Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Wymsey

Also in the News - Part 2

By Wymsey, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Otis

Otis

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I believe that while their environmental policy hasn't been as good as perhaps what is needed, it's a damn sight better than that of the Repubs - and that could make a vast difference in terms of the future.

 

Pardon me for the single issue wonkery here, but if there's another issue outside of global nuclear holocaust that puts so many lives around the world at risk, I'd be happy to consider it equal in terms of importance.

 

It means four years that would be spent doing nothing (and possibly more afterwards reversing changes) on a matter that's already urgent and is beginning to have a cost in lives and materiel, and the more time is wasted, the higher the overall cost will be.

Are you suggesting the USA now controls global temperatures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbles

marbles

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I believe that while their environmental policy hasn't been as good as perhaps what is needed, it's a damn sight better than that of the Repubs - and that could make a vast difference in terms of the future.

 

Pardon me for the single issue wonkery here, but if there's another issue outside of global nuclear holocaust that puts so many lives around the world at risk, I'd be happy to consider it equal in terms of importance.

 

It means four years that would be spent doing nothing (and possibly more afterwards reversing changes) on a matter that's already urgent and is beginning to have a cost in lives and materiel, and the more time is wasted, the higher the overall cost will be.

Now its "Global Nuclear Holocaust?"  Come on dude.

Are you now suggesting that a Republican Presidency will lead to Nuclear War?  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbles

marbles

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

global_gis_2022_chart.png

 

Not entirely sure this is nonsense tbh.

WOW, were those all the years that Repubs were in charge?  Amazing.  Didn't realize they've run this country unopposed for 50+ years.

smh

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Otis

Otis

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, marbles said:

No, only the Republicans.

The Dems are innocent victims in all this

TBH I don't fully understand US politics, but was is clear an 80 year old with early dementia should be no where near the most high profile job in the world. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbles

marbles

Posted
Posted
Just now, Otis said:

TBH I don't fully understand US politics, but was is clear an 80 year old with early dementia should be no where near the most high profile job in the world. 

Saw something funny the other day.

 

Someone said, that the Democratic Party should have rounded up all Bidens aides and told them to tell Biden "You cant announce you're running, its already your second term".

Would have worked! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Otis said:

Are you suggesting the USA now controls global temperatures. 

They and the Chinese have the most control of it by being the biggest emitters and world powers. I think that's reasonably obvious.

 

19 minutes ago, marbles said:

Now its "Global Nuclear Holocaust?"  Come on dude.

Are you now suggesting that a Republican Presidency will lead to Nuclear War?  

 

 

 

No, not at all. I'm saying that environmental policy is, at the present time, the most important policy outside of such an event in terms of lives and cost. Which it empirically is.

 

18 minutes ago, marbles said:

WOW, were those all the years that Repubs were in charge?  Amazing.  Didn't realize they've run this country unopposed for 50+ years.

smh

Missing the point. The point is that at the present time, that increase is a matter of global concern, as opposed to being nonsense. The Dems take it seriously in terms of policy, the Repubs so not. That's it, really.

 

12 minutes ago, marbles said:

Look @leicsmac

I agree with you that Dem policies are better for the environment.

But that doesnt mean things cant/wont change.

 

When you come on here screaming "doom and gloom if I don't get my way", it makes me and others not want to listen.

Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that Repub environmental policy will change in the way needed, in the time needed? That would be a serious U-turn, needing serious proof.

 

And that we have no time to waste is not "doom and gloom", it's a simple statement of fact backed by scientific evidence. Make of it what you will, but please don't deny it - it would be the same as believing the Earth to be flat.

 

6 minutes ago, Otis said:

TBH I don't fully understand US politics, but was is clear an 80 year old with early dementia should be no where near the most high profile job in the world. 

And if you look at the last page, I'm in broad agreement. But that doesn't mean the "other side" should be in that job instead, as that would be a lot worse.

Edited by leicsmac
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Otis

Otis

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And if you look at the last page, I'm in broad agreement. But that doesn't mean the "other side" should be in that job instead, as that would be a lot worse.

Genuine question. Why would it be worse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Otis said:

Genuine question. Why would it be worse?

Happy to answer.

 

An incoming Repub administration, especially if headed up by Trump, would do exactly as the last one did and completely withdraw from any current or future effort to inhibit carbon emissions for the sake of short term monetary gain, believing, most erroneously, that it's somehow not a problem, or if it is, it's so far into the future as to be someone else's problem.

 

As I said above, I'm not pursuing this gloomy line for its own sake and I wish the situation were less dire than it is and therefore it would be less of a policy concern, but pretty much every piece of scientific literature I have read for the past five to ten years is saying the same thing - temperatures are going up and the consequences for that are dire and we need to arrest that increase as quickly and to as large a degree as we can. We've wasted enough time not taking on the problem already - and any more we waste will have an exponentially increasing future cost in terms of money and lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Otis

Otis

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

An incoming Repub administration, especially if headed up by Trump, would do exactly as the last one did and completely withdraw from any current or future effort to inhibit carbon emissions for the sake of short term monetary gain, believing, most erroneously, that it's somehow not a problem, or if it is, it's so far into the future as to be someone else's problem.

Thanks for the reply. Couple of questions...

 

1. Is it a given that the Republics with or without Trump would withdraw from current efforts?

 

2. Are the Democrats currently doing enough?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Otis said:

Thanks for the reply. Couple of questions...

 

1. Is it a given that the Republics with or without Trump would withdraw from current efforts?

 

2. Are the Democrats currently doing enough?

 

1. Given what we know about current candidates, yes, it's pretty much a certainty, unless someone can offer compelling evidence otherwise.

 

2. Not at the current time, not to prevent a pretty nasty amount of future damage anyway. But enough to have a very significant difference in terms of that future damage between what they would do and what the Repubs would do. Additionally, the simple fact that they take the matter seriously right now means the potential for them to do more in the future and possibly reduce the damage further - as opposed to not taking the matter seriously at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Naughty, but can imagine this sort of thing happening a lot..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-65374346

 

4 hours ago, Parafox said:

The profuse excuses makes me think they're bullcrap.

 

He knew what he was doing.

Silly boy. 

 

What he should have done is register as a Tory member/canvasser, volunteered to pick up the van with 500 boxes of campaign leaflets, and then accidentally drive that van into a ravine.

 

Not that I'm thinking of doing it. :ph34r:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
On 25/04/2023 at 04:26, Captain... said:

Yes, but that is not the point Lineham was making, Lineham is denying Izzard's gender, he's a massive transphobe not a holocaust denier, he is stating that Izzard is a man and is attracted to women so therefore would not be persecuted by Nazis.

 

Put it this way: His assertion that Nazis didn't persecute straight white blonde men is true, his assertion that Izzard is a straight male is the falsehood that he is playing upon. 

 

If you disagree with the above, fair enough, I won't convince you otherwise so I'll stop here. It is still a vile comment either way.

You do know Izzard likes to switch back and forth depending on mood?  He is very clearly a man who likes cross dressing, not living as female at all.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Innovindil

Innovindil

Posted
Posted

An advert which suggests eating fish is the same as eating pets has been put up by an animal rights charity near a seaside fish and chip shop.

 

The electronic billboard advert in Cleethorpes, by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), shows a fishmonger holding up a fish which changes into a dead cat.

 

Urging people to "go vegan", Peta said fish were "friends, not food".

 

My cats that enjoy a nice bit of fish:

 

LzbQ8tB.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zear0

Zear0

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

An advert which suggests eating fish is the same as eating pets has been put up by an animal rights charity near a seaside fish and chip shop.

 

The electronic billboard advert in Cleethorpes, by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), shows a fishmonger holding up a fish which changes into a dead cat.

 

Urging people to "go vegan", Peta said fish were "friends, not food".

 

My cats that enjoy a nice bit of fish:

 

LzbQ8tB.gif

 

 

Fish are friends not food :D " Finding Nemo | Tumblr posts, Shark, Supportive

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...