Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Little Greta comes clean

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seanD View Post
    Then you must be ignorant about it.
    Actually I followed it quite closely.

    Here's wikipedia's bullet point summary of the yellow vest protests:
    Caused by:
    • Rise in crude oil prices in 2018[29]
    • Fuel tax[30]
    • Traffic enforcement cameras[31]
    • Austerity measures[32]
    • 2017 wealth tax repeal[33]
    • Globalization[34]
    • Classism[35]
    • Neoliberalism[36]


    Goals:
    • Increase in the French minimum wage[37]
    • End to austerity measures[38]
    • Improved standard of living[38]
    • Government transparency and accountability[38]
    • Improved government services for rural areas[38]
    • Constitutional proposal for Citizens' initiative referendum, including constitutional, legislative, abrogative, and recall initiatives[39]



    People hated Macron for a long list of reasons, mainly because he was doing a whole host of unpopular right-wing things, and the things they wanted from his government were mostly leftist things, hence the protests. To try and blame it on the Paris Accords is rather silly.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Actually I followed it quite closely.

      Here's wikipedia's bullet point summary of the yellow vest protests:
      Caused by:
      • Rise in crude oil prices in 2018[29]
      • Fuel tax[30]
      • Traffic enforcement cameras[31]
      • Austerity measures[32]
      • 2017 wealth tax repeal[33]
      • Globalization[34]
      • Classism[35]
      • Neoliberalism[36]


      Goals:
      • Increase in the French minimum wage[37]
      • End to austerity measures[38]
      • Improved standard of living[38]
      • Government transparency and accountability[38]
      • Improved government services for rural areas[38]
      • Constitutional proposal for Citizens' initiative referendum, including constitutional, legislative, abrogative, and recall initiatives[39]



      People hated Macron for a long list of reasons, mainly because he was doing a whole host of unpopular right-wing things, and the things they wanted from his government were mostly leftist things, hence the protests. To try and blame it on the Paris Accords is rather silly.
      Macron is a rightwinger, folks. Yes wiki is such a reliable source. So you obviously were ignorant about the subject and did a quick search on wiki. And what are the first two issues even they list?

      Comment


      • First search engine result,

        Starlight, why do you crap out the most falsehoods over 'sky is falling'? Why can't you just admit you rely on reddit and youtube ''''''''''''news''''''''' shows for your daily koolaid?
        Last edited by demi-conservative; 01-26-2020, 02:05 AM.
        Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seanD View Post
          Macron is a rightwinger, folks.
          Yes, very much so.

          Yes wiki is such a reliable source.
          Generally yes.

          So you obviously were ignorant about the subject and did a quick search on wiki.
          Don't be a jerk, or I won't bother to reply. As I said, I've been following it fairly closely. Apparently more so than you, since I was well aware the protests had multiple causes, while you incorrectly believed them to solely relate to a carbon tax.

          And what are the first two issues even they list?
          They're bullet points, not numbered in a specific order. But the first two in the list are a recent rise crude oil prices (I think you'll need to be particularly inventive with your 'logic' if you want to pretend fluctuations in the free market international oil prices are the result of the Paris Accords), and Macron's particular implementation of a fuel tax. With regard to that second one, he implemented a fuel tax particularly badly and it fell harshly on poor people, and he was busy removing taxes from rich people at the same time... his actions fit pretty neatly into the standard right-wing template of more taxes on the poor and less taxes on the rich, so there was push-back. The now-standard way of implementing a carbon tax is to redirect the revenues of any such tax to the poor, in order to make sure the tax is not disproportionately harming the poor, as this allows the market to price in a disincentive on carbon usage while keeping the impacts on people minimal. Macron didn't do it that way, I would assume due to his right-wing ideology being opposed to doing anything remotely helpful to people in need.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Yes, very much so.

            Generally yes.

            Don't be a jerk, or I won't bother to reply. As I said, I've been following it fairly closely. Apparently more so than you, since I was well aware the protests had multiple causes, while you incorrectly believed them to solely relate to a carbon tax.

            They're bullet points, not numbered in a specific order. But the first two in the list are a recent rise crude oil prices (I think you'll need to be particularly inventive with your 'logic' if you want to pretend fluctuations in the free market international oil prices are the result of the Paris Accords), and Macron's particular implementation of a fuel tax. With regard to that second one, he implemented a fuel tax particularly badly and it fell harshly on poor people, and he was busy removing taxes from rich people at the same time... his actions fit pretty neatly into the standard right-wing template of more taxes on the poor and less taxes on the rich, so there was push-back. The now-standard way of implementing a carbon tax is to redirect the revenues of any such tax to the poor, in order to make sure the tax is not disproportionately harming the poor, as this allows the market to price in a disincentive on carbon usage while keeping the impacts on people minimal. Macron didn't do it that way, I would assume due to his right-wing ideology being opposed to doing anything remotely helpful to people in need.
            I was following freelance journalists there on the ground in Paris in the middle of it (closest thing to actually being there), interviewing the protesters. I wasn't using wiki as a source.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
              Why can't you just admit you rely on reddit and youtube ''''''''''''news''''''''' shows for your daily koolaid?
              Reddit.com/r/politics which I commonly read is a feed of news article links to dozens of different newspapers. Every thread OP (apart from 1-2 pinned ones at the top) literally has to be a link to an article and nothing else, and with a title identical to the article title. If you're complaining that I read that rather than newspapers, that doesn't exactly make sense as a complaint, because it's a feed of links to newspaper articles.

              I do enjoy a variety of youtube news shows yes, as I'm sure you're aware from my previous posts. The almost universal practice among shows I watch is to talk about a specific article or video from a mainstream media source, and then give their own comments about it. So, again, I get to hear about all the major mainstream media stories that way. One show took a lot of interest in the Yellow Vest protests and did some interviews with people in France while they were happening.

              I don't tend to consume any mainstream media sources directly, as I find NYT, WaPo, CNN etc too right wing to put up with, and find their anti-progressive biases too annoying.
              Last edited by Starlight; 01-26-2020, 02:34 AM.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                Reddit.com/r/politics which I commonly read is a feed of news article links to dozens of different newspapers. Every thread OP (apart from 1-2 pinned ones at the top) literally has to be a link to an article and nothing else, and with a title identical to the article title. If you're complaining that I read that rather than newspapers, that doesn't exactly make sense as a complaint, because it's a feed of links to newspaper articles.

                I do enjoy a variety of youtube news shows yes, as I'm sure you're aware from my previous posts. The almost universal practice among shows I watch is to talk about a specific article or video from a mainstream media source, and then give their own comments about it. So, again, I get to hear about all the major mainstream media stories that way. One show took a lot of interest in the Yellow Vest protests and did some interviews with people in France while they were happening.

                I don't tend to consume any mainstream media sources directly, as I find NYT, WaPo, CNN etc too right wing to put up with, and find their anti-progressive biases too annoying.
                CNN is rightwing, folks. Now I know your reasoning is completely twisted

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                  CNN is rightwing, folks. Now I know your reasoning is completely twisted
                  The conservatives on this site are right to critique the MSM but wrong in their understandings about why.

                  CNN's modus operandi is usually to have on a centrist/corporatist Dem and a Republican to argue with each other. Then they'll either imply it's impossible to know which of the two is right, or imply they like what the centrist Dem had to say better than the Republican. It's a "pick a card, any card" choice from the two cards they are offering, with sometimes an implied preference for one of the cards. And they go out of their way to make sure the Republican position is represented, and that their viewers see it. You guys have a tendency to spot the obvious - that CNN tends to like their centrist dems' positions over the Republican position, though you tend to ignore the extent to which CNN bends over backward to make sure that the Republican PoV is being represented on their network and by Republicans. But you guys tend to be totally blind to the bigger game that is being played on you: That they're trying to make the viewers choose between only the two positions that are on offer, and that they do their utmost best to make sure progressive positions are not being offered and that they are carefully filtering their guests who take the Dem side. They don't mind if their audience ends up supporting the centrist dems or the republicans, they do mind if the audience tries to think outside the box of the two choices that are being forced on them.

                  This is a common problem across the board in the US mainstream media... all the big media companies go out of their way to employ Republican commentators and host Republican guests, because they want to represent 'both' (of the two and only two) positions, and don't want to be accused of bias. (Well, except Fox who doesn't care much about a fig leaf of pretending to have an occasional leftist) But they don't employ or host anyone who is seriously left wing and who wants to actually make them pay significantly more in taxes. That's the view they don't want to allow, and which their audience, ideally, isn't even allowed to know exists or is an option. The reasons for this bias boil down at the end of the day to the fact that big companies are owned and operated by very rich people who make a lot of money.
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    The conservatives on this site are right to critique the MSM but wrong in their understandings about why.

                    CNN's modus operandi is usually to have on a centrist/corporatist Dem and a Republican to argue with each other. Then they'll either imply it's impossible to know which of the two is right, or imply they like what the centrist Dem had to say better than the Republican. It's a "pick a card, any card" choice from the two cards they are offering, with sometimes an implied preference for one of the cards. And they go out of their way to make sure the Republican position is represented, and that their viewers see it. You guys have a tendency to spot the obvious - that CNN tends to like their centrist dems' positions over the Republican position, though you tend to ignore the extent to which CNN bends over backward to make sure that the Republican PoV is being represented on their network and by Republicans. But you guys tend to be totally blind to the bigger game that is being played on you: That they're trying to make the viewers choose between only the two positions that are on offer, and that they do their utmost best to make sure progressive positions are not being offered and that they are carefully filtering their guests who take the Dem side. They don't mind if their audience ends up supporting the centrist dems or the republicans, they do mind if the audience tries to think outside the box of the two choices that are being forced on them.

                    This is a common problem across the board in the US mainstream media... all the big media companies go out of their way to employ Republican commentators and host Republican guests, because they want to represent 'both' (of the two and only two) positions, and don't want to be accused of bias. (Well, except Fox who doesn't care much about a fig leaf of pretending to have an occasional leftist) But they don't employ or host anyone who is seriously left wing and who wants to actually make them pay significantly more in taxes. That's the view they don't want to allow, and which their audience, ideally, isn't even allowed to know exists or is an option. The reasons for this bias boil down at the end of the day to the fact that big companies are owned and operated by very rich people who make a lot of money.
                    I agree that cnn is definitely pro-establishment, which means they might lean more moderate, as opposed to someone completely progressive leaning and leftist biased like TYT. But just because they're pro-establishment doesn't mean they're rightwing anymore than msnbc is rightwing because they too are pro-leftist establishment. It just means the democrats are more politically fragmented.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      She demands that we disable every bit of emissions. Complete and utter ZERO admissions. So, basically the end of civilization as it exists.
                      There is nothing impossible about that goal. It is achievable.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by demi
                        Why can't you just admit you rely on reddit and youtube ''''''''''''news''''''''' shows for your daily koolaid?
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Reddit.com/r/politics which I commonly read
                        Thank you, no wonder you are so horribly uninformed.

                        Originally posted by seanD View Post
                        I agree that cnn is definitely pro-establishment, which means they might lean more moderate, as opposed to someone completely progressive leaning and leftist biased like TYT. But just because they're pro-establishment doesn't mean they're rightwing anymore than msnbc is rightwing because they too are pro-leftist establishment. It just means the democrats are more politically fragmented.
                        If fartlight had a reasonable point of view (aka not 'Stalin is right-wing') it would be obvious that CNN doesn't allow any seriously right wing people but instead uses neocons, just as they don't allow any serious leftwing people but use neo libs instead. This happens with almost every major media outlet.
                        Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          The conservatives on this site are right to critique the MSM but wrong in their understandings about why.

                          CNN's modus operandi is usually to have on a centrist/corporatist Dem and a Republican to argue with each other. Then they'll either imply it's impossible to know which of the two is right, or imply they like what the centrist Dem had to say better than the Republican. It's a "pick a card, any card" choice from the two cards they are offering, with sometimes an implied preference for one of the cards. And they go out of their way to make sure the Republican position is represented, and that their viewers see it. You guys have a tendency to spot the obvious - that CNN tends to like their centrist dems' positions over the Republican position, though you tend to ignore the extent to which CNN bends over backward to make sure that the Republican PoV is being represented on their network and by Republicans. But you guys tend to be totally blind to the bigger game that is being played on you: That they're trying to make the viewers choose between only the two positions that are on offer, and that they do their utmost best to make sure progressive positions are not being offered and that they are carefully filtering their guests who take the Dem side. They don't mind if their audience ends up supporting the centrist dems or the republicans, they do mind if the audience tries to think outside the box of the two choices that are being forced on them.

                          This is a common problem across the board in the US mainstream media... all the big media companies go out of their way to employ Republican commentators and host Republican guests, because they want to represent 'both' (of the two and only two) positions, and don't want to be accused of bias. (Well, except Fox who doesn't care much about a fig leaf of pretending to have an occasional leftist) But they don't employ or host anyone who is seriously left wing and who wants to actually make them pay significantly more in taxes. That's the view they don't want to allow, and which their audience, ideally, isn't even allowed to know exists or is an option. The reasons for this bias boil down at the end of the day to the fact that big companies are owned and operated by very rich people who make a lot of money.
                          More proof that every time your mouth moves, a laugh track should start playing. I’ll pass on 50% or more of my pay going to taxes.
                          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                            CNN doesn't allow any seriously right wing people but instead uses neocons, just as they don't allow any serious leftwing people but use neo libs instead.
                            Who are these 'real' right wingers that the MSM doesn't allow on? If you mean libertarians like Rand Paul, I've seen dozens and dozens of clips of him in MSM interviews.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                              I’ll pass on 50% or more of my pay going to taxes.
                              I'm not saying it necessarily should. There are plenty of types of taxes that aren't income taxes (company taxes, capital gains, estate taxes, property taxes etc). Just because countries seem to do the best when the economy is around 50% public and 50% private, it doesn't mean that income taxes need to be at or near 50%.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                                There is nothing impossible about that goal. It is achievable.
                                But people breath out CO2! Checkmate lib.
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X