Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Anyone -

This debate sucks. I won't get into specifics of the thing because it's all been argued before - here, there, everywhere.

In scanning page after page of this thing I see nothing but crap. I see conservatives trying to change the issue from science to whether Al Gore is a hypocrite. So he is. So what?

I see liberals ignoring just about every argument Spanky offers as heresy because, no matter how much evidence the guy uses, their knee jerk reaction to almost any skepticism of the "Global Warming Crisis" is to react like the Vatican does to a new form of birth control. You wonder why the people in this country don't listen to the San Francisco Wing of the Democrat Party? It's not because those bleeding hearts lack evidence - it's because they argue their points with a religious fervor that immediately turns everybody off. Ty generally has a great wealth of evidence behind what he posts here, and he and Spanky duke it out very well. But in his wake, there's this jerk-off echo chamber of liberals who do nothing but flip snarky responses at Spanky and offer shrill back ups for Ty's positions. Here's a tip - leave Ty's evidence to stand on its own; that's usually enough. Spanky will poke some holes in it and make everyone consider it with the proper critical eye. In the end, we'll come to the rational conclusions:

1 - There is some truth to Global Warming, and man being its cause, but the solution is not as easy as the knee-jerk panaceas offered by the hysterical Left wingers who've made the issue their new religion, nor is the assignment of blame; and

2 - That Spanky - who seems to understand the economic impact of the sort of "feel good" agendas favored by the Left better than anyone on this board - makes a very fucking important point when he says we can't just turn economies inside out to satisfy the Left's pet issue of the moment.

We reached a conclusion weeks ago that the science of global warming is not settled, and really never could be unless we had climatoligical data going back millions of years. Should we take measured steps to avoid pollution? Yes, for many reasons beyond just global warming. Should those steps be radical to the point they damage economies and put people in already precarious financial positions in worse ones? Of course not.

So why the fuck are we bitching about Al Gore being a hypocrite? No shit... he's a fucking politician. And why is every one of Spanky's reasoned arguments met with hyperbolic ranting replies? Ya think he doesn't realize he's at a disadvantage, and that his opponents are probably correct in a healthy percentage of their claims? My suspicion is most of the Lefty Echo Chamber here is just so fucking annoying you've pushed him to want to argue every point if for no other reason than to laugh at a bunch of fulminating fellow travelers. I know that's what I'd do...

Driving a big goddamned SUV,
SD

As you are mostly correct, the only thing I am going to say is that you give Spanky too much credit. He takes the same approach on every issue (oversimplify, mock, stick to your guns).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What do Hos eat?

me

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
me

eta: nevermind

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Did you follow the ironweed recipe last night, only subbing vodka for the whiskey and topping it with mushrooms? There's nobody here spouting the crunchy granola SF liberal line. We're all fucking lawyers and we all like our toys. Having said that, I think what the "Left" is saying here is that we need to at least acknowledge that there appears to be a problem, and that problem could have enormous consequences if we fail to address it (very similar to what Spanky seems to be saying about NK missiles).

Nobody wants to take away your SUV at gunpoint. But GW is something that needs to be addressed by the government - volutary measures just aren't going to get it done. As Spanky can explain from reading The Economist, there would be the free rider problem and incentives not to go along. Furthermore, because the problem needs to be addressed globally, it will have to be done by governments.

I don't see this as a "liberal" issue or a "conservative" issue. If the "conservatives" here were being intellectually honest, they would agree that this is one of the issues, like national defense, that are the proper role of the federal government.

The only echo chamber here is slave and spanky mouthing the Drudge line, refusing to concende that there may be a problem, not because of lack of evidence, but because of their visceral dislike of Al Gore and the crunchy granola non-bathing Loony Left they see in drum circles in their neck of the woods. But that's not who they're arguing with on this board.

You've chosen the most absurd wing of the Left I described as an example of what I was addressing. I was not addressing loons. I was addressing the majority of left wing posters here. There's a massive echo chamber in favor of bashing Spanky and Slave into the ground. Slave does himself few favors with those goofy non-criticisms of Gore. But what I see here is a cheap version of the old Gore Vidal vs. Bill Buckley deabtes, the only difference being, Spanky's one Buckley, and Ty is one Vidal (not calling you a preening pansy Ty, I'm actually complimenting you), and everybody else is Vidal's cheerleader. Spanky's position gets no traction because he's left arguing against a dozen people coming at him with 500 different points. It's probably a criticism of his own board strategy that he chooses to address them all. He'd be better served duking it out with Ty alone.

I think Spanky, Slave and libertarians like me recognize there is a problem. But when you let the govt get involved, you get the fellow travelers in charge. You'll get a Sarbanes-Oxley solution worse than the problem, so No, I don't want the govt getting into the GW situation. Their cure always winds up costing everyone 3X what the problem did, and making the problem worse. The better course is for the govt to grant business and people huge incentives go green. I'd part with my beloved behemoth if Uncle Sam made it worth my while. So far he hasn't.

Telling people hat to do only creates consultants who guide them around the process because no matter how tough the regs, the people writing them carve out loopholes to allow the powerful to circumvent them. I've gone up against the EPA a few times, on behalf of small businesses. The very last thing this country needs is to give an organization so inept, so wasteful and so poluted with untalented public sector hacks greater oversight.

We should tell Exxon/Mobil they can have their tax credits back only if every dollar of them go into green fuel R&D. Tillerson is creating a very dangerous economic event down the road by directing that company solely at oil exploration, without any real backup plan in the event people start shifting to green fuel. We can't se that company turn into another GM, which it will if it has all its money poured into long term R&D while the world starts moving toward green fuels...

But then again, he always has China and India to sell to, and we're talking 2100 at the earliest for these concerns anyway...

So, you're right. The govt should do something. It should make it economically sensible to go green. Any other effort's a loser.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Hmm, I didn't see you jump through these contortions when hundreds of blogs over the last 5 years were suggesting that Cheney somehow indirectly "profited" from drumming up the Iraq War because of his stock in Haliburton.

I'm sorry. I must have missed it in the articles you've posted and linked to, but exactly how many no-bid government contracts was Gore's company awarded?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
As you are mostly correct, the only thing I am going to say is that you give Spanky too much credit. He takes the same approach on every issue (oversimplify, mock, stick to your guns).

He mocks because when you see things from his side, a view in which economics trump what appears to be emotion, you can't help but take a sarcastic view at a person coming from the polar opposite perspective. To debate him, you have to offer a solution which makes economic sense. Saying "We have to fix it. It's an emergency, cost be damned" sounds naive to a person in a business. There is no argument that's so important the economic bottom line should be disregarded.

But that's kind of tricky for lawyers to see. Save Hank, who appears to manage his own firm, who among us has experience managing bottom lines? Who of us sees the direct economic impact of increased regulation? To most of us, more regulation is a windfall. More clients to be guided through a maze of contradictory govt rules. When I see Spanky argue here, there's often a huge disconnect between him and his opponent. It's real hard not to think new rules are the solution to everything when you work in the rules business. If you want to try to have a meaningful debate with Spanky, maybe the better course is to try to imagine yourself in the position of an entrepreneur or an executive instead of a lawyer.

I say this as one learning right now just how different it is when you, instead of the client, are writing the checks for the "solutions" to issues. I realize now how absurd I must have sounded to so many clients as a lawyer when I was telling them how they could avoid liability by just doing "This, this and this." It's really easy to pitch someone Cadillac ideas when you ain't paying for the shit.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You've chosen the most absurd wing of the Left I described as an example of what I was addressing. I was not addressing loons. I was addressing the majority of left wing posters here. There's a massive echo chamber in favor of bashing Spanky and Slave into the ground. Slave does himself few favors with those goofy non-criticisms of Gore. But what I see here is a cheap version of the old Gore Vidal vs. Bill Buckley deabtes, the only difference being, Spanky's one Buckley, and Ty is one Vidal (not calling you a preening pansy Ty, I'm actually complimenting you), and everybody else is Vidal's cheerleader. Spanky's position gets no traction because he's left arguing against a dozen people coming at him with 500 different points. It's probably a criticism of his own board strategy that he chooses to address them all. He'd be better served duking it out with Ty alone.

I think Spanky, Slave and libertarians like me recognize there is a problem. But when you let the govt get involved, you get the fellow travelers in charge. You'll get a Sarbanes-Oxley solution worse than the problem, so No, I don't want the govt getting into the GW situation. Their cure always winds up costing everyone 3X what the problem did, and making the problem worse. The better course is for the govt to grant business and people huge incentives go green. I'd part with my beloved behemoth if Uncle Sam made it worth my while. So far he hasn't.

Telling people hat to do only creates consultants who guide them around the process because no matter how tough the regs, the people writing them carve out loopholes to allow the powerful to circumvent them. I've gone up against the EPA a few times, on behalf of small businesses. The very last thing this country needs is to give an organization so inept, so wasteful and so poluted with untalented public sector hacks greater oversight.

We should tell Exxon/Mobil they can have their tax credits back only if every dollar of them go into green fuel R&D. Tillerson is creating a very dangerous economic event down the road by directing that company solely at oil exploration, without any real backup plan in the event people start shifting to green fuel. We can't se that company turn into another GM, which it will if it has all its money poured into long term R&D while the world starts moving toward green fuels...

But then again, he always has China and India to sell to, and we're talking 2100 at the earliest for these concerns anyway...

So, you're right. The govt should do something. It should make it economically sensible to go green. Any other effort's a loser.

I see Ty and others citing statistics and studies, I see Spanky citing the tide levels at his parents' fucking beach house. I see Ty citing serious (and reputable) academic sources, I see Spanky citing his hairy-pitted Berkeley grad student girlfriend who's too dumb to do math but he can't break up with her because she's a killer in the sack after she's smoked the kind.

And slave? He's just mad about something. Repression issues, maybe?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
To debate him, you have to offer a solution which makes economic sense. Saying "We have to fix it. It's an emergency, cost be damned" sounds naive to a person in a business. There is no argument that's so important the economic bottom line should be disregarded.

That seems to be Spanky's argument when it comes to missile defense. If cost-benefit analysis trumps, why doesn't he apply it consistently to all issues?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I see Ty and others citing statistics and studies, I see Spanky citing the tide levels at his parents' fucking beach house. I see Ty citing serious (and reputable) academic sources, I see Spanky citing his hairy-pitted Berkeley grad student girlfriend who's too dumb to do math but he can't break up with her because she's a killer in the sack after she's smoked the kind.

And slave? He's just mad about something. Repression issues, maybe?

Brother, like I said... I got no grip with Ty. Your description of his support is spot on. It's his echo chamber I dislike.

I disagree with you on Spanky. And I also disagree with you about the quality of anecdotal information. There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Someimes, the observation of one guys tanding on a beach is worth more than the maneuvered bullshit of advocates. I'm technically dead if you consider health statistics... You're probably with me or close. Ithink you'll also find that if you look back over the course of his posts, Spanky has cited considerable evidence.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That seems to be Spanky's argument when it comes to missile defense. If cost-benefit analysis trumps, why doesn't he apply it consistently to all issues?

Because in the case of GW, as he's posted, the cost/benefit analysis doesn't augur in favor of a byzantine regulatory solution the Left would utilize.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Brother, like I said... I got no grip with Ty. Your description of his support is spot on. It's his echo chamber I dislike.

I disagree with you on Spanky. And I also disagree with you about the quality of anecdotal information. There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Someimes, the observation of one guys tanding on a beach is worth more than the maneuvered bullshit of advocates. I'm technically dead if you consider health statistics... You're probably with me or close. Ithink you'll also find that if you look back over the course of his posts, Spanky has cited considerable evidence.

I will concede that Spanky often cites evidence better than his beach house. I will also concede my statistical death.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Brother, like I said... I got no grip with Ty. Your description of his support is spot on. It's his echo chamber I dislike.

I disagree with you on Spanky. And I also disagree with you about the quality of anecdotal information. There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Someimes, the observation of one guys tanding on a beach is worth more than the maneuvered bullshit of advocates. I'm technically dead if you consider health statistics... You're probably with me or close. Ithink you'll also find that if you look back over the course of his posts, Spanky has cited considerable evidence.

I will concede that Spanky often cites evidence better than his beach house. I will also concede my statistical death.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I will concede that Spanky often cites evidence better than his beach house. I will also concede my statistical death.

And I'll concede the solution is in the middle, and that to the extent Spanky denies GW is happening and an issue to be addressed, he's in the suspending disbelief category. The solution's a measured approach. I'd even concede some regulation should be implemented along with incentives, recognizing I can't be intractable on that point and that, regulation could work. The best way is to take sensible steps.

Which means the solution we both would like is the one we'll never see.

Did you read Kinsley's piece a few weeks ago about why rabid ideological stridency is a good thing? If he weren't ill, I'd fly to his house and punch him in the fucking mouth.* It's everything ruining this country.

* No, no I wouldn't.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And I'll concede the solution is in the middle, and that to the extent Spanky denies GW is happening and an issue to be addressed, he's in the suspending disbelief category. The solution's a measured approach. I'd even concede some regulation should be implemented along with incentives, recognizing I can't be intractable on that point and that, regulation could work. The best way is to take sensible steps.

Kumbaya....

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ironweed
I will concede that Spanky often cites evidence better than his beach house. I will also concede my statistical death.

You're supposed to echo Ty, hippy.