Barack Obama Accepting $400,000 in Wall Street Speech Fee is Depressing

[skinsmarydu]

@RedskinsMayne

 

1) Your party is in charge, and won't fund any further research.

2) Bill Nye helped us be curious as children...it's why we're still with him.

3) The truth is it's gonna take a lot of money (you know, the stuff on pallets that disappeared in Iraq, another failed R experiment) to work on this.  Funny how differently administrations spend our dollars.

[RedskinsMayne]

@skinsmarydu

 

1) Not my party, already been over this. There was no way in hell i was voting for Palin to be in charge of anything, for instance.

2) Yeah, ok. But, that wasn't my point... 

3) Yep. And the people who shouted loudest for war in Iraq, had the most to gain monetarily (and politically) then. Its no difference with the "global warming" people. The people shouting the loudest for global warming research are the ones who have their hands in the pie.  But, if you argument is that there are better things to spend money on, i agree.

[TradeTheBeal!]

9 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

@RedskinsMayne

 

1) Your party is in charge, and won't fund any further research.

2) Bill Nye helped us be curious as children...it's why we're still with him.

3) The truth is it's gonna take a lot of money (you know, the stuff on pallets that disappeared in Iraq, another failed R experiment) to work on this.  Funny how differently administrations spend our dollars.

 

But....he said he's not a Republican.  Don't you believe him?

[skinsmarydu]

1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

But....he said he's not a Republican.  Don't you believe him?

We've got an R campaign here against Jon Ossoff, and their point that they say at the end is that "he's not one of us"...let's talk some more about who wants to be divisive.

Is he not a human being, that breathes air and whose body depends on clean water to survive?

 

"Yeah, I'll take that as long as it's free.  The second it costs me a penny more, I'm out."

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

The climate change "debate" is one of the more idiotic. Let's just call it what it is. Some really rich people want to be slightly richer and don't want to hear about the environment if it's going to get in the way of that.

[RedskinsMayne]

4 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

The climate change "debate" is one of the more idiotic. Let's just call it what it is. Some really rich people want to be slightly richer and don't want to hear about the environment if it's going to get in the way of that.

 

 

For me the debate is whether or not one Government should pour money into researching it and create massive complicated environmental regulations that are enforced on a one-sided basis at the expense of its own country's competitiveness. Not whether or not global warming exists.  

 

4 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

But....he said he's not a Republican.  Don't you believe him?

 

 

He should. But maybe it makes him feel better to call me a Robber? 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

For me the debate is whether or not one Government should pour money into researching it at the expense of its own country's competitiveness. Not whether or not global warming exists. 

That would be a better conversation than the one that has been going on in this thread at least.

[skinsmarydu]

I'm a he now.  Wow.

[TradeTheBeal!]

 

Federal money into research is minimal and roughly constant.  Fed money into actual tech and assistance is also minimal and has risen recently because...wait for it...effects are being felt and technology and assistance is needed.

 

The whole idea that Derplord is deeply concerned about government waste regard climate science is either deeply misinformed or baldly dishonest.

 

http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

[Bang]

1 hour ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

Just mentioned him as a guy who is in it for the money.... its a legit argument to make. I agree, he isn't relevant to the reality of the situation, except for if we stop talking about it he stops raking in money.

 

 

 

I doubt that,, there's plenty of other nifty science projects he can do on TV that will make him money.  

Such cynicism.. why hate the guy for making a living?

He isn't lying, and he is entertaining. You make it sound as if he's exploiting climate change for a buck. Its a big topic, and people like him. Isn't that part of the basis of capitalism? In the TV business it sure is. (except those who pretend what he's saying about climate change isn't real, or those who swim in their wake.) I guarantee you if all he did was talk about how to make a science project volcano or how to do other science experiments other than talk about the reality of climate change, he would not be a target of the right wing propaganda machine.

 

 

Fact is, the only way anyone will stop talking about it is if we actually do something, or drown in the consequence of talking beyond the point of action. 

 

endless talk.. it's like i said earlier. Denying fact does not make it any less fact. This idea now that pervades people that if they simply disagree with reality that it doesn't exist is moronic. 

 

America in decline. Big time. Happily spiraling in ignorance.

 

~Bang

 

[RedskinsMayne]

4 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Federal money into research is minimal and roughly constant.  Fed money into actual tech and assistance is also minimal and has risen recently because...wait for it...effects are being felt and technology and assistance is needed.

 

The whole idea that Derplord is deeply concerned about government waste regard climate science is either deeply misinformed or baldly dishonest.

 

http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

 

 

And what about the regulations that artificially raise costs for domestic manufacturers? 

[skinsmarydu]

2 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

And what about the regulations that artificially raise costs for domestic manufacturers? 

Such as?

[RedskinsMayne]

4 hours ago, Bang said:

 

Such cynicism.. why hate the guy for making a living?

 

~Bang

 

 

 

Im not that one who created a topic about how unfair it was that someone should earn a living. Thats strictly a liberal agenda.  I only used him as example of someone who louds loudly about an isssue, and also makes money from speaking loudly about it.

 

Why? It's always about the money, 100% of the time... do you think people yelling about global warming the loudest are more concerned about the environment than the money they may or may not get for research? Gnaw. Do you think the people complaining about the north dakota pipeline DONT have a price on their land where they'd welcome the pipeline with open arms? Gnaw. It's amazing to me people are so naive. OFC President Obama is using his past to make money... not shocking, depressing, or wrong.

[RedskinsMayne]

4 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

Such as?

 

Well, on infrastructure, just one example

 

Why don't we start with all the environmental impact statements that have to completed before the project even begins. Not only do those cost serious money, they also delay projects by several years which ALSO raises the cost of them due to the impacts of inflation. Not to mention that once an environmental impact assesment has been completed, it often creates language what requires off-setting of the environmental impacts (like drainage ponds for instance) which also increase the cost of a project. 

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

Just now, RedskinsMayne said:

 

Well, on infrastructure, just one example

 

Why don't we start with all the environmental impact statements that have to completed before the project even begins. Not only do those cost serious money, they also delay projects by several years which ALSO raises the cost of them due to the impacts of inflation. Not to mention that once an environmental impact assesment has been completed, it often creates language what requires off-setting of the environmental impacts (like drainage ponds for instance) which also increase the cost of a project. 

 

 

We would've had all those years of engineering designs already completed if it hadn't been for funding obstruction in the House.  Cheetoman has said we're gonna do it...but we're already about a decade behind.

Behind what, you ask?  Behind erosion and other environmental challenges.

Next?

[Bang]

11 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

Im not that one who created a topic about how unfair it was that someone should earn a living. Thats strictly a liberal agenda.  I only used him as example of someone who louds loudly about an isssue, and also makes money from speaking loudly about it.

 

 

 

Didn't really answer my question, though.

 

i believe in capitalism,, if a person makes a living by being an engaging television personality who is paid to talk about science, I don't see it as any different than a person who is an orator making a living on their reputation as a president of the United States.

 

if they aren't lying and passing it as fact, no problem.

 

The 'attack the messenger' mentality came from the days in which a powerful person would kill the person who brought them bad news.

Didn't change the news, though, and if they were smart they recognized that.

 

~Bang

[TradeTheBeal!]

And the gallop revs up again...

[RedskinsMayne]

4 hours ago, Bang said:

Didn't really answer my question, though.

 

i believe in capitalism,, if a person makes a living by being an engaging television personality who is paid to talk about science, I don't see it as any different than a person who is an orator making a living on their reputation as a president of the United States.

 

if they aren't lying and passing it as fact, no problem.

 

The 'attack the messenger' mentality came from the days in which a powerful person would kill the person who brought them bad news.

Didn't change the news, though, and if they were smart they recognized that.

 

~Bang

 

 

What was your question? There is nothing wrong with Bill Nye making a buck off of global warming. Dont hate him, so i guess if your asking me "why i hate him" i would respond that your premise is wrong.

4 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

And the gallop revs up again...

 

 

Hi. Its interesting that the people who rail against trump the most are the most like him. Dismissive and quick to name-call.

[TradeTheBeal!]

5 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

What was your question? There is nothing wrong with Bill Nye making a buck off of global warming. Dont hate him, so i guess if your asking me "why i hate him" i would respond that your premise is wrong.

 

 

Hi. Its interesting that the people who rail against trump the most are the most like him. Dismissive and quick to name-call.

 

Haven't said a word about Trump in this thread.  I have, however, amply demonstrated how useless and impotent your positions are.  Perhaps you self identify with Trump?

[PokerPacker]

3 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said:

Yeah, it would flabbergast me too if someone said that. But, no one did. I didn't. I said scientists act in their self interest, and the ones YELLING about it the loudest (not every scientist in the field) are doing it for THEIR benefit, monetarily. Never talked about how many jobs the oil industry creates in our country or how much money they spend on protecting the environment, because that would be ridiculous.

Yeah, what you're saying is that Scientists aren't to be trusted because they get paid to do science.  It's stupid.  Science is a peer-reviewed field where if you come out with bull****, you will get called out on it by other scientists.  In this case, however, there is about as much consensus from the scientific community as you can get that Climate Change is a real thing, it's bad, and it's man-made.  But oh no, some of them might get some money to do research, that means they're biased and thus it's all unreliable.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, TryTheBeal! said:

useless and impotent

You rang?

2 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said:

Im not that one who created a topic about how unfair it was that someone should earn a living. Thats strictly a liberal agenda.

I think the only two people who supported the OPs position were hardcore right wingers and it was merely because it was a chance to **** on Obama. Not because they have any principles.

[RedskinsMayne]

4 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

Yeah, what you're saying is that Scientists aren't to be trusted because they get paid to do science.  It's stupid.  

 

 

Im saying that the people shouting the loudest about climate change cant be trusted because they get paid.  I didnt say that you cant trust them because they are getting paid, nor did I say global warming was fake. I said those who shout about it the loudest have a monetary interest in promoting the agenda.

 

I did have one line, afterwards, that scientists wouldn't keep studying global warming if they weren't getting paid to do it. Which is technically true, but. yes, that part of the argument was stupid. No one is working for free, except the pope. Rest of the argument stands.

 

 

[PokerPacker]

Just now, RedskinsMayne said:

Im saying that the people shouting the loudest about climate change cant be trusted because they get paid.  I did have one line, afterwards, that scientists wouldn't keep studying global warming if they weren't getting paid to do it. Which is technically true, but. yes, that part of the argument was stupid. No one is working for free, except the pope. Rest of the argument stands.

Except it doesn't.  As I said, science is peer-reviewed.  If it was wrong, it would have been called out.  The ones who are yelling the loudest are the ones who know that it's a big problem.  As for your attack on Bill Nye, he is a Science Educator.  He isn't limited to Climate Change, but he yells loudly about it because it is a big deal.  He also is always talking about space and evolution and energy and all sorts of things related to science and engineering.  He's a frequent guest-host on Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Star Talk Radio--which is not a big paycheck generator--where he will cover a broad range of topics.

[No Excuses]

53 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

Im saying that the people shouting the loudest about climate change cant be trusted because they get paid.  I didnt say that you cant trust them because they are getting paid, nor did I say global warming was fake. I said those who shout about it the loudest have a monetary interest in promoting the agenda.

 

What ****ing monetary interest are you talking about? The people putting out climate science work are experts who have spent decades researching the core principles that allow us to monitor changes to our climate system.

 

It's a legitimate field because there is a legitimate ****ing problem that we are facing.

 

Your argument can also be extended to people doing research on issues like cancer, addiction etc and assume that they are driven by some kind of monetary interest rather than the need for expertise on these topics because they are legitimate issues.

 

This is such a dumb argument and you are surely prone to making them. I just realized you are the "black people haven't contributed to anything in history" guy. Holy ****, have you ever sat down and evaluated how you view the world?

[RedskinsMayne]

What is the problem? Sea water will rise very very SLOWLY, and some species might go extinct. Not that big a deal. Its not like the earth is going to turn into some giant fireball and sink into the sun. Also, if the ice caps melt, that will allow large amounts of freshwater into the oceans which will slow the ocean currents down, which will slow the propagation of warm air at the equator to the poles, which will help counterbalance the "warming".  There are more immediate concerns.