Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Sagacious

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sad and touching...
  2. True, but a belief similar to having faith in the lack of existence of unicorns, Snarks or Grumpkins. It is hard to prove a negative but the odds are....
  3. By the evidence of Holy Scriptures? Really? Is that any different than knowing the motivations of Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore or Aslan the lion by evidence of the book?
  4. I suppose it depends on what the group is advocating. So often "right wing" groups are seeking to infringe, restrict or prevent the equal rights of others. I don't hear of too many violent protests where leftists attack a peaceful meeting about reducing taxes for the wealthy.
  5. Dude, quit while you are behind. Way behind. Some homophobic, bigots were violent. Defending such actions is a major problem.
  6. Taxes are used as levers. For a long time is was free to dump carbon pollution into the air. Applying a price to that pollution is a lever that creates incentive to reduce that pollution. The revenue generated by that tax can be given back to consumers to offset the increased costs or used to green buildings, cars, relocate those who will be flooded etc. Business will seek to reduce costs. If it is profitable to reduce carbon emissions, they will. Thus the emissions problem is solved in an efficient, predicable and economically sound fashion. That's why a carbon tax is the most efficient, predictable and conservative way to reduce carbon pollution with the lowest opportunity for waste and corruption.
  7. I am on board with nuclear fission (for 40-50 years) and China is building green energy capacity faster than any nation. I am also on board with strengthening building codes, flood walls, creating funds to relocate communities that have built in flood plains, etc. However, we also have to continuously work towards the elimination of carbon pollution. I think even conservatives know that a carbon tax is the most efficient way to reduce our emissions. Let's put a price on carbon, let them market work to mitigate emissions and use the revenue to soften the blow of the costs of the painfully obvious need to shift away from fossils. Some of the same revenue will help offset some of the cost of relocating and protecting those living near the coasts. At the same time we can definitely stop subsidizing oil and probably revamp nuclear regulations to significantly reduce costs.
  8. Scheer's betting his campaign on more tax cuts; which, according to his plan have to equate to massive cuts to other programs. Our federal revenue as compared to GDP is, historically speaking, very low. More tax cuts are not warranted right now. That plan is irresponsible. We need to keep current tax levels and control spending. Unfortunately, nobody is arguing for that route.
  9. Agreed. We simply can't save everyone by relocating them here. In order to help far more than we can house, we can and should, continue to work with other nations to improve the rights and freedoms granted around the world. However, we in the developed world that enjoy affluence along with an abundance of rights and freedoms are largely responsible for a thicker blanket of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that is causing sea levels to rise and people to have to relocate. What is our responsibility on that front? Millions will have to relocate and that is going to cause a whole host of political and military problems. Yet at the same time we still have people clinging to the status quo, exacerbating the costs and problems for future generations.
  10. This opinion piece makes perfect sense.
  11. Promising billions in tax cuts is also expensive. They require large program cuts and will likely impact transfers and health spending at a time when age related costs are steadily rising. Federal revenue as a percentage of our GDP is already historically low.
  12. Yes. In the same way our often meager military contributions make a slight difference. I have found that many who argue that our emissions are relatively insignificant and thus we should shirk our responsibilities would be incensed if the same was suggested for our military duties.
  13. Oh, I see... Good luck with all of that. I tend to think that evidence matters.
  14. I completely understand why people would boycott the chain. I personally like to use my dollars to support small and local businesses and would rather not add to the balance sheets of people I consider hateful or evil. I feel bad for regular franchise owners who may receive less business because the founder is a dumb ass. I'm sure they would much rather he be a private hateful, Christian homophobe so his views didn't taint the image of a brand they paid a hefty franchise fee to use. On the flip side, their chicken is really good and I do like to eat. They brine it in pickle juice; which, is fantastic and very easy to replicate at home. I don't live anywhere near a Chick-fil-a but I do copy their sandwich at home from time to time.
  15. There is a reason the Pentagon treats climate change as a major national security threat.
  • Create New...