Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

Yzermandius19

Suspended
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,443

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Yzermandius19

  1. Yzermandius19
    Nah dude, the market is your friend, use it, stop shunning it. The real people who are holding back environmentalism is not the fossil fuel industry, it's the extremists who demand we stop using fossil fuels and want to use government coercion to enforce it. If you ditch the crazies, you'll find industry much more accommodating to your goals. The anti-smoking laws are dumb too, the tobacco industry was right about that, and they have done more harm than good by making smoking more taboo and thus more addictive, yet more counter-productive virtue signaling for the fail. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and putting your faith in government moral policing of human vices is one of the quickest routes there. Meanwhile the market comes along with vaping and has done more good than the prohibitionists could ever dream of with their silly government regulations. Now the anti-smoking extremists want to ban or regulate the sh*t out of that as well. "Won't someone please think of the children?" is simply cover to help sell ineffective government power grabs to "save people from themselves", when they do nothing of the sort and simply backfire. Down with the prohibitionists, may their children go blind.
  2. Yzermandius19
    The Peak Oil crowd think the same thing, but they just jump to an idiotic conclusion based on those facts, see Speaker to Animals.
  3. Yzermandius19
    Oil won't be king forever, but it will for a while longer still.
  4. Yzermandius19
    I can see it within my liftetime. Will it be cheaper than oil by then? Probably not in my lifetime, but it will likely be cheaper than other energy "clean energy" boondoggles at that point.
  5. Yzermandius19
    Once Gen IV proliferates, it will get less expensive than it is now, making it more commercially viable. It certainly isn't going to happen tomorrow, but it's not that far away either.
  6. Yzermandius19
    Well if the Gen IV reactors can be used to eat the waste as fuel, that problem is notably reduced. It's a ways off, but not that far away.
  7. Yzermandius19
    Austin Powers Knows. The Morning Consult is Basil.
  8. Yzermandius19
    Burn it eh? That's the extremists for you. The real environmentalists will throw people like this under the bus if they know what's good for them, but they don't, so they'll embrace the derp instead and let them hijack the movement and drag their name in the mud with them.
  9. Yzermandius19
    F*ck Winniberta, the players know.
  10. Yzermandius19
    If they are going to blow money on an energy boondoggle, fourth gen nuclear seems like the way to go. Lower carbon emissions than other fossil fuels, reusable waste and meltdown proof. The only reason for environmentalists who don't care about spending other people's money to be against it, is their knee-jerk anti-nuclear/fossil fuel nature.
  11. Yzermandius19
    Still in development. But once it works and can be mass produced, Nuclear will be a real environmentalists wet dream, and the fake environmentalists using the cause to push more government running your life will be more exposed than ever for the extremist anti-nuclear hacks that they are.
  12. Yzermandius19
    The New Nuke Plants, Gen IV or whatever, actually eat the pollution of older nuclear power plants as fuel, or so I hear. That's another thing that let's you know a lot of fake environmentalists don't give a sh*t about the environment at all, irrational hatred of nuclear energy despite it being the best way to lower carbon emissions.
  13. Yzermandius19
    You could do tree vouchers. You could cut taxes for companies that supply the trees, no government power grab required, the people who want to buy the trees will have the savings passed on to them. But the extremists masquerading as environmentalists won't settle for anything other than government power grabs, they only care about environmentalism in so much as it helps them push their socialist agenda, market based solutions are anathema to them. So throw them under the bus, along with all their baggage, and the environmentalist movement will be able to do a lot more to help the environment with a lot less opposition.
  14. Yzermandius19
    Obama Derangement Syndrome was a thing. Republicans played right into his hands all the time as well. There are counter-productive haters for all presidents, but Trump has more of them than any recent president, and that's his biggest asset. With enemies like that, Trump doesn't need friends.
  15. Yzermandius19
    You can counter-speech without preventing others from speaking. Hate speech is free speech, if you don't agree, then you are anti-free speech. Preventing people from speaking, even if you have good reason to dislike them, is not pro-free speech, not even close. It being "hate speech" does not give you a pass for shutting down their speech, most of the time, these people aren't even engaging in "hate speech", you just think they are and shut them down anyway, like with Dave Rubin for example. F*ck Antifa. Y'all are the violent ones, quit projecting on everyone else.
  16. Yzermandius19
    They want to nerf the world, that's their endgame.
  17. Yzermandius19
    Nah. You're shit is extremely coherent and well written, sometimes it can be shorthand heavy, but this is not one of those cases. Some people just have terrible reading comprehension skills and can't use google to look up terms they haven't heard of apparently.
  18. Yzermandius19
    It is an objective fact based on the evidence presented thus far. The only people who think otherwise, are the misinformed, most of whom are Trump Haters, and in that instance, confirmation bias is the main reason they buy that bullsh*t, has nothing to do with facts.
  19. Yzermandius19
    Higher taxes which don't address the issue and make the problem worse, that's extreme. Environmentalists need to stop using higher taxes as their go to fix for everything, same goes with banning behaviors they don't like. Stop with the government intervention heavy methods already, stop with the claims of the sky falling if people don't embrace those methods, it's poison and undermines the environmentalist cause. Environmentalists need to start focusing on means, and stop claiming the ends justify the means, especially when the means don't even achieve the ends while infringing on people's well being just to implement those counter-productive means. That sh*t doesn't sell, and that sh*t is why there are so much opposition to the environmentalist agenda. Pro tip.
  20. Yzermandius19
    Moral hazard is a situation in which one party gets involved in a risky event knowing that it is protected against the risk and the other party will incur the cost. The Progressives agenda is paid for using free money due to low interest rates, so they don't have to pay the cost of their cultish boondoggles. But once the interest rates return to historical averages, they won't be able to afford those boondoggle's anymore, and many progressive sacred cows will have to be slaughtered when that bill comes due. The free money binge incites the malinvestments , which wreck the economy, which wrecks the engine to pay for their sacred cows, and since the sacred cows are malinvestments, they will be blamed for the crisis, hence "Moral hazard will be the doom of the Progressive cult". Dougie already explained this, if you read his posts aside from just the snippets you comment on that are merely part of his larger post, then the context is all there, you just need better reading comprehension skills.
  21. Yzermandius19
    My notion is that extreme measures require those measures to actually be effective to be worth the trade off, because if they are not, then extreme measures will be counter-productive and have a lot of downsides. If you want to implement extreme measures because anything less won't solve climate change, then it's up to you to prove that those extreme measures will actually work and that they are worth putting up with the downsides, or you can f*ck off with your extreme measures.
  22. Yzermandius19
    A carbon tax doesn't work, so clearly you are for virtue signaling intentions over actual results, or you misguidedly believe that a carbon tax works with no actual proof, yet you demand people be taxed more anyway. Either way, sounds extreme to me, whether you can see it or not. If you want to raise people's taxes, you better have a good reason for it, and until you prove it's a good reason, you shouldn't be demanding higher taxes. This is an example of supporting answers that involve government power grabs over answers that actually address the issue. What's more important to you? Higher taxes or the environment? Because based on the results of your carbon tax support, you are putting higher taxes above the environment.
  23. Yzermandius19
    You only think that because you don't understand his shorthand. It's a nice sounding collection of meaningful words, I can assure you.
  24. Yzermandius19
    If you impeach without proof of crime, it will backfire even more than if you do it with proof of a crime that voters don't care about. If you want to empower Trump, go right ahead. I know the past, I know what happens when a political party in America goes down the impeachment path, clearly you do not, or you wouldn't be acting like it's likely to hurt Trump. You can believe that all you want, but the past shows that your wishful thinking scenario has never happened, and you are grasping at straws with your Impeach Trump canard. That's the difference between my political analysis and yours, I actually know what has happened in similar situations in the past, while you don't have the slightest clue about any of that and are huffing the wishful thinking dust, thinking that this form of analysis is just as valid as having a working knowledge of American political history.
  25. Yzermandius19
    Impeachment is a political witch hunt, it has nothing to do with proving guilt or innocence. Stop trying to act like you are educating me, I'm well aware it's a political process. If you try to impeach a POTUS with no proof of crimes, it will backfire and empower that POTUS, and he won't be removed from office. Go ahead, make Trump's day, impeach him, it's still going to be four more years. Last time a POTUS was impeached, they had proof of a crime, and Clinton still became more popular than ever and wasn't removed from office. If you go after Trump with nothing, how do you think that hurts him? It will rally his base and alienate swing voters, same as what happened with Clinton. Impeachment plays right into Trump's hands, no matter how much you bury your head in the sand and refuse to believe it, all because that isn't what you want to happen.
×
×
  • Create New...