America first

[usernamedox11]

News flash: We lost all of that a long time ago.

It is an ongoing and is only accelerating under Trump.

 

[usernamedox11]

Your entire post is attacking me personally and I have done nothing to you.

I am only asking for you to tell us exactly what we are losing the "lead" in?

Lead of what? We are still investing in green technology.

And what are the numbers showing that this will definitely provide a return? Your news article is NOT a guarantee of anything.

Why are we obligated to give massive financial support and technology and they are obligated to do....nothing?

Watch that. See how Comey can't get McCain to understand? No matter what Comey said, McCain just couldn't understand and kept repeating the same questions/concerns.

This is no different.

 

[usernamedox11]

In case anyone has gotten sick lately, rumor has it the Federal Reserve is weaving fluoride into newly issued bills. This is why they are ramping up printing! They wanna cause hyperinflation in combination with poisoning us with fluoride in order to complete their take over of the planet!

 

[usernamedox11]

in my country there is problem
and that problem is the banker jews!
they take everybody money
they never give it back
throw the jews down the well!
so my country can be free
If you see the jews and Bernanke coming
you must be careful of their teeth
throw the jew bankers down the well
so my country can be free
you must grab them by their horns
then we have a big party!

 

[usernamedox11]

Danger, your latest post is incorrect, as usual.

Anyway, Danger, do you believe global warming is a hoax/conspiracy to redistribute wealth and shut down american industry?

 

[YawataNoKami]

Danger, your latest post is incorrect, as usual.

Anyway, Danger, do you believe global warming is a hoax/conspiracy to redistribute wealth and shut down american industry?

Global warming is a hoax.........

 

[usernamedox11]

applegoo,

And now your fight or flight has engaged and you choose "flight" to another topic.

No, this is not another topic. I am trying to gauge what is logically coherent to you.

• So what is the percent return US Citizens will get for giving away massive amounts of money and technology?
• You say I am wrong and this data exists, so what is the percent return?
  
• What is the market share we will be guaranteed to have in the green energy market if we go this route?

Wrong. Your line of questioning is completely absurd. There is not massive money or technology (less than 1% of budget) being given away. There is plenty of data as to how big the green energy market will be. Being the global leader on writing the international frameworks, rules and agreements when it comes to global warming would allow us to negotiate with other countries within those frameworks to get them to purchase their green tech from the US. If the US continues to stay out of this on the international stage, China will fill this vacuum, which would help their companies get a larger market share.

The data doesn't exist, because the analysis was not done.

Therefore there is no guarantee of anything other than we will have lost money and intellectual property, forced to give it away from an incredibly $hitty agreement. Such a $hitty agreement, there is NO obligation of any part by those who receive the money or intellectual property!

Actually, this analysis has been done. Why do you think so many CEOs are pissed Trump pulled out? Do you think it's because they're in on the conspiracy, which you haven't denied believing in? No, they know by us backing out, it's only going to cut them out of the action if things stay the same.

When we sell arms to Saudi Arabia, are we giving away intellectual property?

Danger, you did not deny believing that global warming is a conspiracy

Can you explain what logically coherent data and evidence convinced you of this?

Obviously, when you believe such a thing, nothing will change your mind because under this framework of belief you hold, someone like me is a "sheeple" that doesn't see the great conspiracy of global warming.

So maybe you can change my mind here because clearly I can't change your mind, since anything I post will just be BS in your mind:

Can you explain what logically coherent data and and present me with evidence that will convince me of the global warming conspiracy? At the end of the day, this is the root reason for your disagreements.

 

[usernamedox11]

There is no straw man, lol. Excuse me there is no "strawmen," lol. I'll explain.

Number 1, you haven't provided a real argument for me to misrepresent, other than claiming it is a bad agreement because of giving away "massive amounts of money and intellectual capital." For the most part, you just continually ask odd questions. If your odd and bad questions are not answered in a way you find personally satisfying, this somehow means the agreement is "bad."

For example, you are asking for an analysis of what the US would receive in "market share." First of all, the US government wouldn't have the actual market share. It just better positions our companies to get international share as we can use the framework of global warming agreements to create trade agreements for countries to purchase green technology from us. The "ROI" would be using the agreements and alliances within global warming frameworks and trade agreements to benefit our companies and workers. For example, if Italy alone gets all their green tech from US companies once they fully go green, that alone would generate way more money and jobs for US companies than the tiny amount of money we put in. Number 2, I am not misrepresenting your position because your position is that this is a bad agreement because of "massive amounts of money and intellectual capital being given away." This belief of yours was never misrepresented on my end.

Billions is a lot of money to the average citizen. Drop in the bucket when it comes to the US budget. Not massive at all. And intellectual capital wouldn't be given away. Does Saudi Arabia know how to manufacture a F-15 because we sell it to them? Do they own Boeing's engineers now because we sell them F-15s?

Danger, I would like you to answer my questions. Can you explain to me why you disagree with the agreement in a more nuanced way than just blindly claiming we would be giving away massive amounts of money and intellectual capital (which is not correct)? Also, I am trying to understand your position on global warming to know whether or not it is worth engaging with you in a discussion because your mind would already be made up. Do you deny believing global warming is a conspiracy?

The only one who was committing the straw man fallacy here has been you. At one point, you claimed I said by pulling out of the paris agreement, we wouldn't have green technology. I literally facepalmed when I read this.

 

[usernamedox11]

I had asked a moderator to help me get my account deleted a few weeks ago. He never replied. I explained to him I disagreed with the views of the forum.

1) This forum is inherently misogynistic and thinks everything centers around being beta or alpha.
2) This forum is primarily made up of conspiracy theorists
3) You can't have decent discussions with members here because you have intellectual juggernauts that believe in conspiracy theories, such as Danger and YawataNoKami.

You have bigneil posting racist crap all over the forum.

There is all sorts of evidence of rigged data, with even more evidence of rigging coming out today.
Several years ago "climate gate" occured where all sorts of emails were leaked whiched showed collusion in producing false numbers. to prove climate change.

It behooves researchers to falsify their data so they can get even more taxpayer funding.

People talk about polar caps melting, but they even melted on mars during the same timeframe....why? Because it was the sun cycles causing it, not humans.

Remember, the Earth was far far hotter during many previous eras, especially during the dinosaur.

Additionally, we have had several ice ages where the entire planet was covered in ice.

Given these data points, it seems clear that the only real fact is the earth and sun change by large degrees and it is foolish and extremely egotistical to think we are the drivers of it.

-Danger

Okay, I got your position on global warming.

Humans contributing to global warming is false because researchers falsify their data to get more taxpayer funding. So yes, you think it is a conspiracy. I was right. And it seems because the Earth was warmer during "dinosaurs" (lol) and we had ice ages before, this somehow means that humans aren't currently contributing to the current onset of warming (non sequitur fallacy).

So, yes, as I thought, Danger is an illogical conspiratard. This discussion was a waste of time. Apparently, most of the forum is conspiracy oriented. So it is not just danger here

So mods, when will my account be deleted? I don't want to be associated with the members of this forum anymore.

 

[usernamedox11]

You stated the US would receive benefits for transference of money and intellectual capital.

I am asking for you to support this statement with data.

To support this, you need to have costs, cost curves, market share analysis, investment required and return exoected year over year.

All you have supplied are estimated sizing of the markets in the future.

1. That is not an analysis.
2. That does not tell us what the tangible return is for giving all of this away.
3. You are demanding we give stuff away to those who have mo obligations and for which there is no demonstrated return.

Nothing more needs to be said. I wouldn't give away personal money on phantom data, why would I give away my neighbors money on phantom data?

 

[usernamedox11]

The thing is you haven't challenged my position as to why getting out of the Paris Agreement is a bad idea.

"You need to have costs, cost curves, market share analysis, investment required and return expected year over year"

What in the hell does the Paris Agreement have to do with that? The Paris Agreement was about trying to lower temps and to better position the United States in subsequent agreements for the benefit of our companies and workers.

 

[usernamedox11]

Danger.

The Paris Agreement was about trying to lower temps, getting countries to lower emissions, and to help developing countries use cleaner forms of energy and to better position the United States in subsequent agreements within the framework for the benefit of our companies and workers in the very lucrative, booming green energy market. What in the world does "competitor positioning and costs to deliver" have to do with that? The US government is not trying to manufacture and market a physical product to sell...

 

[usernamedox11]

Once we give away the technology, how do we ensure no IP is stolen and competitors arise thus taking the promises ROI from US companies?

How do we ensure competitors don't get the technology?

How do we know WE will get the financial benefits and not other Countries?

1) We should want countries to purchase and buy American green technology. I don't understand why IP is a concern here. I don't follow.

2) By actually being the primary writer of the rules in international agreements regarding climate change and not China...

 

[usernamedox11]

Danger, have you heard of the World Trade Organization? It has 162 members. This is the part that deals with intellectual property in every industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement

 

[usernamedox11]

1a. If we want them to buy technology, then why are we giving it away in this agreement?

1b. When we give away IP, competitors will use that to steal market share and thus steal business fron US companies.

2. What good does being the primary writer of international agreements if all we do is give away money and IP with no guarantees of a return?

IP is not being given away...

 

[usernamedox11]

The agreement says to transfer money and technology.....

But danger, what does this have to do with giving away intellectual property?

By the transfer of technology, it doesn't mean giving away designs, engineers, manufacturing plants, intellectual property, etc for the international commercial gain of foreign companies.

This is to help put in place the infrastructure to help countries transition to green tech. The money would be used to help small, developing nations to use green technology instead of dirtier forms of energy, which developing countries tend to do.

Anyway, whatever you hate the agreement. Fine, the agreement is very, very dumb. I agree, Danger. Time for me to shower and get ready for work.

Have a great day Danger!

 

[usernamedox11]

Typically transfer of technology is the giving away of those things.

Otherwise what exactly does it mean?

You too, have a good day.

That's why companies are upset about America pulling out. America being part of it helps forces IP laws.
This is the framework through the WTO: http://ecdpm.org/great-insights/from-climate-commitments-to-action/wto-implement-paris-agreement/

When you look through everything through a conspiratorial point of view, you get the wrong picture. Use common sense. Unless corporations are all in on the "NWO" scheme nonsense, they would have no interest in supporting something that gave away their IP.

 

[usernamedox11]

When "green" energy sources become more profitable, people will start spending money on them. If they were effective government wouldn't need to take your money and invest in them. Simple logic. I will concede that large coal and oil companies do what they can do obstruct progress, but eventually, some new technology will emerge for one simple reason: profit.

As far as I know the only truly clean energy is solar....all others produce waste. Electricity requires coal (primarily) - but it gets a pass because users don't see the damage it does. It's "clean" in their eyes. Maybe it's cleaner than fossil fuel, I don't know. I wonder how many supporters of the Paris treaty unplug their Macbook Airs when they're charged.

There are also profit motives in energy efficiency. It "feels good" and saves money for consumers. The US is far less polluted than it was 40 years ago. And yet this decline in pollution occurred without this Paris agreement. Imagine that. A lot of factors were involved, but in the end change occurred because the general market demanded it.

1) you aren't saying new here. Companies want to make profit, yes. No one debated this. That's why energy companies don't like America pulling out of the Paris Agreement.

2) Wrong.

3) Two different subjects

 

[usernamedox11]

Like many of you guys, I believe global warming was a BS conspiracy. I believed in the NWO globalist agenda nonsense. I believed in Skull n bones. I believed in bilderberg. I believed in the crap Alex Jones. I believed in 9/11 being an inside job. I believed in the freemason conspiracy. I believed the fed conspiracy.

But I was 16 and it was a way to entertain myself. You know what happened? I grew the fvck up and learned how to critically think better and learned how to better sort through information.

Honestly, looking back at my old self, even as a younger person, I am ashamed of the crap I believed.

 

[Bible_Belt]

And what companies?

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...orations-and-Republicans-who-want-to-s/216719

Amazon
Apple
Bank of America
Berkshire Hathaway
Campbell Soup
Citigroup
Dow Chemical
DuPont
eBay
Facebook
Gap
General Mills
General Motors
General Electric
Goldman Sachs
Google
The Hartford
HP
Hilton
Intel
Johnson & Johnson
Kellogg
Microsoft
Monsanto
Morgan Stanley
Nike
NRG Energy
PG&E
Salesforce
Staples
Starbucks
Symantec
Walmart
Wells Fargo