Do People Actually Believe The World No Longer Needs Oil?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't consider antifa and neomarxist radicals to be left wing, they're just assholes just like the other side has its assholes, but that point has already been made.

.

I consider them to be left wing certainly. Although I would also say that violence on the left is often the result of less radical groups.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I consider them to be left wing certainly. Although I would also say that violence on the left is often the result of less radical groups.

I would say the violence is done by criminals under the guise of protests, and not the left protestors themselves. At least in the "free" world anyways. Under dictatorship regimes is a little different.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I consider them to be left wing certainly. Although I would also say that violence on the left is often the result of less radical groups.

I consider the KKK and Nazi's to be right-wing.

You can't conveniently wipe away groups that align with your end of the political spectrum, mate.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I consider the KKK and Nazi's to be right-wing.

You can't conveniently wipe away groups that align with your end of the political spectrum, mate.

Your logic doesn't follow - the natural progression of right wing politics does not mean your destination is white supremacy. Conservatism isn't "white supremacy lite". Even so, those groups are not major factors in social unrest in the US. The KKK is basically non-existent. And the Nazis were certainly not right wing. They were totalitarian dictators basically. And the fact that you have to use extremist groups to make your point, highlights mine.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I consider the KKK and Nazi's to be right-wing.

You can't conveniently wipe away groups that align with your end of the political spectrum, mate.

This here is a problem when trying to have these discussions. You've got left wingers like this that don't even have a basic understanding of where things lie on the left/right scale, that are arguing with full certainty that they are right. They've just heard in their echo chamber that Trump=Nazi, and they never bother to even consider anything else. Now somehow the Nazi Socialist party and the Democrat formed KKK=Right wing. Lol wow.

Makes a lot of sense out of why the left is trying to violently delete history. It's a lot easier to make their backwards arguments once the history has been changed.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This here is a problem when trying to have these discussions. You've got left wingers like this that don't even have a basic understanding of where things lie on the left/right scale, that are arguing with full certainty that they are right. They've just heard in their echo chamber that Trump=Nazi, and they never bother to even consider anything else. Now somehow the Nazi Socialist party and the Democrat formed KKK=Right wing. Lol wow.

Makes a lot of sense out of why the left is trying to violently delete history. It's a lot easier to make their backwards arguments once the history has been changed.

The deleting history thing is a pretty normal leftist strategy. China basically destroyed all of their history pre-Mao. Even the SJW/TWA efforts to go back through twitter is a similar thing.

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

― George Orwell, 1984

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your logic doesn't follow - the natural progression of right wing politics does not mean your destination is white supremacy. Conservatism isn't "white supremacy lite". Even so, those groups are not major factors in social unrest in the US. The KKK is basically non-existent. And the Nazis were certainly not right wing. They were totalitarian dictators basically. And the fact that you have to use extremist groups to make your point, highlights mine.

But not really. To most of that dude. I do not accept your "washing" of your dirty laundry while forcing me to sit in mine. So to speak.

Who's saying the destination is white supremacy or white supremacy lite? Not me.

However, let us not ignore the fact that Nazism's supremacy includes powerful corporations and a thriving business class.

But speaking of white supremacists, I bet we can both call who they will vote for.

Like liberalism, "conservatism" has a bit of an identity crisis going on. Also, how is antifa - an "organization" with no leadership structure - not considered an extremist group in your view? Weren't they recently added to a terrorist list or something?

Either way, this feels pedantic and that's not a conversation I am wanting to have two beers in. I think we can agree on the facts that both ends of the political spectrum have stupidity as an anchor, that extremists exist, and that there's not much of a point on focusing on the micro because it is a distraction.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This here is a problem when trying to have these discussions. You've got left wingers like this that don't even have a basic understanding of where things lie on the left/right scale, that are arguing with full certainty that they are right. They've just heard in their echo chamber that Trump=Nazi, and they never bother to even consider anything else. Now somehow the Nazi Socialist party and the Democrat formed KKK=Right wing. Lol wow.

Makes a lot of sense out of why the left is trying to violently delete history. It's a lot easier to make their backwards arguments once the history has been changed.

If you're going to willingly choose to miss the point every chance you get, add me to your ignore list and enhance your beyond experience.

[kertejud2]

Don't need to limit things to the KKK or neo-nazis to see right wing protesting in the midst of violence:


» Click image for larger version

For safety concerns, Ike had to federalize the Arkansas National Guard to enforce a supreme court decision to end segregated schools.

Desegregation wasn't a proud time for the right.


» Click image for larger version

Nor was the Civil Rights Movement


» Click image for larger version


The 'violence' from left wing groups during the Civil Rights Movement was in the face of this. Also up against inherently conservative institutions like the police and military (Ike had to federalize the national guard to give them new orders because the Governor of Arkansas had deployed them to prevent black students from entering the schools). The violence in the Selma marches were protesters marching to support their right to vote going up against the police, etc.

You don't need to focus on neo-nazis and the KKK for examples of shitty right wing protests and actions. They're just the easy targets who who were standing alongside the other right wingers on the wrong side of the Civil Rights Movement. But this is a long way from oil and gas and it's place going forward, but there's nothing productive about picking and choosing what attributes are right or left because you don't like what the consensus has been since the Age of Enlightenment because you've picked a team. You don't need to identify as a right winger or a left winger or a centre-winger. Multi-spectrumed political compasses have existed for a long time to address the shortcomings of this.

Anarchism is 'definitely' a left wing idea, authoritarianism is 'definitely' a right wing idea. Communism definitely left wing, Capitalism definitely right wing. Progressiveness left, Conservative right. Radical left, Reactionary right. But you can have radical, authoritarian communists (USSR). Radical, anarchistic socialists (Paris commune). Authoritarian, conservative, reactionary capitalists (Nazis). And a number of combinations all over the place (most Western democracies). It's up to you how much you want to invest in the labels, but if you're going to go all in with them, best to use the common usage of them rather than trying to change the generally accepted vernacular of something that already shouldn't be a binary distinction in the first place.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you're going to willingly choose to miss the point every chance you get, add me to your ignore list and enhance your beyond experience.

Cool story there Mr Pot/Kettle. As I've said before, if you're going to cry like a bitch and avoid conversation everytime you post something retarded that I reply to, go ahead and ignore me yourself. I'm not over here sweating your troll replies. You can either start acting like a grown up or not, makes no difference to me, I'm just here to participate in discussion. Sorry not sorry that offends you.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But not really. To most of that dude. I do not accept your "washing" of your dirty laundry while forcing me to sit in mine. So to speak.

Who's saying the destination is white supremacy or white supremacy lite? Not me.

However, let us not ignore the fact that Nazism's supremacy includes powerful corporations and a thriving business class.

But speaking of white supremacists, I bet we can both call who they will vote for.

Like liberalism, "conservatism" has a bit of an identity crisis going on. Also, how is antifa - an "organization" with no leadership structure - not considered an extremist group in your view? Weren't they recently added to a terrorist list or something?

Either way, this feels pedantic and that's not a conversation I am wanting to have two beers in. I think we can agree on the facts that both ends of the political spectrum have stupidity as an anchor, that extremists exist, and that there's not much of a point on focusing on the micro because it is a distraction.

You're right, it is semantic, which is tedious for sure. But then again, much of the current nastiness in the world relies on ill-defined terms like "racist" which now seems to include some sort of hidden, insidious, subconscious bias.

My point simply is that the left typically devolves to mob violence much more regularly than the right. The US was basically burned down in June due to leftist nastiness, to cite but one example amongst many. CHAZ was certainly a marxist commune of sorts. I could go on. Look at the all of the cases of violent civil unrest in the past, say, 50 years...and tell me that the trend isn't there. Sometimes it's worth not trying to have a discussion which is designed to create some sort of zero sum game - "my side has dummies and your side as dummies. It's all two sides of the same coin!". It isn't all equal in every regard, and this is one of those. Leftist violence is, to put it simply, more mainstream.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don't need to limit things to the KKK or neo-nazis to see right wing protesting in the midst of violence:


» Click image for larger version

For safety concerns, Ike had to federalize the Arkansas National Guard to enforce a supreme court decision to end segregated schools.

Desegregation wasn't a proud time for the right.


» Click image for larger version

Nor was the Civil Rights Movement


» Click image for larger version


The 'violence' from left wing groups during the Civil Rights Movement was in the face of this. Also up against inherently conservative institutions like the police and military (Ike had to federalize the national guard to give them new orders because the Governor of Arkansas had deployed them to prevent black students from entering the schools). The violence in the Selma marches were protesters marching to support their right to vote going up against the police, etc.

You don't need to focus on neo-nazis and the KKK for examples of shitty right wing protests and actions. They're just the easy targets who who were standing alongside the other right wingers on the wrong side of the Civil Rights Movement. But this is a long way from oil and gas and it's place going forward, but there's nothing productive about picking and choosing what attributes are right or left because you don't like what the consensus has been since the Age of Enlightenment because you've picked a team. You don't need to identify as a right winger or a left winger or a centre-winger. Multi-spectrumed political compasses have existed for a long time to address the shortcomings of this.

Anarchism is 'definitely' a left wing idea, authoritarianism is 'definitely' a right wing idea. Communism definitely left wing, Capitalism definitely right wing. Progressiveness left, Conservative right. Radical left, Reactionary right. But you can have radical, authoritarian communists (USSR). Radical, anarchistic socialists (Paris commune). Authoritarian, conservative, reactionary capitalists (Nazis). And a number of combinations all over the place (most Western democracies). It's up to you how much you want to invest in the labels, but if you're going to go all in with them, best to use the common usage of them rather than trying to change the generally accepted vernacular of something that already shouldn't be a binary distinction in the first place.

Democrats are more left than right................

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Democrats are more left than right................

What decade are we in?

The Democrats are who pushed through the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The famous non-quote by LBJ: 'we have lost the South for a generation' because it enraged Southern whites so much.

Yeah the Republicans were the party of Lincoln. Yeah the Democrats fought integration. Parties have switched across the wings over time. Lincoln with his progressive ideas of liberalism and equality for all represented a very left-wing view when faced with the right-wing conservative traditions and economic freedoms and property rights of slavery. At one point Republicans were just more left wing in things than the Democrats were. Not all things mind you, but definitely some big ones.

FDR was definitely a left wing politician, but many Republicans supported the New Deal as well (causing a 'left/right' rift in the party). Eisenhower was a 'left-wing Republican' following a 'right wing Democrat' in Truman.

With JFK to LBJ and Nixon and Reagan things saw a switch to more represent the party alignment we see today. Democrats = left and Republicans = right is an easy category to look at the state of US politics now, but thinking it has applied the same throughout history just shows a lack of understanding of US politics before 1980, and an over-reliance on picking teams and ideology before understanding.

[max_boost]

What I notice is:

There’s liberal and then there’s the left and then there’s the extreme left

Surprised no one brought up the solution? Green New Deal! Jk Ofc

Getting rid of oil over night is like defunding the police and then calling them when there’s an emergency. Everyone needs to slow down and work towards a reasonable solution.

[Buster]

It's not immediately obvious to me that racism is correlated to the political spectrum.

[dirtsniffer]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not immediately obvious to me that racism is correlated to the political spectrum.

If the preview for uncle tom taught me anything lol... anyone have a free source?

[davidI]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Getting rid of oil over night is like defunding the police and then calling them when there’s an emergency. Everyone needs to slow down and work towards a reasonable solution.

I like this analogy.

And yes, I think reasonableness is the goal.

A couple of pages back someone suggested that I was upset over being downvoted because people disagree with my opinion. That's not it at all. I welcome disagreement and debate, particularly if it's backed up with an educated argument, and will change my own opinion if convincing enough. My concern is that it seems many Calgarians, Albertans, and Canadians now have very strong opinions based on media and "charity" group propaganda that can't hold up to even the most basic of questioning or analysis.

I'm just concerned that our country is being turned into a paperbag that's being filled with more and more water - but hey, at least that paperbag is renewable, right?

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm just concerned that our country is being turned into a paperbag that's being filled with more and more water - but hey, at least that paperbag is renewable, right?

What you’re referring to is actually called a “drink box water bottle sort of thing”

[ZenOps]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The deleting history thing is a pretty normal leftist strategy. China basically destroyed all of their history pre-Mao. Even the SJW/TWA efforts to go back through twitter is a similar thing.

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

― George Orwell, 1984

But... Should history be forgotten. Should the USA take down all statues of confederate slave owners? I'm usually on the side that history needs to be preserved but not celebrated. Even monumental achievements a century or millennia ago can have far reaching consequences in the future. Imagine today, if with our modern construction equipment - we could not replicate building the Pyramids of Giza. It would be a monumental defeat.

White people are the only ones who tend to side with "Celebrating the past" because it tends to work in their favour. Imagine putting up a statue of a black man that owned white slaves (and all the nastiness alongside it) and then celebrating him in immortal bronze as a hero of the nation, in 15 of 50 states.

China wants to delete certain faiths because of a "vengeful god" and not a "compassionate god". There are many religions out there that stop just short of human sacrifice. Trump tends to agree, at least to the point of immediately blocking some religions. Left or right has little to do with it.

[ZenOps]

If things go according to plan, China might start recycling some carbon infrastructure come 2030. Remove some coal transport systems, not necessarily pipelines. If its one thing that China does not have, its sentiment - and if there is a better solution, the old way will be melted down for the new way.

With the way that their government pushes things through, they can absolutely force a leap from carbon. Alternatives have always been available, just not as much willpower for as long as the rest of the world continues to make thousands of specialized parts for a combustion engine. As China stops making parts to supply the combustion engine, so too will its cost rise.

If a solar panel takes just as much energy to create as burning equivalent oil (which isn't true) at a 1:1 ratio, the solar panel is still far superior because you can run it in the simplest of electric motors (copper wound around a strong magnet) at high rotational efficiencies >50%. By comparison, you have to create a thousand different expensive parts and dozens of caustic and expensive liquids to run a combustion engine at 20% rotational efficiency. And China likes efficiency and inexpensive, along with not having to pay 2,000 different patents for each miniscule idea put into the modern combustion engine to make it 0.05% more efficient.

https://haynes.com/en-gb/tips-tutori...n-t-see-coming $1,000 to replace a timing belt (if you can get the one you need) literally signifies the ridiculousness of the modern combustion engine. $1,500 to replace a head gasket that arguably only costs $50 maximum to produce.