Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by think

  1. 1 minute ago, BeAChooser said:


    This is untrue.   97% "of the scientific community" does NOT agree that humans are the primary driver.     Shall we debate that?


    I stand corrected already.


    NASA claims "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:"  Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. 


    I used the wrong group in saying the "scientific community" rather than  "climate scientists". Although the climate scientists that NASA recognizes would be a very important group of scientists considering that is their field of expertise. You may disagree and that is your choice but last time I checked NASA had a pretty solid reputation.


    Feel free to post your sources. I'm not against hearing differing opinions. But please provide sources. I may not agree with your sources or find them to be of poor quality as you do of mine sometimes but at least you'll have something to base your opinion on.


    Please don't take offense if I don't respond. This is just a forum and not every post gets responded to. I spend a lot of time researching and vetting sources to use and don't always respond as it's a lot of work to try and source my positions for a serious discussion. 


    And likewise many times I post and no one responds. So I just make my best case to try and inform people of my position move on. It's up to others to decide if my position is well sourced, vetted and of a high quality worthy of consideration for their own position on an issue.  


    I posted the above article because it both shows there are Republicans concerned about climate change and that it there may be a possibility for cooperation. A rare thing now days but hopefully even people who may disagree on many issues can find areas they do agree.



  2. 4 minutes ago, sole result said:

    hell no. the climate will be what it is regardless humans exist or not.  think back 65 million years numbnuts. Damn I hope you haven't reproduced or spawned more idealists.


    I'll agree with NASA and 97% of the scientific community that humans are the primary driver of climate change.


    You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But one anonymous opinion without any factual basis really doesn't say much does it.....

  3. 1 minute ago, NeoConvict said:

    That is a different claim. The majority of people do not believe Humanity to be a prime driver of climate. Scientists do not believe Humanity to believe a primary driver in climate. 


    Do you believe humans are a primary source for climate change?


    If many Republican still don't think humans cause climate change it may be because their Republican president and congress persons  keep telling them that.


    But NASA and the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying otherwise as pointed out in my source.




  4. 1 minute ago, NeoConvict said:

    Climate change is happening. That a majority believes this is unsurprising. Most people believe the earth is a globe too, not exactly newsworthy. I doubt a majority believe humanity has much impact on the climate. 


    CO2 levels are rising by both natural and man made sources. However man made sources and their impact are well documented:



    Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

    Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.



    Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

    "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2






    The Green New Deal Could Launch Republican Climate Solutions

    February 15, 2019

    The attention surrounding the Green New Deal rollout last week seemed to underscore the entrenched partisanship of addressing climate change: progressive Democrats demanded a quick drawdown from fossil fuels while top Republicans, including President Trump, dismissed their plan as a “socialist” joke.




    By shifting the conversation to the left, the Green New Deal has given conservative lawmakers an opening to present centrist policy proposals without looking like they are giving Democrats a political win. At the same time, progressive rhetoric surrounding the issue has contributed to a sense of urgency in the public dialogue, encouraging influential corporate lobbyists, who support moderate solutions to address climate change but want to avoid policies that include heavy regulations, to act proactively. Ultimately, Congressional Republicans’ reaction to the Green New Deal may offer a glimmer of hope that a legislative climate solution will pass a divided Congress in coming years.




    That maneuvering may be necessary for the political survival of at least some Republicans. Nearly 3 in 4 Americans, including a majority of Republicans, now agree that climate change is happening, according to a December poll from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “This is an opportunity to articulate a vision,” says Heather Reams, executive director of Citizens For Responsible Energy Solutions.




    While Republicans have almost universally slammed the Green New Deal proposal offered by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey last week, some conservative analysts have also said in private that it contains some potential areas of bipartisan consensus. Infrastructure funding, as well as clean energy research and development, enjoy strong bipartisan support, for example. And job retraining programs have attracted support on both sides of the aisle in the past. President George W. Bush signed the Green Jobs Act into law in 2007.


    Read more:








  6. 1 minute ago, personreal said:

    Yep...dink is reading from the script.


    Name calling and baseless opinion is all you have come up with. You claim to understand the economics behind tax incentives but provide no evidence and facts to back your claims.


    Feel free to provide your information on why tax incentives will work. Overall though research shows that tax incentives have a negative effect on states and the nation:



    August 14, 2013

    Tax Incentives: Costly for States, Drag on the Nation

    Tax incentives are intended to spur economic growth that would not have otherwise occurred.  More specifically, these narrowly targeted tax breaks are usually offered in an attempt to convince businesses to relocate, hire, and/or invest within a state’s borders.


    But state and local tax incentives come at an enormous cost.  While a comprehensive accounting of these programs is impossible, the best available estimates suggest that states and localities are devoting some $50 billion to tax incentives every year.  Unfortunately, despite the enormous expenditures being made on these programs, the evidence suggests that tax incentives are of little benefit to the states and localities that offer them, and that they are actually a drag on national economic growth.


    Tax Incentives Face Many Pitfalls


    The academic literature indicates that states are significantly limited in their ability to influence business behavior through tax incentives, and that spurring true economic growth through the use of incentives is even more difficult.[ii]  Despite the hopes of lawmakers and their constituents, there are simply too many ways in which tax incentives can fail to live up to their stated goals.[iii]....




    A National Perspective


    From the perspective of individual states and localities, the evidence regarding the ineffectiveness of tax incentives is fairly clear.  Even clearer, however, is the folly of these incentives when viewed from a national perspective.  State tax incentives are often described as a zero-sum game in the aggregate, but as the below discussion indicates, the reality is probably even more grim.


    Read more:




  7. Just now, personreal said:

    How about the taxes they would have generated over the years?


    It's called investment in the future dink.



    Tax Incentives Often Don’t Work in Long Run

    I find it discouraging that mayors and civic boosters so often disregard the evidence and join the rush to throw subsidies at companies looking to locate a facility.

    Oct. 10, 2017 12:27 p.m. ET

    I am delighted to see San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo’s “Why I’m Not Bidding for Amazon’s HQ” (op-ed, Oct. 5). As an economist studying labor and economic development, I find it discouraging that mayors and civic boosters so often disregard the evidence and join the rush to throw subsidies at companies looking to locate a facility. Mr. Liccardo breaks away from the herd and points out what economists who study this know: The factors that really make a difference in a decision like Amazon’s are the skill base of the workforce and the ecosystem of existing businesses. I would add that all too often jobs and investments don’t...





    Taxpayers are right to question incentives for economic development — and not just for Amazon  

    Feb 15, 2019 8:11 a.m. ET

    Companies secretly renegotiate deals so they don’t have to deliver the jobs first promised


    New York offered Amazon close to $3 billion to build a “second” headquarters in Long Island City on the promise of 25,000 jobs.

    Since the deal was joyfully announced in November, however, many local residents and some politicians in the area have been questioning whether it’s worth it, both in terms of the price tag and the impact on housing and traffic congestion. And on Feb. 14, Amazon AMZN, +0.74%   backed out of the deal, citing political opposition to its plans.


    The research supports those who question the wisdom of cities and statesincentivizing economic development. Studies suggest the jobs and economic gains are usually not worth the tax breaks since the majority of companies would have come even without incentives.



  8. Just now, EltonJohnson said:



    It wasn’t a handout!


    why do leftist not understand this?




    It wasnt either/ or.   The loss of 25,000 jobs is huge.    The Google complex does not make up for this loss.  


    You can’t rationalize this.  You can’t excuse it. 


    Can you understand that tax incentives represent tax revenue that will be lost and needed to cover an increase in expenses that will occur. Where do you think current tax revenue goes to? If Amazon isn't paying those taxes the rest of the businesses are then somebody has to make up for that shortfall. Obviously it will be the tax payers.


    So Google and other businesses are providing the same jobs without the tax burden to the system. Amazon doesn't need the tax cuts. 

  9. 25 minutes ago, EltonJohnson said:

    Will AOC go down in history fro destroying the Amazon 25,000 jobs in NYC?


    hardly getting any press.  


    Will Google also creating a new campus in NYC that will create thousands of jobs without asking for any tax incentives be discussed?


    While Amazon walked away from $3 billion in tax incentives that it's workers and the tax payers of New York would have made up for Google didn't ask for a dime of tax handouts. 




    DEC. 18, 2018

    Google to Build $1 Billion NYC Campus, No Tax Incentives Required


    There’s about to be a lot more Google in New York City, with the company announcing today it plans to spend $1 billion to build a new campus near the Hudson River. Google nabbed the nearby Chelsea Market building for $2.4 billion this past February. The new campus, expected to be about 1.7 million square feet, will expand out along Hudson and Washington Streets, and the tech giant plans to bring 7,000 additional employees to New


    York, making the city the center of its sales operations. All told, Google would own about 7 million square feet of real estate in New York.

    Google’s investment stands in stark contrast to Amazon’s own satellite headquarters, slated to be built in Long Island City, thanks to roughly $3 billion in tax incentives, and which will occupy roughly 8 million square feet.


    Google hasn’t passed up the chance to tweak Amazon during a cycle of bad publicity for the e-commerce giant. “[Amazon is] running their own play and it’s a very different play than ours,” said William Floyd, the head of external affairs for Google, speaking to the New York Times last week. “We’ve been growing steadily for the past 18 years without heralding trumpets, or asking for support from the government. We’ve done it by the dint of our own work.”





    By Ginger Gibson   -  FEBRUARY 25, 2019 / 6:34 AM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO

    Senator Warren swears off expensive campaign fundraisers

    U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren will hold no political fundraising events with pricey admission fees to collect cash to fuel her bid for the Democratic nomination for president, she announced Monday morning, becoming the first candidate to formally swear-off the traditional means of campaign funding.... 

    Instead of fundraisers with large entry fees, Warren will have to depend mainly on contributions collected online or from supporters willing to chip in smaller donations, known as “grassroots” supporters.... 

    Since party nominees have typically hosted expensive fundraisers to help others in their party, if Warren wins the nomination her rejection of fundraisers could curb the spending power of other Democratic candidates for congressional offices. 

    “There are some Democrats who are so deeply afraid of losing to Donald Trump that they don’t want to risk saying or doing anything different at all,” she wrote to supporters.






    How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

    Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president


    Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington

    Sat 25 Sep 2004 18.59 EDT


    George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.


    The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.


    His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.


    The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy....


    Read more:





    From the Washington Times:



    Bush bank tied to Nazi funding

    By - The Washington Times - Friday, October 17, 2003




    President Bush’s grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, government documents show.


    Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp., a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by the Associated Press.


    Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) Mr. Thyssen believed was preferable to communism. The documents do not show any evidence that Mr. Bush directly aided that effort. His position with Union Banking never was a political issue for Prescott Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952.




    Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.




    From Fox News:




    Documents: Bush's Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler

    WASHINGTON – President Bush's grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler's rise to power, government documents show.


    Prescott Bush (search) was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp. (search), a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by The Associated Press.


    Fritz Thyssen (search) was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose Nazi party Thyssen believed was preferable to communism. The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that effort. His position with Union Banking never was a political issue for Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952.




    No charges were brought against Union Banking's American directors. The federal government was too busy trying to fight the war, said Donald Goldstein, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.

    "We did not have the resources to do these things," Goldstein said....






  12. 10 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:


    We do have a lot of sock puppets around here ... and your posts do seem familiar.  


    But if you can't handle the heat, there's always the snowflake room.  B)



    I think the fact that Paul lied about FDR's campaign and his programs (I proved that) is proof enough that the acorn didn't land far from the tree.



    Now you're sounding even more like someone we all know.



    I gave you a legitimate criticism.   I showed that the article lies about FDR.   So I can understand why you don't want to discuss that now, SNOWFLAKE.



    No it's not.   I posted nothing but facts about FDR, Stuart Chase and the book he wrote.   Facts that you clearly want to hide from now.



    Social Security is one of the programs that FDR's Fabian Socialist laden Brain Trust dreamed up, SNOWFLAKE.


    Of course it's socialism.


    It's the government taking over your ability to invest for yourself and ripping you off in the process.


    I can prove that that average person will make far less from Social Security than they could have ... should have ... by investing their own money quite safely.


    The truth is that you don't even own your contributions to Social Security, *think*.

    Do you know that?


    You have no rights to them.

    The Supreme Court ruled that.

    Social Security was designed to make million and millions of people totally dependent on The State.


    That is the very heart of socialism, snowflake.



    I never claimed that.  


    I said you claimed that and agreed that if he did then Hoover was right in calling The New Deal a gateway to totalitarianism.



    Pluck, pluck, pluck.


    I'm telling you folks ... NOTHING stops a conversation with a DemocRAT faster than offering to debate FDR, Stuart Chase and Fabian Socialism.


    Because they know their head will explode if they even *think* about that.


    Just saying ... :lol:


    Social Security has been around 80 years. Grow up and join reality. Either that or find an Alex Jones forum. You'll fit right in....

  13. 4 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:


    Hey think ... why are you hiding from a discussion of FDR, Stuart Chase and Fabian Socialism?


    The one where you start off the conversation by calling me a sock puppet and then immediately start playing the guilt by association game by claiming the author was no good because of who their dad was?


    Starting off your response with an insult and then using guilt by association to discredit a source is a non starter for me. I normally don't respond to stuff like that. Sorry. 


    If you had legitimate criticism of the author based on HIS record that's another thing entirely.


    And the rest of it was just garbage. History has shown what FDR did and what happened was he got Social Security started which Hoover called socialism.


    So if you're claiming Hoover didn't call Social Security socialism which is what this thread is about go ahead. Otherwise i'm not wasting my time with your conspiracy theories, guilt by association, and accusations of being a sock puppet.






    Medicare For All would be federally provided health insurance that you pay into. You get health care insurance provided without deductibles and co-pays.


    so·cial se·cu·ri·ty

    Dictionary result for social security

    /ˌsōSHəl səˈkyo͝orədē/
    1. any government system that provides monetary assistance to people with an inadequate or no income.
      "she was living on social security"
      • (in the US) a federal insurance program that provides benefits to retired people and those who are unemployed or disabled.



  15. 6 minutes ago, ConservativeWAVE said:


    AND, Republicans have been RIGHT about Democrats for ALL of that time... however, it has only been RECENTLY that Democrats are ADMITTING that they are SOCIALISTS !!  WHICH, although odd, is positive in a way.  WHY?  Because GONE are the days when a Republican, who called a Democrat a Socialist, is attacked as a LIAR... NOW, Democrats have MANY SOCIALISTS as PART of their Party (i.e. Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, and others... some STILL in the closet), they VENERATE Socialist Tactics and Policies (i.e. the Green New Deal), VOTE for Socialists candidates  (Bernie Sanders - Socialist for President)... and SO there's not really even a QUESTION WHAT they are any longer.


    NOW, the 50% of the Democrat Party who are NOT Socialists, need to be made to understand that SOCIALISM and Democracy are NOT comparable... because Socialism and FREEDOM are not comparable... for Socialism to work, the population must be subjugated... because NO ONE can be "equal" under Socialism, if ONE man works harder and is more successful than another... SO:  1)  the pursuit of happiness MUST go first, then 2)  liberty must be ceded to the Socialist government to "PROVIDE equality"... then, FINALLY... without "Liberty" and the "Pursuit of Happiness",   3)  Life becomes more that of a SLAVE than anything else, and people who are FACED with the prospects, are MUCH more apt to GIVE their lives in a fight to REGAIN their freedom...


    All you need to do is look at Venezuela !!  IF we elect an out & our Socialist as President?  It COULD be our future !!


    THAT is what SOCIALISM has to offer... in FACT, LESS than NOTHING... it is an EVIL which must be RESISTED !!


    So you're against Social Security? 



  16. 8 minutes ago, Chongo said:



     if a candidate who was taking vacations in the old Soviet Union and openly says that he is a socialist gets the most votes from your party, but then another more corrupt candidate somehow  cheats him out of winning, you have a new socialist party.


       98% chance that you have a short time of preparedness before all the socialist- (new monarchy) corruption problems hits the fan and you finally realize that you have been promoting yourself into a situation of becoming a simple herd animal hunter gatherer having no legal ability that is not allowed to hunt or gather on anti-creator property after you have been replaced by a robot etc.


    Have you been hanging out with Sole?

  17. This is one of the kinds of corruption Elizabeth Warren wants to put to an end with her Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act


    There is too much of this corruption going on in Washington in both parties.




    Mitch McConnell BUSTED Helping Donors Get Contracts From His Wife

    By  Farron Cousins  -  February 23, 2019
    Mitch McConnell has been caught red-handed, thanks to a trove of more than 800 emails, directing business leaders from his state of Kentucky to meet with his wife, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao. These emails show a coordinated effort by McConnell to repay the people who have helped him throughout his career, and it also shows that both McConnell and Chao are using their connections and their personal relationship for political gain. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains why BOTH McConnell and Chao need to be removed from office immediately.

    This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.


    According to more than 800 emails that were obtained via freedom of Information Act request. Mitch Mcconnell has been directing businesses from the state of Kentucky to his wife who happens to run the department of Transportation. Elaine Chao, who is the secretary of transportation in the United States. He has been directing people to her so that she can meet with them and give these sweetheart deals to people back in Mcconnell’s home state so that he can appease the people who help to put him in office. This, ladies and gentlemen is a perfect example of not just cronyism with Mcconnell and his wife Chow, you know, directing people back and forth trying to help McConnell’s campaign. It is a pay to play. It is corruption, and it is without a doubt or should be without a doubt enough to remove these two from office forever. Here’s the thing about this story....


    Read more:





  18. Just now, Z09 said:

    Are you saying that socialism is actually working in these countries?


    If so why do we have such immigration problem at our borders as people are trying to escape?


     I just posted how these countries have economies that are in shambles. The economies AREN'T socialist and the United States  ISN'T putting crippling sanctions on those economies.


    You are making my point all too well....

  19. The really sad part is that the only reason Trump has to bail out the farmers is because of his failed trade war...




    'Like a Soviet-type economy': GOP free traders unload on Trump

    The president's $12 billion farm bailout gets an ugly reception among many Republicans in Congress.




    07/24/2018 02:50 PM EDT


    Updated 07/24/2018 04:15 PM EDT


    President Donald Trump’s bailout for the ag industry is driving his many Republican trade critics to exasperation.


    Pro-free trade Republicans were already furious with Trump's escalation of tariffs against U.S. allies and China — a multi-front trade war they say is hurting U.S. farmers and manufacturers. But the administration’s response Tuesday — announcing plans to send $12 billion to farmers hurt by retaliatory tariffs to ease the pain — is the opposite of conservative, free-trade orthodoxy, they said.



  20. 6 minutes ago, Z09 said:

    Hey Think...

    How about showing us the "sanctions" that collapsed the country?


    Most are because of illegal dealings from government officials.


    Are you really saying this country was solid before sanctions?

    It was out of control with inflation, poverty and government corruption...


    All brought on by socialism under Chavez and now Maduro....

    To blame "sanctions" shows your ignorance..




    Crippling US sanctions shove Venezuela to the edge of a ruinous debt default

    Agence France-Presse  

    Updated: Friday, 20 Jul, 2018 2:55pm


    US sanctions against Venezuela have accelerated the already catastrophic decline of the oil-rich nation’s economy, and are pushing it to a debt default that economists say could happen as early as this week.


    The aim of the latest US action is to choke off funding to Venezuela by blocking access to foreign currency.

    The Trump administration announced the latest sanctions against Caracas on August 24 after labelling Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro a “dictator.” They follow an earlier set imposed on July 31.


    The impact will be in “stopping any new direct investment into the country, and in making any future debt emissions or renegotiation practically impossible,” said Shannon O’Neil, an expert at the Council of Foreign Relations.


    Read more:



  21. Just now, Z09 said:

    Hey Think...

    How about showing us the "sanctions" that collapsed the country?


    Most are because of illegal dealings from government officials.


    Are you really saying this country was solid before sanctions?

    It was out of control with inflation, poverty and government corruption...


    All brought on by socialism under Chavez and now Maduro....

    To blame "sanctions" shows your ignorance..



    What do you think sanctions do? Seriously....




    Venezuela crisis: Former UN rapporteur says US sanctions are killing citizens

    Modern-day economic sanctions and blockades are comparable with medieval sieges of towns’


    Michael Selby-Green
    Saturday 26 January 2019 19:00 


    The first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela for 21 years has told The Independent the US sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to “crimes against humanity” under international law.


    Former special rapporteur Alfred de Zayas, who finished his term at the UN in March, has criticized the US for engaging in “economic warfare” against Venezuela which he said is hurting the economy and killing Venezuelans.


    The comments come amid worsening tensions in the country after the US and UK have backed Juan Guaido, who appointed himself “interim president” of Venezuela as hundreds of thousands marched to support him. European leaders are calling for “free and fair” elections. Russia and Turkey remain Nicolas Maduro’s key supporters.


    Read more:



  • Create New...