Stupid liberal idea of the day

[jayjay]

@adaher

I don’t really think that’s it. Conservatism and liberalism both have strong intellectual traditions. And both sides’ politicians have more often than not succumbed to simplistic thinking(Let’s declare war on a social ill and spend lots of money! It’s a surefire plan!) It’s just that right now liberalism is dominated by an intellectual elite and conservatism by populist blowhards. The result is a conservative movement with a lot of amateur populist blowhards and a liberal movement with 1 intelligent discussion board poster for every 10 Democratic voters who can’t name the three branches of government. But they at least know they can’t name the three branches of government, so there’s that. The problem with the hyperefficient spreading of the conservative message over the last couple of decades is that it’s given average conservative voters the impression that by listening to Rush every day they can now debate the issues.

Who are you and what have you done with adaher? :dubious:

[iiandyiiii]

@jayjay

Who are you and what have you done with adaher? :dubious:

He put actual effort into a post! Imagine that! Great job, adaher (aside from the 1 for 10 exaggeration)!

[adaher]

Hey, I included a dig at liberals thinking that they can throw money at problems.

[jayjay]

@adaher

Hey, I included a dig at liberals thinking that they can throw money at problems.

If this were Facebook, I’d actually have “liked” this post just for the self-aware humor. I hate it when people I dislike for their opinions turn out to actually (finally?) have human characteristics, dammit…

[andros]

@Ravenman

Maybe we can cut to the chase and agree that the main issues in evaluating an infrastructure projects ought to be cost, utility, and risk? The question of permanent jobs is barely relevant, and may in fact measure the wrong thing. For example, if road design A creates 10 permanent jobs, and B creates 1,000 jobs, I’m going with A as the better deal. Why should an army be needed to upkeep the road? On a similar point, would the pipeline be better if it created 10,000 jobs for plumbers to keep it from leaking?

Oh, gotcha. Yeah, I agree. It’s part of the reason I’m so astounded by the idiocy of the “pass it because jobs” argument.

[andros]

(Also, y’all triflin bitches need to step off. I was an adaher fan before all y’all.)

[adaher]

@andros

Oh, gotcha. Yeah, I agree. It’s part of the reason I’m so astounded by the idiocy of the “pass it because jobs” argument.

Well, my own position is not to pass it because jobs, it’s pass it because there’s no real good reason not to stand in the way. And the President needs to just make a decision. What is the State Department still studying? When will they be finished? Does anyone doubt that a decision hasn’t been made because the President just doesn’t want to definitively address the issue?

What is the benefit to NOT building it? It won’t reduce spills, train transport is more hazardous. It won’t increase global warming, the oil’s coming out of the ground whether it’s built or not.

[DinoR]

@adaher

I’d bet a large percentage of the posts here are Michael Moore alone, who temperamentally fits better on my side. Who knows, a lot of former liberal radicals have become conservatives, maybe Moore will join us someday.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO. :smack:
If you say that two more times he might appear. Isn’t the fallout of the Southern Democrats coming over and pulling my party towards the socially repressive, anti-intellectual, twilight zone bad enough for me to suffer in one life time?!? Couldn’t we try to find and cherry pick some of the classically liberal Democrats who are a good fit with traditional Republican themes instead of another scared and angry demagogue? Pretty please?!?

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

I’ll happily concede that there are fewer liberals saying incredibly stupid things. I’d bet a large percentage of the posts here are Michael Moore alone, who temperamentally fits better on my side. Who knows, a lot of former liberal radicals have become conservatives, maybe Moore will join us someday.

@Askthepizzaguy

Michael Savage used to be part of the hippie-dippy crowd. Apparently he got into some bad reefer because he went the whole other direction with it. People change brands, change their outlooks, change their ideologies. But you can’t fix stupid.

And Michael Moore is not stupid.

[adaher]

I don’t think he’s stupid either, but he produces a lot of dreck from his vocal chords and his keyboard.

[bobot]

So, was there a stupid liberal idea for today? This thread is such a letdown! I’m leaving to go read the latest on the stupid Republican idea thread. At least that thread gets updated properly.

[adaher]

Did we cover the “Marshawn Lynch didn’t get the ball because racism”?

[zoid]

Post 3040, didn’t get a whole ton of discussion but at least it’s a good example.

[eschereal]

@adaher

Did we cover the “Marshawn Lynch didn’t get the ball because racism”?

Oh, good, you are showing signs of the old idiot again. That is a relief.

[TonySinclair]

@adaher

What is the benefit to NOT building it? It won’t reduce spills, train transport is more hazardous.

Those are two separate assertions. The first is false, if the recent past is an indication. The second is debatable.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/18/3624116/how-would-you-like-your-oil-spilled-today-sir/

[adaher]

I like that cite. It just goes to show that part of getting the right answer is asking the right question. I said there were fewer spills, which was correct, but I hadn’t thought to ask about volume of spills.

[Lobohan]

@Ravenman

Maybe we can cut to the chase and agree that the main issues in evaluating an infrastructure projects ought to be cost, utility, and risk? The question of permanent jobs is barely relevant, and may in fact measure the wrong thing. For example, if road design A creates 10 permanent jobs, and B creates 1,000 jobs, I’m going with A as the better deal. Why should an army be needed to upkeep the road? On a similar point, would the pipeline be better if it created 10,000 jobs for plumbers to keep it from leaking?

I din’t think pipelines should have to create jobs. I think that the GOP argument, that it’s the, “Keystone Jobs Bill” to quote Boehner, is asinine. That’s why I’m pointing out that Clothy is so fucking stupid he ought not to be allowed near open flame.

[Ravenman]

I believe most supporters are pointing to the State Department EIS which concludes that somewhere around 10,000 temporary workers are needed to build the pipeline, and maybe another 30,000 indirect jobs would be supported. Stating that 35 of those jobs would be permanent doesn’t detract from those substantial numbers, which apparently is why some labor organizations support the pipeline.

[rsa]

I would imagine that a lot of the pipeline construction jobs would be welders. You people are aware that there is a shortage of welders, right? Who would build our warships?

[MysteryFellow63427]

@Lobohan

How much do you think it will make energy cheaper? Not much if at all.

This article doesn’t really say much. Interesting point though, it does seem that US consumers at least won’t see any direct benefit at the pump. But it definitely seems from your link that Keystone would benefit US refineries.

How would the Keystone pipeline affect U.S. gas prices?

If Canada is likely to get their oil here anyway, the impact on jobs would be minimal. In fact, how about the truckers and rail personnel that would lose their jobs to the pipeline?

Now we’re heading into economic theory territory. Rail shipments of oil go down, railroads now have unused capacity, maybe they lower prices to transport more goods, businesses have extra capital now to hire more workers, etc. I’m not well versed enough to debate this at length, but I believe disallowing better market efficiency because there are identifiable short-term losers isn’t generally a good thing.

Unless there is a tech breakthrough, yes, we likely will use up all the oil on Earth. Making it take longer is a good idea though, since the Earth sequesters carbon.

If you want to talk about minimal effects, you’ve got one right here. The Keystone veto isn’t going to keep this oil in the ground for a decade or two longer, or any appreciable length of time. Further, on the global carbon emissions scale, Keystone isn’t significant.

IMHO, the Keystone veto is pure posturing, and an objectively bad decision. But we’ll just agree to disagree.