GOP Mayor has his city embrace 100% green tech.

[King Static X]

he's going to play with the definition of fiscal conservative and fiscal responsible, which he believes aren't related and that you cannot be fiscally conservative and still expect a governmental, private, and social role in ensuring people are treated fairly, equally, and with respect. Remove govenment out of peoples lives and you will see more people doing for themselves and communities that's human intuition and tendency

Another false statement, you see this is exactly why I stopped talking to you because you're denser than a rock.

You parrot GOP nonsense about the "government being in people's lives" when that's a completely false connotation.

Providing things like single payer health care, a social safety net, maternity & paternity leave, tuition free college, and more public works, etc is not the government "being in your lives". It's the government doing what it's supposed to do.

The government is supposed to help out it's citizens and be a force for good. A responsible and fair government is supposed to be the agent of change. That is the basic tenet of social liberalism. For example, you can't be an environmentalist and say that you want "limited government". That's because who is going to stop private companies from exploiting the environment? Oh yeah, THE F*CKING GOVERNMENT.

Also, none of the stuff I mentioned is the government being "in your life". The government being "in your life" is if the government is spying on you, the government telling you who you can marry, the government patrolling every neighborhood using the military, so on and so forth.

However, you will continue to be obtuse and that's why I leave people like you alone.

 

[King Static X]

regardless of political affiliations, do you feel it is possible for ppl to want to and contribute to help others, while simultaneously being fiscally responsible?

Of course.

However, all I was saying is that fiscal conservatism does NOT equal fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility is not about how much the government spends but about HOW the government spends money. Is the government spending money in an efficient manner?

Also, like I said, Republicans have done a much worse job than Democrats when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Even though, the Republicans claim that they are the "party of fiscal responsibility". Democratic presidents have handled the budget/government spending way better than GOP presidents.

 

[fact]

Mayor Dale Ross in Georgetown, Texas has converted his city to 100% renewable energy. He also gives GOP policy reasons for moving and supporting to renewable energy.

(Excuse the thumbnail title, it's click-bait and misleading)

Timestamps of Ross actually talking > 0:58, 3:19, 7:08, 8:56


For the conservative or GOP leaning folks,

Do you agree with his arguments?

@DEAD7 @Perfectson @88m3 @Call Me James

When the tides turn, they will throw this mayor on their shoulders and claim they ALWAYS been bout bout it’. fukking scumbag, lying cowards with their revisionist history

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Does it have to be a partisan issue?

 

[King Static X]

Does it have to be a partisan issue?

Of course not. Climate change SHOULD NOT be a partisan issue.

 

[Perfectson]

Of course.

However, all I was saying is that fiscal conservatism does NOT equal fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility is not about how much the government spends but about HOW the government spends money. Is the government spending money in an efficient manner?

Also, like I said, Republicans have done a much worse job than Democrats when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Even though, the Republicans claim that they are the "party of fiscal responsibility". Democratic presidents have handled the budget/government spending way better than GOP presidents.

this is exactly what I just said you would said and you came back with

Another false statement, you see this is exactly why I stopped talking to you because you're denser than a rock.

You parrot GOP nonsense about the "government being in people's lives" when that's a completely false connotation.

Providing things like single payer health care, a social safety net, maternity & paternity leave, tuition free college, and more public works, etc is not the government "being in your lives". It's the government doing what it's supposed to do.

The government is supposed to help out it's citizens and be a force for good. A responsible and fair government is supposed to be the agent of change. That is the basic tenet of social liberalism. For example, you can't be an environmentalist and say that you want "limited government". That's because who is going to stop private companies from exploiting the environment? Oh yeah, THE F*CKING GOVERNMENT.

Also, none of the stuff I mentioned is the government being "in your life". The government being "in your life" is if the government is spying on you, the government telling you who you can marry, the government patrolling every neighborhood using the military, so on and so forth.

However, you will continue to be obtuse and that's why I leave people like you alone.

You are also now putting words in my mouth, where did I parrot anything about GOP you fukkin nitwit.

There is nothing in the consitution that states the government is supposed to provide many of the items you listed. You're taking your opinion and trying to address us like these are facts when it's your bias very partisan view of the world.

What if I do that.


The government should provide everyone with a vehicle

The government should provide everyone with a two story house

The government should provide everyone with free cell phones

The government should provide everyone with prada shoes.


I mean you realize how stupid you sound.


Lastly, the government should be limited except where there's a common agreement that changes should be made and enforcing those changes. who enforced the civil rights act, of course the government. Just like they would environmental issues. They aren't responsible for you to have a free university education nor are they responsible for a single payer healthcare system (which i'm sure you don't even know what that is). These are just more liberal corporate bloat programmes that can be handled just fine privately.

 

[King Static X]

this is exactly what I just said you would said and you came back with




You are also now putting words in my mouth, where did I parrot anything about GOP you fukkin nitwit.

There is nothing in the consitution that states the government is supposed to provide many of the items you listed. You're taking your opinion and trying to address us like these are facts when it's your bias very partisan view of the world.

What if I do that.


The government should provide everyone with a vehicle

The government should provide everyone with a two story house

The government should provide everyone with free cell phones

The government should provide everyone with prada shoes.


I mean you realize how stupid you sound.


Lastly, the government should be limited except where there's a common agreement that changes should be made and enforcing those changes. who enforced the civil rights act, of course the government. Just like they would environmental issues. They aren't responsible for you to have a free university education nor are they responsible for a single payer healthcare system (which i'm sure you don't even know what that is). These are just more liberal corporate bloat programmes that can be handled just fine privately.

LOL, you're a f*cking idiot. I'm done talking with your dumb ass.

You sound just like a f*cking Republican. Don't reply to me, I don't want to see more of your idiocy. Thanks and good bye.

 

[Perfectson]

LOL, you're a f*cking idiot. I'm done talking with your dumb ass.

You sound just like a f*cking Republican. Don't reply to me, I don't want to see more of your idiocy. Thanks and good bye.

all you have to do is stop replying then. You keep replying saying how you're not going to reply. I'm going to continue to check you for bias views, period.
If you don't want other opinions take your ass back on the corner with the rest of the black israelites.

You can't argue with facts, so you name call. Good job. Go back to yelling about how you want "free stuff"

 

[Maschine_Man]

this is exactly what I just said you would said and you came back with




You are also now putting words in my mouth, where did I parrot anything about GOP you fukkin nitwit.

There is nothing in the consitution that states the government is supposed to provide many of the items you listed. You're taking your opinion and trying to address us like these are facts when it's your bias very partisan view of the world.

What if I do that.


The government should provide everyone with a vehicle

The government should provide everyone with a two story house

The government should provide everyone with free cell phones

The government should provide everyone with prada shoes.


I mean you realize how stupid you sound.


Lastly, the government should be limited except where there's a common agreement that changes should be made and enforcing those changes. who enforced the civil rights act, of course the government. Just like they would environmental issues. They aren't responsible for you to have a free university education nor are they responsible for a single payer healthcare system (which i'm sure you don't even know what that is). These are just more liberal corporate bloat programmes that can be handled just fine privately.

A single payer health care system is actually better for society and all citizens. it brings costs down, and it streamlines spending, by reducing many levels of bureaucracy.
It's better for all in so many ways (including lower costs across the board)

when everyone gets health care through a single payer/UHC system:
1. businesses are no longer have to pay for their employees full health care, saving them lots of money.
2. overall improved health of all ppl across the board, less sick days taken from work, improved efficiency.
3. costs are actually lowered. End month expenses for ppl will actually go down, even if taxes went up by 1%
4. financial safety and security for ppl, no more ppl worried about not going to the hospital for fear of cost
5. ppl won't be afraid to go to doctor or hospital for minor things which could end up becoming worse later on.


The government SHOULD be responsible for ensuring their citizens are living in a healthy, safe and secure society. which for the most part they already try to do (fire/police services, clean water protections, food management, drug laws and control, etc.)

So why would they stop at the most important part of all of that?



now....education. I personally think that post secondary education like community college and trade schools should be free. those should be natural extensions of high school. while Universities should be more affordable. If someone wants to go to a local state university they should get a heavily reduced tuition rate to stay local. If someone wants to live that "college experience" and travel across the country...well that cost should be all on them.


There are some government programs that actually make sense, and are better for all of society, and they should all be a non partisan issue.

Health and education for ppl should be first and foremost.

 

[mastermind]

Libertarianism, in general, is a terrible ideology unless you're rich (especially, if you're a rich White male).

I can understand someone wanting "fiscal responsibility" but if you're a social liberal, there's no way you can be a fiscal "conservative". That is because most of the main tenets of social liberalism REQUIRE lots of government spending and regulation.

That whole "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" crap is said to only make these a$$holes feel better about themselves.

 

[Perfectson]

A single payer health care system is actually better for society and all citizens. it brings costs down, and it streamlines spending, by reducing many levels of bureaucracy.
It's better for all in so many ways (including lower costs across the board)

when everyone gets health care through a single payer/UHC system:
1. businesses are no longer have to pay for their employees full health care, saving them lots of money.
2. overall improved health of all ppl across the board, less sick days taken from work, improved efficiency.
3. costs are actually lowered. End month expenses for ppl will actually go down, even if taxes went up by 1%
4. financial safety and security for ppl, no more ppl worried about not going to the hospital for fear of cost
5. ppl won't be afraid to go to doctor or hospital for minor things which could end up becoming worse later on.


The government SHOULD be responsible for ensuring their citizens are living in a healthy, safe and secure society. which for the most part they already try to do (fire/police services, clean water protections, food management, drug laws and control, etc.)

So why would they stop at the most important part of all of that?



now....education. I personally think that post secondary education like community college and trade schools should be free. those should be natural extensions of high school. while Universities should be more affordable. If someone wants to go to a local state university they should get a heavily reduced tuition rate to stay local. If someone wants to live that "college experience" and travel across the country...well that cost should be all on them.


There are some government programs that actually make sense, and are better for all of society, and they should all be a non partisan issue.

Health and education for ppl should be first and foremost.

first of all, i can go quote a bunch of stats from other systems opposing single payer health. So I'm not going to argue between the different types of health insurances. mind you, I use to work for a global insurer and I can tell you a leading product for some of these "free health care" systems is "skip the line" products, aimed at uber rich to be seen ahead of those on the free model because the queue is atrocious.


the arguement I will engage you in is the responsiblity of the government, which I agree is to ensure citizens are being allowed to live in a safe, healthy, and secure society. Also to ensure they have access to health care, but I do not believe they are responsible for providing them with free health care. That is an individual responsibility that they are taking care of themselves and are ensuring they making good life decisions with regards to their health. Why put the burden on the tax payers and not on the individual to purchase insurance which is TAILORED for that person's life style. I feel the same way with post highschool education. With regard to education, I again believe incentive and motivation is required and making post highschool free removes some of that. One of the only reasons I worked hard in highschool (which i really didn't work extremely hard, but i ensured I was working hard enough and staying out of trouble) is because I want a college scholarship. That was an incentive. You take incentives away people become unmotivated - not everyone, but some. I believe it will lessen the educational and academic value of U.S. colleges.

There has to be a line, we disagree where that line is drawn but we can agree on the core tenants. I believe what the government offers currently is more than enough and we should be focused on optimizing these services so that we can begin reducing our debt.

 

[Perfectson]

That whole "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" crap is said to only make these a$$holes feel better about themselves.

man just stop, you don't know what your talking about and just regurgitate your stupidity over and over. It's frustrating explainining simple concepts to someone who is too stupid and/or blind to digest them. This must be what it feels like to teach a 6 year old division.

 

[mastermind]

man just stop, you don't know what your talking about and just regurgitate your stupidity over and over. It's frustrating explainining simple concepts to someone who is too stupid and/or blind to digest them. This must be what it feels like to teach a 6 year old division.

Yeah breh, I hope you feel better about yourself.

 

[Maschine_Man]

first of all, i can go quote a bunch of stats from other systems opposing single payer health. So I'm not going to argue between the different types of health insurances. mind you, I use to work for a global insurer and I can tell you a leading product for some of these "free health care" systems is "skip the line" products, aimed at uber rich to be seen ahead of those on the free model because the queue is atrocious.


the arguement I will engage you in is the responsiblity of the government, which I agree is to ensure citizens are being allowed to live in a safe, healthy, and secure society. Also to ensure they have access to health care, but I do not believe they are responsible for providing them with free health care. That is an individual responsibility that they are taking care of themselves and are ensuring they making good life decisions with regards to their health. Why put the burden on the tax payers and not on the individual to purchase insurance which is TAILORED for that person's life style. I feel the same way with post highschool education. With regard to education, I again believe incentive and motivation is required and making post highschool free removes some of that. One of the only reasons I worked hard in highschool (which i really didn't work extremely hard, but i ensured I was working hard enough and staying out of trouble) is because I want a college scholarship. That was an incentive. You take incentives away people become unmotivated - not everyone, but some. I believe it will lessen the educational and academic value of U.S. colleges.

There has to be a line, we disagree where that line is drawn but we can agree on the core tenants. I believe what the government offers currently is more than enough and we should be focused on optimizing these services so that we can begin reducing our debt.

Concerning the bolded...
the problem with part of your thinking is that you think the government would be providing "free" health care. That isn't the case. the health care is provided for by taxes paid by the citizens. the government is just the facilitator. Also, health care for all IMPROVES society. improves the work force, and does it more efficiently than what is in place now.

Now, why stop at high school education, when it comes to free schooling?

Basically high school education was thought of to give everyone a basic understanding of life and work, and the skills to get a job that pays a livable wage. This thinking is archaic at best, as we all know anything past 1990 (or even before) requires more than that to get a job to pay the bills.
So since the requirements to get a job have been elevated then why haven't the education requirements followed?

this doesn't take away incentive, it just provides a more even playing field for those that just can't make it in university, can't afford university, or simply just don't want that type of work.

Community college and trade school should be considered as extensions of high school.

 

[Perfectson]

Concerning the bolded...
the problem with part of your thinking is that you think the government would be providing "free" health care. That isn't the case. the health care is provided for by taxes paid by the citizens. the government is just the facilitator. Also, health care for all IMPROVES society. improves the work force, and does it more efficiently than what is in place now.

Now, why stop at high school education, when it comes to free schooling?

Basically high school education was thought of to give everyone a basic understanding of life and work, and the skills to get a job that pays a livable wage. This thinking is archaic at best, as we all know anything past 1990 (or even before) requires more than that to get a job to pay the bills.
So since the requirements to get a job have been elevated then why haven't the education requirements followed?

this doesn't take away incentive, it just provides a more even playing field for those that just can't make it in university, can't afford university, or simply just don't want that type of work.

Community college and trade school should be considered as extensions of high school.

Yes, I use the term "free" loosely, everything comes out the taxes but there's a reason we are in debt, because many of these services cannot be paid by the tax income we have...so essentially these are free for us.

I understand where you're coming from. I think the government has pushed an agenda to educate the citizens, which tbh wasn't required but they did anyway. I would prefer to spend any money optimizing the system (highschool and prior) so kids are prepared for whatever they do afterwards. Inner cities have very high drop out rates for example. Let's fix that. I think to try to instill some sort of equivalency at the college level, while the prior levels are still unequal is a recipe for disaster. You would - in my opinion - only lower the value of the college education. People would go to college just to go instead of having a true motivation to go there. Another few year in the parent basement as they go to school on the taxpayers dime.

Community college and trade school should be considered as extensions of high school.

I agree with this but would need to be graded to be allowed in and Im not talking standardized testing but specific testing (especially if it's free).