Was there really a need for that, I understand that you are passionate and apparently frustrated about this but insults... really?
Agreed. HungryJoe, I'm with you on almost every argument you have with Steve, but lowering yourself to the level of outright insults is weak, and does not help your arguments or win people over to your side. Seriously, chill the fuck out. Or, just stop feeding the troll.
Sorry. However, I don't really even consider that an insult. No really - among the people I have daily contact with, that's almost a term of endearment. So, sometimes I forget myself. It's not offered as an excuse so much as an explanation, but I hear this sort of stuff so often I sometimes don't realize that others might find it harsh. Please accept my apologies.
. . . and then shut the fuck up. (I couldn't resist that - it was meant as a joke. Sorry.)
HTMKSteve, the point you are misssing is that environmentalists are going out for constructive and progressive values, such as preservation of nature or the advancement of the healthcare system, while the religious right mostly stand for destructive thoughts like homophobia or the perceived necessity of waging war.
HTMKSteve, the point you are misssing is that environmentalists are going out for constructive and progressive values, such as preservation of nature or the advancement of the healthcare system, while the religious right mostly stand for destructive thoughts like homophobia or the perceived necessity of waging war.
At what cost? I see more anti-capitalists in the environmental movement than rational people. Nuclear power is the cleanest source of energy to move to (zero carbon) yet I see no one on the left putting forth the idea of building more nuke plants in the US.
Even worse is that the same people who do not want us to exploit the energy resources in the USA are the same ones who are trying to go after OPEC to lower prices and/or increase their output.
Sometimes war (or the threat of war) are necessary.
As for the religious right, what part of their agenda has recently been passed by Congress, signed into law by the President or become law via a SCOTUS interpretation?
Right around 1:10 he explicitly says he wants to take the money from the oil companies and give it to others.
Now we are straying from the debate we are actually having distinguishing the values of the far right and the far left. Of course it has to be worked out how something is getting accomplished. The debate with health care is not if free health care for everybody would be good or bad, but how to cover the costs it produces. However, everybody can agree that free health care that is high-standard would be a great thing. On the other hand everybody can easily see that the concept of homophobia or imposing restrictions to consensual sexual relations by law are bad to begin with and nobody should strife to spread that idea.
Sometimes war (or the threat of war) are necessary.
War is never necessary. War is only what you think to be the most efficient way to accomplish you agenda.
HTMKSteve, the point you are misssing is that environmentalists are going out for constructive and progressive values, such as preservation of nature or the advancement of the healthcare system, while the religious right mostly stand for destructive thoughts like homophobia or the perceived necessity of waging war.
At what cost? I see more anti-capitalists in the environmental movement than rational people. Nuclear power is the cleanest source of energy to move to (zero carbon) yet I see no one on the left putting forth the idea of building more nuke plants in the US.
Sometimes war (or the threat of war) are necessary.
War is never necessary. War is only what you think to be the most efficient way to accomplish you agenda.No, war is definitely sometimes necessary. It's the last resort when all other means of accomplishing your agenda have failed.
HTMKSteve, the point you are misssing is that environmentalists are going out for constructive and progressive values, such as preservation of nature or the advancement of the healthcare system, while the religious right mostly stand for destructive thoughts like homophobia or the perceived necessity of waging war.
At what cost? I see more anti-capitalists in the environmental movement than rational people. Nuclear power is the cleanest source of energy to move to (zero carbon) yet I see no one on the left putting forth the idea of building more nuke plants in the US.
Now we are straying from the debate we are actually having distinguishing the values of the far right and the far left. Of course it has to be worked out how something is getting accomplished. The debate with health care is not if free health care for everybody would be good or bad, but how to cover the costs it produces. However, everybody can agree that free health care that is high-standard would be a great thing. On the other hand everybody can easily see that the concept of homophobia or imposing restrictions to consensual sexual relations by law are bad to begin with and nobody should strife to spread that idea.
It is not free, someone is paying for it. Just because the recipient is not paying for it does not make it free.
HTMKSteve, the point you are misssing is that environmentalists are going out for constructive and progressive values, such as preservation of nature or the advancement of the healthcare system, while the religious right mostly stand for destructive thoughts like homophobia or the perceived necessity of waging war.
At what cost? I see more anti-capitalists in the environmental movement than rational people. Nuclear power is the cleanest source of energy to move to (zero carbon) yet I see no one on the left putting forth the idea of building more nuke plants in the US.
The reactors did not cause the global warming that caused them to shut down. Big difference.
Of course they didn't! The point is that nuclear power is less viable, and that continuing to utilize fossil fuels that produce green house gases that contribute to global warming is actually limiting our ability to utilize nuclear power. This is one of the "hidden costs" discussed in the video you posted.
Now we are straying from the debate we are actually having distinguishing the values of the far right and the far left. Of course it has to be worked out how something is getting accomplished. The debate with health care is not if free health care for everybody would be good or bad, but how to cover the costs it produces. However, everybody can agree that free health care that is high-standard would be a great thing. On the other hand everybody can easily see that the concept of homophobia or imposing restrictions to consensual sexual relations by law are bad to begin with and nobody should strife to spread that idea.
It is not free, someone is paying for it. Just because the recipient is not paying for it does not make it free.
We are not discussing this here. You still have yet to give a counterpoint to my argument that the political left strives for constructive values while the political right strifes for destructive values.
But if you have such a problem with the word free, replace it with affordable or universal...
Comments
. . . and then shut the fuck up. (I couldn't resist that - it was meant as a joke. Sorry.)
I could not agree more.
Even worse is that the same people who do not want us to exploit the energy resources in the USA are the same ones who are trying to go after OPEC to lower prices and/or increase their output.
Sometimes war (or the threat of war) are necessary.
As for the religious right, what part of their agenda has recently been passed by Congress, signed into law by the President or become law via a SCOTUS interpretation?
War is never necessary. War is only what you think to be the most efficient way to accomplish you agenda.
The war in Iraq is far from necessary; the same goes for the War on Terror™©®.
But if you have such a problem with the word free, replace it with affordable or universal...