GIGO, you’re utterly failing to understand me, and embarrassing yourself in front of your friends.
ETA: I am starting to realize I have been unfair to you in one respect. I have often said you engage in more strawmanning than anyone on this board. But actually, I think it’s often that you simply don’t understand your opponent’s argument, so it can’t properly be called strawmanning if you are not capable of being disingenuous.
Ah yes, we also know about your “special” gift of trying to push the silly idea that others do not understand me, there are already many that showed that you are also wrong on that. Just your usual. The other thing you showed is that, as usual, you just cowardly avoided learning about what happened ultimately with the bulbs, they were not banned.
:smack:
[ SlackerInk slaps own face in moment of self-realization.
He’s gonna be OK, folks. ]
I don’t think he will ever realize how easy is for him to fall for the talking points of the right. I understand his argument, what he totally misses is that it is a stupid one once one looks at how the Right Wing in the US not only misrepresented solutions like the non incandescent light bulbs, but he still continues blaming the democrats for the ‘politics of it’ that ‘does not allow us to make changes’.
Looks like poppycock once one looks at history and the propaganda that was used by powerful interests. The saddest thing here is that in the end more efficient incandescents are still being made and sold. And the change to more efficient lights? It was done, thank you very much. One further point he missed and clearly on purpose: Of course this shows how SlackerInc does not know what banning is, and that clearly Politifact, FactCheck and others are correct about the GND not banning meat, or jet planes.
The talking points of the right are that stupid and annoying people freak out if you mess with their school lunches or incandescent bulbs? 
Where’s that Willy Wonka meme when you need it?
I believe that you are mendacious enough to try to paraphrase anything as anything. I do not believe a reasonable person would paraphrase “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of airplanes” as “we want to ban airplanes”.
And because I’m really quite happy to keep reminding a disingenuous, evasive sack of shit that they are a disingenuous, evasive sack of shit, I’ll ask again:
Which part of that statement do you think is incorrect, and why?
Well no, but it is that people get upset at change so we should slow down and not try to change so much.
That’s what Conservatives and Moralists have said for generations. That people get stirred up by changing their world (translation: expecting them to respect others instead of being bigots and refusing to do business with them; expecting them to pay for someone’s kid to have a decent meal; mollycoddling their hyperventilating about changing their damned light bulbs because SOCIALISM) and maybe we shouldn’t expect so much of them.
Do you know anyone who changed their political affiliation from D to R because of fucking light bulbs or school lunches ? Because from what I can see these 100% manufactured outrages were Fox News fare for people already deep down the stupid rabbit hole.
Ok, this is where I have a disconnect. You obviously see the sham outrage by the right over the light bulbs and the school lunches. But despite this, it appears that you are buying in to this latest right-wing faux outrage over the GND, that airplanes and hamburgers are going to somehow be banned - all because of an off-the-cuff rhetorical hyperbole?
Why is this bullshit more compelling than the light bulb or school lunch bullshit?
Quite a lot to unpack here in this short comment. First, I don’t know that it’s “sham outrage”. I can’t say for sure about the light bulbs, but the school lunches thing was genuine outrage. I think the people who are outraged are being really dumb, and are just contributing to a food culture that starts children off on the wrong track and dooms them to a future of obesity, disability, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer–which is not only sad for them but costs us all collectively. But I believe they are sincerely upset about their classic SAD (Standard American Diet) comfort foods going off their kids’ menus. My wife is a public school teacher, and I was a substitute teacher with two kids in the public schools when this all became a big issue, so I have first hand observation of how salty (heh) everyone got about it.
I don’t believe airplanes and hamburgers are going to be banned. I’m much more realistic than that. But I also believe it’s clear that AOC and Markey represent a group of Democrats who do actually want to do those things! I’m sanguine that they won’t actually get to make their dreams reality, but I can’t necessarily blame low-information voters for not being sure.
And it’s certainly not supportable to call this “off the cuff rhetorical hyperbole”. This FAQ (which has now disappeared but was never AFAIK officially retracted or apologized for) was submitted in Congress as a supporting document for the legislation. How can you call that “off the cuff”?
I find it confusing, the whiplash I hear from people about FOX News and their propaganda. Maybe it’s different people–I haven’t closely kept track–but it sure seems like it’s the same group that says FOX News is a malignant force that, with the help of Citizens United, brainwashes people into voting against their interests; but then on something like this, reflexively argues “it’s just FOX News nonsense, preaching to the choir–it’s not changing anyone’s minds”. I mean, which is it?
My belief is that I was wrong to support certain ideas in the past: taxes on junk food, big hikes in gasoline taxes, etc. Not wrong on the merits: as economic and public health policy, those are still aces IMO. But as I say, Americans are the ones who won’t convert to the metric system, won’t let go of the penny or the paper dollar. They are stubborn about clinging to stupid shit. And they get all the more irrationally attached to things if they perceive the gummint trying to take them away.
So again: I have evolved my thinking to feel that we shouldn’t take on stuff that affects people at the consumer level, even if it would be a fantastic idea from a sober and rational public policy perspective. There’s plenty of good that can be done by putting stricter limits on heavy industry, by insulating politicians from direct responsibility for progressive policies by using the appointment of progressive judges and regulators, stuff like that. But when Joe Sixpack goes about his day, don’t interfere with his water-guzzling lawn, his gas-guzzling monster truck, or his solo commute in said truck including his stop on the way for Big Agra corn-fed burgers and fizzy sugar (corn syrup) water. Just leave him be in that arena and work on other things in the shadows.
You are still missing a lot, read it again, history shows that mainstream media and politicians of the Bush era kept the changes about the light bulbs in the shadows, they were not considered debatable then. But powerful interest forces and right wing sources made it go to the forefront later and convinced some dunderheads that it was a “terrible” move.
Point being that once again one should follow your advice if… well if there were good examples to follow. The light bulb case demonstrates that even keeping something “in the shadows” can be exploited by the right wing and it should be a lesson that should be learned. Even lots of the misrepresentations of the GND came also from talking points from the right twisting what early drafts of a non binding resolution did not said, in essence, what was going to be left in the shadows.
Something I implicitly conceded in this debate, which I should not have, is that the PolitiFact “False” rating was in regard to a “ban” of air travel. I said that word went too far, and thus should make the claim at least partly false. But that’s not what Rick Scott (who is, just to be crystal clear, a piece of shit) said. In fact, his wording was “working towards ending air travel (to be replaced with high-speed rail).” To rule that as “False” (again, not even willing to dial it back to “Mostly False”!) is absurd.
Let’s say we were in an alternate universe where the PolitiFact story looked like this instead:
You’re not calling bullshit on that? :dubious:
Depends on what the text of the Love the Unborn Babies Act said.
Uh huh.
ETA: Cool story, bro.
I think this absurd belief is where you’re going off the rails, rationally speaking. Do Green-New-Dealers want to encourage a shift in economic incentives and consumer preferences so that significant amounts of environmentally destructive consumer goods like air travel and hamburgers end up losing market share to more environmentally sustainable alternatives? Of course they do. Does that mean that they must be seeking an actual ban on any such goods? Of course it doesn’t.
Now that was a 
reply.
Kimstu, fine: they want to “stop” them without an outright ban. Mea culpa for my imprecise, slightly hyperbolic wording.
Now, can you acknowledge that the Scott op-ed, which PolitiFact judged 100% “False” (not even “Mostly False”), did not say anything about a ban?
I read the Scott op-ed, and indeed the word “ban” does not appear in it.
But I also read the PolitiFact critique of the Scott op-ed, and nowhere does it claim that Scott used the word “ban”.
So what exactly are you complaining about here?