Bartender/ Actress the lie behind AOC

[dukkha]

If they're not a viable fighting force, then why did Trump say we're keeping troops in Syria indefinitely after saying we were going to withdraw?

supposedly to "check Iran and "keep ISIS from reconstituting
-the condition for a new re-grouping of ISIS however are not condusive on the ground.

I'd explain it further, but you are too dense to understand how ISIS grew from AQI in the first place.

why I urge you to study more about insurgency / nationbuilding /counterinsurgency -the terms all have discreet meanings and understanding them means you understand what strategies are best deployed

 

[dukkha]

I don't believe you when you say you only have two, and there's nothing you can do to prove it.

Why the fuck should I -or anyone- take you at your word?

I've made it clear I don't give a rats ass what you think. If you think I have multiple IDs I'm not here to guide you from your delusions-
it's your problem -not mine

 

[LV426]

supposedly to "check Iran and "keep ISIS from reconstituting

But you don't believe that...

-the condition for a new re-grouping of ISIS however are not condusive on the ground.

Yeah, Bush the Dumber thought that too. His instincts were wrong. Why would yours be any better?

I'd explain it further, but you are too dense to understand how ISIS grew from AQI in the first place.

AQI didn't grow until we got there. Before, the only presence in Iraq was Ansar-al-Islam who were primarily Kurds fighting Saddam.

Now, who was it who supported that Iraq war? Oh right, Conservatives like you.

Of course, that was before these new IDs of yours that would probably now argue invading Iraq was a mistake.

why I urge you to study more about insurgency / nationbuilding /counterinsurgency -the terms all have discreet meanings and understanding them means you understand what strategies are best deployed

IN other words, you're just faking your way through this discussion and imagining an appeal to authority because you cannot clearly articulate a coherent position, because that's not your job or function here; it's to spread propaganda and retcon the previous dumb positions and statements made by the people you are lending your support to like a sucker.

 

[LV426]

I've made it clear I don't give a rats ass what you think. If you think I have multiple IDs I'm not here to guide you from your delusions-
it's your problem -not mine

It's actually your problem because with multiple IDs, we simply cannot trust that you're being genuine with any of them.

Why did you create a second ID anyway? There had to be a reason. My guess is that whichever ID came first, you made a statement or prediction that was hilariously wrong, and no one would let you live it down, so you created a new ID to try and make people forget about the old one. Then you just switch between them in any given thread, depending on how your argument is faring under either.

That's it, isn't it? Multiple IDs to protect and preserve the delicate, fragile ego you have.

 

[dukkha]

We accommodated a remaking of our economy during the Industrial Revolution, so we can accommodate it now.
Already, more people work in green energy than fossil fuels.

that's an amazing stat - it goes to how inefficient green is. fossil fuels produce 80% of our energy ( going by memory) and we even export energy!

How many zillions of people would have to work in green just to match today's fossil fuels energy output?
That a staggering amount of salary costs, and green is more expensive/less efficient then "cheap oil" to produce.

We would be having massive amounts of workers needed, we would have to dedicate yuge areas of land for solar and wind. it's impractical ( disastrous) with today's existing tech to just switch over in 10 years.
That's called a pipe dream -only crazed green socialist even think like that (AOC)

Of course we need to continue to do what we can for R&D and increase todays output.
But simply switching off fossils,and switching on green (I doubt green could even produce enough energy)
would be calamitous

 

[dukkha]

It's actually your problem because with multiple IDs, we simply cannot trust that you're being genuine with any of them.

Why did you create a second ID anyway? There had to be a reason. My guess is that whichever ID came first, you made a statement or prediction that was hilariously wrong, and no one would let you live it down, so you created a new ID to try and make people forget about the old one. Then you just switch between them in any given thread, depending on how your argument is faring under either.

That's it, isn't it? Multiple IDs to protect and preserve the delicate, fragile ego you have.

no. i'd tell you. It's a very simple reason, but i'd rather you constantly obsess over it.

 

[LV426]

that's an amazing stat - it goes to how inefficient green is. fossil fuels produce 80% of our energy ( going by memory) and we even export energy!

No one said it would be a 100% conversion overnight. But the output of green energy has increased over the last ten years, speeding up more each year.

You want to foist a false position on us that the transition would happen overnight, when no one has said that.

The Green New Deal takes years just like the New Deal took years. In both cases, the same Conservative idiots are fearmongering.

So answer me this, if you Conservative idiots were wrong when you fearmongered about the New Deal, why wouldn't you also be wrong when you fearmonger over the Green New Deal?

Basically, what fucking credibility do you have that you can make these kinds of fearful predictions?

 

[LV426]

How many zillions of people would have to work in green just to match today's fossil fuels energy output

You're working from the false assumption that the output from green energy wouldn't increase, even though that output has increased dramatically over the last 10 years.

And guess what? More people work in legal pot than in fossil fuels.

 

[LV426]

That a staggering amount of salary costs, and green is more expensive/less efficient then "cheap oil" to produce.

Every year, green energy grows more and more efficient, more and more powerful.

The state of green energy output today bears no resemblance to the state of it ten years ago, as advancements and investments are made in these fields.

You want us to believe that the max output of green energy in 2019 will be the same by 2029 when you know it won't because of advancements in technology that develops more productive systems, batteries with increased storage, etc.

Everything you do here is based in bad faith.

All of it.

You act exclusively in bad faith because you don't know any other way to act.

 

[Phantasmal]

You're working from the false assumption that the output from green energy wouldn't increase, even though that output has increased dramatically over the last 10 years.

And guess what? More people work in legal pot than in fossil fuels.

That will increase exponentially as more states legalize!

 

[LV426]

We would be having massive amounts of workers needed, we would have to dedicate yuge areas of land for solar and wind

Sounds reasonable to me. Sounds like a lot of opportunity for growth and profit, if you're a forward-thinking company or businessman.

You're not, though. You're stuck in the past because you're fearful of change because you know that change will ruin your long-held, dogmatic beliefs, and your ego simply cannot handle that bruising. That's why you have multiple IDs; to preserve your ego.

 

[LV426]

it's impractical ( disastrous) with today's existing tech to just switch over in 10 years.

Today's existing tech, but not tomorrow's. Or the day after that. Or the year after that. The great thing about research and development is that it ends up producing results over time.

So just like I said, your criticism of this is to simply freeze all production levels and apply that as the standard moving forward, but you even tactily admit that what is true today might not be true tomorrow, which is why you hedged within your own fucking post, dipshit!

Wow. What a clown. Is this the best Conservatives have to offer? Sad.

 

[LV426]

Of course we need to continue to do what we can for R&D and increase todays output

Right, because that's what happened over the last 10 years.

10 years ago, we didn't have the output we have today.

But after 10 years of investment and development, we did.

Now, we are saying simply we should do even more investment and development, with the goal of being 100% renewable in 10 years.

You are opposed to that because...because...you don't have a good reason.

 

[LV426]

But simply switching off fossils,and switching on green (I doubt green could even produce enough energy) would be calamitous

Well, good thing no one is calling for that.

You're just imagining that on us because you have no real criticism of the plan, nor do you have any alternative.

10 years ago, we made an investment in renewables that got us to where we are today, which is undoubtedly a better place than 10 years ago.

What we are saying is that we should speed that up and invest more with the goal of being 100% renewable in 10 years.

If we can put a man on the moon in less than 10 years, we can transition our economy to renewables.

 

[dukkha]

But you don't believe that...

correct. I completely REJECT staying in Syria AT ALL

ISIS took advantage of the Syrian civil war, and the fact the Iraqi army fled in battle with them to take over large swatches of Iraq and Syria - the Iraqi's panicked literally tearing off their uniforms.
But since then the Iraqi army has been instrumental in eradicating ISIS. ISIS cannot"reconstitute" itself.

Iran (Quds/militias) is already in Syria - us staying there does not effect Iran
See what happens when you understand events? you can push back on the specious Rubio's arguments

Yeah, Bush the Dumber thought that too. His instincts were wrong. Why would yours be any better?

no clue what you mean regarding the formation of ISIS. If you mean going into Iraq would be a "slam dunk" -yes you are correct. I was vehemently aginst the Yellow Ribbon campaign.

When it come to foreign wars I am always against US interventionism -that especially includes Libya
and Hillary's crowing "we came we saw he died"

AQI didn't grow until we got there. Before, the only presence in Iraq was Ansar-al-Islam who were primarily Kurds fighting Saddam.

pretty much correct
Al-Qaeda in Iraq
https://www.britannica.com/topic/al-Qaeda-in-Iraq
Al-Qaeda in Iraq first appeared in 2004 when Abū Muṣʿab al-Zarqāwī, a Jordanian-born militant already leading insurgent attacks in Iraq, formed an alliance with al-Qaeda, pledging his group’s allegiance to Osama bin Laden in return for bin Laden’s endorsement as the leader of al-Qaeda’s franchise in Iraq.

Now, who was it who supported that Iraq war? Oh right, Conservatives like you.

you confuse neocons with conservatives - and you neglect to add in neolibs like Hillary and Obama

 

[LV426]

no. i'd tell you. It's a very simple reason, but i'd rather you constantly obsess over it.

If you had a genuine reason, you would have said so by now.

At this point, you're just stalling.

 

[LV426]

correct. I completely REJECT staying in Syria AT ALL
ISIS took advantage of the Syrian civil war, and the fact the Iraqi army fled in battle with them to take over large swatches of Iraq and Syria - the Iraqi's panicked literally tearing off their uniforms.
But since then the Iraqi army has been instrumental in eradicating ISIS. ISIS cannot"reconstitute" itself.

ISIS can reconstitute itself; a collapse of Assad's government would do the trick.

Besides, ISIS already has a presence in Syria, so it's not destroyed.

 

[LV426]

Iran (Quds/militias) is already in Syria - us staying there does not effect Iran
See what happens when you understand events? you can push back on the specious Rubio's arguments

I'm not making Rubio's arguments.

My position on Syria is that our presence there should be entirely humanitarian, and our policy should be to take in every single refugee.

 

[LV426]

no clue what you mean regarding the formation of ISIS. If you mean going into Iraq would be a "slam dunk" -yes you are correct. I was vehemently aginst the Yellow Ribbon campaign.

I don't believe you.

I think you're just saying it now to try and save face because you know if you revealed your true support for the Iraq War, it would question the sincerity of what you're saying now.

 

[LV426]

you confuse neocons with conservatives - and you neglect to add in neolibs like Hillary and Obama

"No True Scotsman" doesn't work on me.

And Obama opposed the Iraq War.

Hillary only supported it because Bush and Cheney lied to everyone and convinced them Saddam was a threat.