-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Your faith in the guardian needs a re-think.antman said:
http://theantimedia.org/media-syrian-source-t-shirt-shop/
Giardiasis said:
No, I have faith in the version of a professional journalist who went to the site and talked to people rather than just accepted "logic" and "deductions" from a bunch of loony conspiracy theories.
I guess I'm just naive that way.
What people were they? How has their credibility been established? Which side of the war do they support?antman said:
Harry said:
It's got to the stage now that anything CNN thinks is a good idea probably isn't.
Hopefully this isn't the start of escallations. It seems like Trump gave the Syrian government and the Russians 2 hours notice, so it was probably just a bit of showboating for the Chinese guest.
I don't see how you have concluded "Its pretty clear the Russian story is *smile*" from that article?IanG said:
IanG said:
Yeah. Photos from the area show a shell crater in the road and no damage to buildings, which housed only seeds and non-chemical agricultural supplies anyway.
No doubt Harry and G-Man will just tell us that this evidence was constructed on a Hollywood backblock soundstage, footage directed by S. Kubrick.
On a more meta-issue, this is not the first example of chemical gas attacks in Syria. There have been around 14 already, both chlorine and Sarin, and others less identifiable. UN Investigatory teams (insert the conspiracy theory of your choice here) have determined some of these were Syrian Army (Assad), some were ISIS and others it was not determined exactly who had launched the attack.
So yeah, Assad's forces have done it before. And civil wars are *smile* up. And the western response to all this is *smile* up.
So yeah, Assad's forces have done it before. And civil wars are *smile* up. And the western response to all this is *smile* up.
Harry said:
Those are terms used by lawyers, not statisticians. As I said 'likely' is a probabilistic term. For False Flag to be 'likely' let alone 'most likely' you need all of the times that False Flag was the actual explanation and can be verified to have been so. Otherwise you are Alex Jones and you just shat yourself and pissed your pants and popped a blood vessel in you left eye and tore a vocal chord...but you didn't get within cooee of a fact.
On another issue -
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/11/adani-carmichael-mine-needs-1bn-public-funding-barnaby-joyce
This is the clincher
Terrible how renewables get all those evil subsidies eh? Good ol' fossil fuels pay their own way all the time. Even though the market is running away as fast as it can.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/11/adani-carmichael-mine-needs-1bn-public-funding-barnaby-joyce
This is the clincher
Terrible how renewables get all those evil subsidies eh? Good ol' fossil fuels pay their own way all the time. Even though the market is running away as fast as it can.
Lol the market is running away? We don't have a market, because if we did then Hazelwood and Northern wouldn't have closed down. What we have is a government mechanism that tries to borrow elements of how a free market would work, but then intervenes extensively. The more intervention, the bigger the problems (SA the clear highlight, VIC soon to join). Subsidies to coal mining are obviously wrong, as are subsidies to renewables. You condemn one but not the other because you want to pick winners and not let people decide how to live their lives. And then you strawman the argument for coal as if anyone has argued that fossil fuels pay their own way all the time.antman said:
Giardiasis said:
no. the cost of Pollution produced by fossil fuels should be internalized, full stop. That isn't a tax, its addressing a market failure. It isn't picking winners, its picking modes that don't do harm to people and the environment.
Ant condemns one but not the other because one causes harm and not the other. (or being very generous, one causes much more harm than the other).
I know your dogma is unable to incorporate this, but there it is.
If you don't accept the science of CC, the debate is a pointless one.
This is just confused gobbledegook. When you talk about costs, what are you talking about? Environmental damage? The legal system is there for persons to seek recompense for harm caused to their property. If they can’t prove it, then there are no costs to speak of. The only market failure is that caused by government intervention that disrupts the market process entirely, such as the huge intervention into the SA electricity market. Subsidies do harm people. They distort the market, lead to capital consumption and ultimately impoverishment. These modes you speak of are arbitrary nonsense.tigersnake said:
