take one from the man or do u look in the mirror and actually aspire to be better and make the US a better place?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
One can believe in the potential of renewable energy and the value in developing it while still recognizing that the Green New Deal is the work of a nitwit who wants to be Hillary Clinton when she grows up.
(03-27-2019, 06:02 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 05:51 PM)TheeKB Wrote: [ -> ]So many cogs in the fossil fuel wheel up in this forum. Do u wipe ur faces off everyday after u take one from the man or do u look in the mirror and actually aspire to be better and make the US a better place?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Ooo, so edgy. Bonus points for the homosexual innuendo and the use of internet shorthand. I give 2.6 on the JDub scale.
'Thats ridiculous, I am not a scale, or a cat, I am a human. I also am not a cog. There is no such thing as a fossil fuel wheel. Back on topic'
-JDub (RIP)
Also I found what JDub may be upto now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEjBSvW3Lc4
(03-27-2019, 08:03 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 07:16 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]AOC, is that you? You do realize your plan was a pipedream? It's full of really nice things that could never be accomplished in 10 years. By the way, where would the money come for all this? Fixing all of the problems in the United States within 10 years would be great, but it would literally cost hundreds of billions of dollars, more likely, trillions. That would put this country into a depression, the likes of which the world has never seen. The 10 year timetable is totally unrealistic. If we could do 50% of the things in the GND within 25 years, that would be a win. To do all of it in 10 years is laughable.
Doing 50% of the things in the GND will never be a win. It takes as much energy to make a solar panel as you get from one in it's lifetime. There's a reason that the manufacturers of wind and solar generators don't use the wind or solar generators they've already created to make more of them.
Wow.
You might actually really believe that.
Wow.
(03-28-2019, 11:46 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 08:03 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Doing 50% of the things in the GND will never be a win. It takes as much energy to make a solar panel as you get from one in it's lifetime. There's a reason that the manufacturers of wind and solar generators don't use the wind or solar generators they've already created to make more of them.
Wow.
You might actually really believe that.
Wow.
He's actually correct if you take the solar industry as a whole. The industry is not quite yet a net producer but close. Stanford University is just one offering of studies that speak to this. Because panels don't provide electricity as a stand alone unit, you also must consider the other equipment necessary like batteries, charge controls, wiring, etc. The PV industry is close but not there yet. Additionally, equipment may need to be purchased multiple times. The average lifecycle for a solar panel is roughly 20 years with drops in efficiency as they degrade and the supporting electrical will degrade well before then.
(03-28-2019, 12:23 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2019, 11:46 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Wow.
You might actually really believe that.
Wow.
He's actually correct if you take the solar industry as a whole. The industry is not quite yet a net producer but close. Stanford University is just one offering of studies that speak to this. Because panels don't provide electricity as a stand alone unit, you also must consider the other equipment necessary like batteries, charge controls, wiring, etc. The PV industry is close but not there yet. Additionally, equipment may need to be purchased multiple times. The average lifecycle for a solar panel is roughly 20 years with drops in efficiency as they degrade and the supporting electrical will degrade well before then.
I would have to look at it.
I mean if you're going to include all the energy that the workers at the solar panel factory used to get to work, and include all the energy spent getting those solar panels from the factory to the job site, I could see analysis getting a bit pessimistic, but I don't think those are the numbers to look at.
The reason a solar panel factory wouldn't use its own panels is because they need a source that's always available at a high capacity whenever they need it, and there's no good reason for them to buy a bunch of batteries, unless the always-on always available power they currently rely on suddenly becomes very expensive.
We invest in solar and wind power generation to avoid burning additional fuel. And these investments break even without subsidies, lately. But until there are dramatic advancements in energy storage technology or dramatic increases in the cost of fossil fuel, it will still make sense for us to invest in fossil fuel burning plants to produce electricity on demand.
(03-27-2019, 08:03 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 07:16 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]AOC, is that you? You do realize your plan was a pipedream? It's full of really nice things that could never be accomplished in 10 years. By the way, where would the money come for all this? Fixing all of the problems in the United States within 10 years would be great, but it would literally cost hundreds of billions of dollars, more likely, trillions. That would put this country into a depression, the likes of which the world has never seen. The 10 year timetable is totally unrealistic. If we could do 50% of the things in the GND within 25 years, that would be a win. To do all of it in 10 years is laughable.
Doing 50% of the things in the GND will never be a win. It takes as much energy to make a solar panel as you get from one in it's lifetime. There's a reason that the manufacturers of wind and solar generators don't use the wind or solar generators they've already created to make more of them.
That all depends on who's funding the study you're reading the results of.
(03-28-2019, 01:05 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2019, 12:23 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]He's actually correct if you take the solar industry as a whole. The industry is not quite yet a net producer but close. Stanford University is just one offering of studies that speak to this. Because panels don't provide electricity as a stand alone unit, you also must consider the other equipment necessary like batteries, charge controls, wiring, etc. The PV industry is close but not there yet. Additionally, equipment may need to be purchased multiple times. The average lifecycle for a solar panel is roughly 20 years with drops in efficiency as they degrade and the supporting electrical will degrade well before then.
I would have to look at it.
I mean if you're going to include all the energy that the workers at the solar panel factory used to get to work, and include all the energy spent getting those solar panels from the factory to the job site, I could see analysis getting a bit pessimistic, but I don't think those are the numbers to look at.
The reason a solar panel factory wouldn't use its own panels is because they need a source that's always available at a high capacity whenever they need it, and there's no good reason for them to buy a bunch of batteries, unless the always-on always available power they currently rely on suddenly becomes very expensive.
We invest in solar and wind power generation to avoid burning additional fuel. And these investments break even without subsidies, lately. But until there are dramatic advancements in energy storage technology or dramatic increases in the cost of fossil fuel, it will still make sense for us to invest in fossil fuel burning plants to produce electricity on demand.
Most of the existing studies take the industry as a whole into consideration with all the moving pieces from startup, facilities, R&D, etc. They don't include batteries, as those can be considered optional (like you said). Right now, solar is a good subsidized source but I could see it becoming more efficient. In the same breath, there is a tradeoff in space required.
(03-27-2019, 08:06 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 06:02 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Ooo, so edgy. Bonus points for the homosexual innuendo and the use of internet shorthand. I give 2.6 on the JDub scale.
'Thats ridiculous, I am not a scale, or a cat, I am a human. I also am not a cog. There is no such thing as a fossil fuel wheel. Back on topic'
-JDub (RIP)
Also I found what JDub may be upto now:
I watched that while eating a nice med-rare flank steak.
And
Soylent? Is that for real? I guess They never saw Soylent Green. Lol
(03-28-2019, 06:47 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 08:06 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]'Thats ridiculous, I am not a scale, or a cat, I am a human. I also am not a cog. There is no such thing as a fossil fuel wheel. Back on topic'
-JDub (RIP)
Also I found what JDub may be upto now:
I watched that while eating a nice med-rare flank steak.
And Soylent? Is that for real? I guess They never saw Soylent Green. Lol
He named it after the movie. And yes hes for real, and probably has asbergers just like J.W. There is another interview with motherboard where you can see that strange affect. Its real interesting. Here I got the spot for you, if J.W. talked this is what it would be like @ 2:25:
https://youtu.be/t8NCigh54jg?t=145
Also note that AOC probably wants us all to eat like this in the future as well.
As POTUS said last night, when the wind stops blowing one night "Sally, we aren't watching TV tonight!"
(03-27-2019, 11:12 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 09:33 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Nah. Republicans fear AOC. I still don't understand why. She's a one-termer who's going to be kicked to the curb in 2020 for having views that are too damn radical for mainstream Americans to stomach, but anything that helps get her out of the way of sanity and centrist reemergence is something I can get behind. Exposing her Green New Deal as something that even the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party won't vote for is definitely a black eye.
Her ideas would be eaten up by 16 year olds who have never earned a paycheck. The same 16 year olds they want to be able to vote.
There is plenty to fear. You just don't know it yet.
Tucker interviewed the 1 republican who voted to allow 16 year olds to vote last night and his main selling point was that they don't automatically have to be democrats. Republicans need to do their jobs to recruit them. That is simply impossible at that age, unless they were raised by good parents.
The bolded is a huge problem with our society. The only good parents are Republicans, folks. Divisive rhetoric sure has done a number on this country.
(03-29-2019, 09:50 AM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 11:12 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Her ideas would be eaten up by 16 year olds who have never earned a paycheck. The same 16 year olds they want to be able to vote.
There is plenty to fear. You just don't know it yet.
Tucker interviewed the 1 republican who voted to allow 16 year olds to vote last night and his main selling point was that they don't automatically have to be democrats. Republicans need to do their jobs to recruit them. That is simply impossible at that age, unless they were raised by good parents.
The bolded is a huge problem with our society. The only good parents are Republicans, folks. Divisive rhetoric sure has done a number on this country.
One time I had a political conversation with someone I go to church with. And the dude said that my opinion on something or other indicated that I hate America. I should have cut off the conversation there, but I was so caught off guard that I got defensive. I indicated that his comment upset me and I tried to explain that I love America. Then the guy says to me, that I must have gone to public school (I did) and that if I had been home-schooled or Christian Schooled like his children, I would understand whatever it was correctly and love America correctly. He said that public school teaches kids to hate America and that anyone who goes to public schools and gets good grades has learned to hate America.
I mean, I guess shame on me for mixing religion and politics.
There's a certain type of person for whom it's not enough to just live the kind of life that they think is best and vote for the kind of people that they think are best. That's enough for me, but I also like talking to people and try to have a give and take where we learn new stuff or get an inconsistency in our viewpoint pointed out. No, this other type of person is more interested in making you intellectually submissive with put downs. I don't know if my method earns me any friends, but his made an enemy, for sure.
Quote:I would understand whatever it was
This is a perfect representation of many online arguments.
(03-27-2019, 11:31 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2019, 11:24 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think changing the voting age is a big deal either way.
You can argue that they are not legally adults and can't serve in the military or police until 18, but, we only do elections every two years, so if you let 16 year olds vote, they will become legal adults by the time the people they are voting for leave office. It's fair in that sense, but it's not like it was unfair before.
That said, only about 2% of the population is 16 or 17 years old. The impact on elections would be miniscule, especially considering most of them won't bother to vote.
If they want to include all other privileges that come with being an adult like you mentioned, in addition to being tried as an adult for crimes and owning firearms, then they can have a fair discussion.
The taxation without representation argument from the left makes me chuckle. I worked from 15-18 and never complained about not voting. In fact, looking at the line items of a paycheck mold you to form your own political opinions which you can exercise in a couple short years.
Personally I think 16 should be considered an Adult anyway. People argue that 16 year olds are immature, but in the same breath say 20 year olds are immature or 25 year olds. More responsibility should be placed on people when they're young, so they don't end up 30 years old living with their parents.
(03-28-2019, 10:04 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2019, 06:47 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I watched that while eating a nice med-rare flank steak.
And Soylent? Is that for real? I guess They never saw Soylent Green. Lol
He named it after the movie. And yes hes for real, and probably has asbergers just like J.W. There is another interview with motherboard where you can see that strange affect. Its real interesting. Here I got the spot for you, if J.W. talked this is what it would be like @ 2:25:
Also note that AOC probably wants us all to eat like this in the future as well.
OMG there is no way I would drink that stuff! Especially if there was mold found in it and was mixed in a warehouse with rats running around. I also would never give up actual food for that. Ick!
(04-03-2019, 11:10 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2019, 10:04 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]He named it after the movie. And yes hes for real, and probably has asbergers just like J.W. There is another interview with motherboard where you can see that strange affect. Its real interesting. Here I got the spot for you, if J.W. talked this is what it would be like @ 2:25:
Also note that AOC probably wants us all to eat like this in the future as well.
OMG there is no way I would drink that stuff! Especially if there was mold found in it and was mixed in a warehouse with rats running around. I also would never give up actual food for that. Ick!
Its a part of the green deal, you just didn't realize the green was from mold. Perhaps thats why they call it soylent green. Its made from AOC.
.gif "Laughing")
(04-03-2019, 11:19 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-03-2019, 11:10 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]OMG there is no way I would drink that stuff! Especially if there was mold found in it and was mixed in a warehouse with rats running around. I also would never give up actual food for that. Ick!
Its a part of the green deal, you just didn't realize the green was from mold. Perhaps thats why they call it soylent green. Its made from AOC.
I would eat AOC.
Wait, that didn't come out right. Or maybe it did, I've confused myself now.