Jubbergun wrote:
No, I'm responding to your actual assertion, as written. Your delusions may say otherwise, but as I'm not privy to your delusions (save the ones you type for us here), I can't make an informed response to them.
Nope. I said nothing about Moore.
Jubbergun wrote:
Oh, good, then we agree that mandates, subsidies, and tax breaks aren't just necessary, they're detrimental to the development of alternative energy sources. In that case, I'm not sure why you're arguing.
Domestic alternative energy is worthwhile. Industrial agriculture is not.
Jubbergun wrote:
Actually, at least one of the studies in question was done by
The Nature Conservancy, which isn't an oil/gas group. If not for your abysmal reading comprehension, you'd have probably been able to glean that from at least one of the articles. However, the "it comes from a biased source" routine is one of your most familiar, if not most entertaining, and was not unexpected. I was, however, surprised that it wasn't followed up with "and the BBC said..."
Oh, and here is one of the
"fake" studies in question, complete with reference documentation.
But we're not talking about that. We're talking about this article, on this site. Linking the front page of an unrelated site is a non sequitor.
Nothing in that study you linked counters the simple fact that the "land use" argument is irrelevant. To prove that the argument isn't relevant, you'd have to argue that there simply isn't enough land to cover in windmills and solar panels. 20 times the footprint of coal lands is still tiny compared to the huge amounts of basically empty space that are viable for wind and solar.
Jubbergun wrote:
Sign up for a two-year enlistment, see what military service entails, then get back to me on whether-or-not it's "welfare."
I could just as easily say that because you've never been a politician or cubicle monkey, your views thereof are baseless.
This really does betray why military welfare people are scum and are traitors to America. Because the implication here, is that only soldiers can judge what is and is not good for the country. In other words, they don't care about democracy, or defending America.
All they really care about is their own selfish asses. They say they want to protect America and our democracy - that's a lie, American soldiers hate democracy and hate America - what they really want is military dictatorship, so they can get fat off the labor of ordinary Americans. Only in a military dictatorship is the military is "self-accountable".
Jubbergun wrote:
If Wal*Mart hired an employee, and that employee was injured on the job, would you then argue that they shouldn't have to pay for their medical treatment because they didn't really need that employee?
No. But they probably would argue the point. And, in the end, they probably wouldn't pay for it. This is why they hire most of their most dangerous positions via subcontractors so they can shift the blame. And then libertarians like you say, "deal with it" while you get coddled by military welfare.
