Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Texas Energy Crisis
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by whag View Post
I haven't, but I assume there's context. I can't find it on youtube.
Now, answer my other question, you slacker!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View Post
I haven't, but I assume there's context. I can't find it on youtube.
and - he is one arrogant son-of-a-biscuit-baker....
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View Post
I confess I have not. But I have used "radii." And, yes, I did silently yelp with glee for my accomplishment.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
More like that, yes, except Obama wasn't responding to an incredibly rare natural disaster - he was wanting to cause one.
This is the sort of dishonesty in debate that is /has ruined not just TWEB over the last few years, but the entire political landscape in this country.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-24-2021, 04:30 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
False. 100x + was NOT the meaning of skyrocket. Just listen to what he says after he uses the term 'skyrocket'. He is saying that initially rates will have to go up. But that eventually as the forms of power production move away from fossil fuels and more efficient appliances are developed it will come back down. He is talking about creating a financial environment where - over time - clean energy development is made financially expedient. And that is single digit multiples at most. There is no world where what Obama was saying equates to a natural disaster of our own making, or energy bills 10x normal, let alone 100x. Indeed, Texas has already built up a large amount of wind power, and it did not require electric bills anywhere near 10x normal. And had they not pursued ultra cheap electricity along the way. They could have even winterized those turbines and the rest of the infrastructure and this cold snap would have just been a great time for some Texas kids to play in the snow.
This is the sort of dishonesty in debate that is /has ruined not just TWEB over the last few years, but the entire political landscape in this country.
Obama was very confidently claiming that, because of his loyalty to climate change and climate responsibility, that "cap and trade" was going to bring financial havoc to coal and oil. He wanted to own it.
And you're continuing your cowardly accusations of lying without being man enough to call somebody a liar. You, instead, use phrases like "dishonesty in debate", and calling people "slime balls".
And blaming everybody else for what you described as "has ruined not just TWEB over the last few years, but the entire political landscape in this country" -- you are a HUGE part of that.
It takes two sides, Jim - - and the left is every bit as responsible as the right for the current climate.
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
I sense the meltdown is heating up. Jim, you really need to stop seeing the world through the "HATE THE RIGHT" filter.
Obama was very confidently claiming that, because of his loyalty to climate change and climate responsibility, that "cap and trade" was going to bring financial havoc to coal and oil. He wanted to own it.
And you're continuing your cowardly accusations of lying without being man enough to call somebody a liar. You, instead, use phrases like "dishonesty in debate", and calling people "slime balls".
And blaming everybody else for what you described as "has ruined not just TWEB over the last few years, but the entire political landscape in this country" -- you are a HUGE part of that.
It takes two sides, Jim - - and the left is every bit as responsible as the right for the current climate.
I see you're on you typical gaslighting rant. Maybe you can get it together in a few more days.
---
Yes - something was needed to help push adoption of non-fossil fuels. And making it less profitable to use coal and oil was one way to do that. But to compare that plan, which was designed NOT to reach financial havoc overall, but rather just shift the jobs and wealth and power generation from coal to renewables, with the disaster that just occurred is just simply not a legitimate comparison. It's more crazy rhetoric where the conclusion has no actual basis in fact.
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
False. 100x + was NOT the meaning of skyrocket. Just listen to what he says after he uses the term 'skyrocket'. He is saying that initially rates will have to go up. But that eventually as the forms of power production move away from fossil fuels and more efficient appliances are developed it will come back down. He is talking about creating a financial environment where - over time - clean energy development is made financially expedient. And that is single digit multiples at most. There is no world where what Obama was saying equates to a natural disaster of our own making, or energy bills 10x normal, let alone 100x. Indeed, Texas has already built up a large amount of wind power, and it did not require electric bills anywhere near 10x normal. And had they not pursued ultra cheap electricity along the way. They could have even winterized those turbines and the rest of the infrastructure and this cold snap would have just been a great time for some Texas kids to play in the snow.
This is the sort of dishonesty in debate that is /has ruined not just TWEB over the last few years, but the entire political landscape in this country.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
Obama was very confidently claiming that, because of his loyalty to climate change and climate responsibility, that "cap and trade" was going to bring financial havoc to coal and oil. He wanted to own it.
Banning the chemicals that caused ozone hole also caused financial havoc for the businesses that depended on them.
Also, let's not forget how coal industry has exploited the land and its workers for decades. My wife is from West Virginia, so I know. This issue is fraught with ambiguity and pregnant with context.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostI wouldn't argue with that,
but what Jim said was also correct. Obama was willing to take responsibility for the decline of the fossil fuel industry but the context of what he said is key. Climate responsibility requires power production to move away from fossil fuels and eventually those rates will come back down. In the meantime, he addressed ways to offset those high bills for poor families.
Banning the chemicals that caused ozone hole also caused financial havoc for the businesses that depended on them.
Also, let's not forget how coal industry has exploited the land and its workers for decades. My wife is from West Virginia, so I know. This issue is fraught with ambiguity and pregnant with context.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
People who disagree with you are not being "dishonest" Jim, they just hold a different view than you do. This seeing everyone as purposefully being dishonest or lying when they debate anything with you needs to stop. All it does is foster anger and arguments. If you truly feel that we are dishonest and have "ruined" Tweb then I think your best move would be to shake the dust off of your sandals and move on to another forum.
It is dishonest intellectually and pretty much any other way to make an argument based on the assumption there is an equivalence between say 2x and 100x when we are talking about $/Kwh.
Obama is talking about some single digit multiplier, maybe 2, maybe 3x, when he says 'skyrocket' in that video (based on research into the potential short term effects on electrical costs of cap-n-trade) But this disaster produced 100x or more the electrical rate for some customers. Yet the arguments is "except Obama wasn't responding to an incredibly rare natural disaster - he was wanting to cause one.", and the focus was on the COST of a Kwh per Obama's use of the word 'skyrocket'.
So the statements in bold are equivalenced in terms of the impact on the cost of electricity.
But there is no comparison between the short term change in rate that would be associated with cap-n-trade and the actual impact on rates of this disaster.
which means that is not just a 'disagreement' Sparko, that is a dishonest argument.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
He also very clearly said that the "skyrocketing cost" would be passed on to consumers. And you'll even hear him start to include Natural Gas, then kinda back off.
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
Ok - this not about disagreeing. This is about saying 100x is 'the same' as a 1 or 2 or 3x. That is only true if x is 0.
It is dishonest intellectually and pretty much any other way to make an argument based on the assumption there is an equivalence between say 2x and 100x when we are talking about $/Kwh.
Obama is talking about some single digit multiplier, maybe 2, maybe 3x, when he says 'skyrocket' in that video (based on research into the potential short term effects on electrical costs of cap-n-trade) But this disaster produced 100x or more the electrical rate for some customers. Yet the arguments is "except Obama wasn't responding to an incredibly rare natural disaster - he was wanting to cause one.", and the focus was on the COST of a Kwh per Obama's use of the word 'skyrocket'.
So the statements in bold are equivalenced in terms of the impact on the cost of electricity.
But there is no comparison between the short term change in rate that would be associated with cap-n-trade and the actual impact on rates of this disaster.
which means that is not just a 'disagreement' Sparko, that is a dishonest argument.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:09 PM
|
4 responses
38 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 03:51 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 01:25 PM
|
0 responses
7 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:25 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, Yesterday, 08:53 AM
|
0 responses
25 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 10:08 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 04-18-2024, 01:12 PM
|
28 responses
199 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 11:00 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
65 responses
462 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 10:40 AM
|
Comment