"He said states need to ban corporal punishment entirely and ban harsh penalties like suspensions for minor infractions because they can harm the relationship between students and educators, and they can make students feel unsafe or unmotivated to come to class."

Republicans think children need to be hit.

I'm actually impressed to see government work with an actual plan on how they intend to pay for these type of perks. It's very responsible and I applaud them.
#12 | Posted by lfthndthrds

You sure aren't impressed to see government work with an actual plan on how they intend to pay for it when the plannis called SNAP.

Wanna explain why feeding Americans with SNAP or free school lunches is bad, but feeding Mexicans with Mexi-Snap is good?

"These people either, never believed their own words about oil & gas and the environment, or they really don't care about the environment when it comes to their pet projects."

You don't have beliefs, so not understanding how they work is why you think that.

We tax cigarettes, does that mean we think cigarettes don't really cause cancer?

Christ you're stupid.

Go start a thread on SNAP.
#24 | Posted by lfthndthrds

The "denial" stage of the Kubler-Ross model has joined the chat.

My argument destroys yours and everybody can see it.

So we're back to oil & gas is bad, but we will keep using it as long as it funds things like free childcare?
#26 | Posted by lfthndthrds

So now it's "Denial" and a little bit of "Bargaining" this time.

Kubler-Ross explains and predicts the MAGA mind accurately.

Can we agree that the environment doesn't care if the oil and gas industry funds a worthy cause such as child care and that pollution is pollution?
#32 | Posted by eberly

The answer is No.
Republicans cannot agree that CO2 is pollution.

"Why don't we just stop using oil?"

More brilliant political commentary from the geniuses who think they're scoring points with:

"Why don't we just make the minimum wage $100/hr?"

LOL The self-proclaimed winner. such a sad little ----, you are.
#37 | Posted by lfthndthrds

You haven't done anything to refute my argument, and that's because you can't.

Dint feel bad. You're not really much of a "doer" in this life anyway.

But the democrats agree and keep taking the money. make it make sense
#41 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Having cars doesn't make sense to you?
There, there child.
Let Mommy hold you and brush your tears away.

We don't even have to tax the rich. We just have to pay bottom tier workers more.

But to Republicans, that's no different than a tax.

So again, as long as the pet projects are funded by oil & gas, you care not if the planet dies?
#33 | Posted by lfthndthrds

^
One of the ways we can tell you've never really had to work hard to survive in this life is demonstrated by your comment.

You have never been faced with having to make a difficult trade-off, where you can't get everything you want all the time.

but I'm not the one who want's oil & gas to go away. That would be your own idea.
#52 | Posted by lfthndthrds at

I guess your mommy didn't breatfeed you, so you don't know what weaning a child off the breast means.

I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the left here with their hatred for O&G.
#57 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Oh so you're engaging in The Riiight's favorite logical fallacy, the Appeal To Hypocrisy.

Why didn't you just say you were just trolling and not making sincere arguments, that could have saved us all some time, and saved you some face!

(Answer: Probably because you aren't smart enough to understand the difference between a logical fallacy and a valid argument.)

"The appeal to hypocrisy, also known as the tu quoque fallacy, is a logical fallacy where someone discredits an opponent's argument by pointing out their contradictory behavior, rather than addressing the argument itself. This tactic is often used to distract from the original issue and does not invalidate the opponent's claim."

You stupid ass Republicans still don't get it?

Just pretend fossil fuels are guns, and the pollution from fossil fuels is a bullet heading for Charlie Kirk's neck.

Now tell us, are guns good or bad?

Alexandrite,

They like playing dumb. You can almost see the dopamine release in how they type their oh-so-clever retorts.

They're not here for a conversation. Dude literally says he thinks the idea is good, his only interest in the "conversation" is to troll the libs. He chummed the waters so hard it even summoned an Eberly to take a few potshots.

But when his trolling actually generated a sincere response about trade-offs and how political solutions have to work within the confines of the world we live in?

The thread's no fun for him and he has nothing left to say.

They're just bullies whose penises can no longer sustain an -------- so this is the closest they can get to enjoying life now.

"Just the high paying salaries alone breathes life into communities."

While not wrong, it should be noted that some of the poorest parts in the nation are those under the political thumb of the fossil fuel industry.

"Most people have no idea how much they contribute to local communities."

We just aren't going to talk about the other side of the coin, are we?

Most people have no idea how much they take from local communities either.

New York has a drilling moratorium on O&G. Signed in 2014 by Andrew Cuomo iirc.
#79 | Posted by lfthndthrds

That's because NY is home to rich people and rich people don't want their local communities destroyed ecologically by fracking or economically by boom and bust economies. And you know I'm right about that too.

Beyomd that, New York has a far better source to tap into for revenue, than mineral extraction.

It's the wealth extraction where the oil companies and all other kinds of companies are traded on Wall Street.

I like your idea of oil wells suddenly going up in the Five Boroughs though!

Like you really think that's a workable idea.

That's because NY is home to rich people and rich people
#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-03 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:
No, New York is this way because they have NYC.
#85 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Not a no, a yes.
Those are the same thing.

"Fissile Fuels are not nearly as bad for climate change as fossil fuels. They just don't have enough good lobbyists."

Don't look now but nuclear stocks have been on quite the run lately. This is largely premised around small scale nuclear reactors to supply energy for the $7 Trillion dollars in data centers being built to replace everyone's jobs with AI. And also having Trump as President who would mail every Democrat nuclear waste if he could.

NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance Index ETF +76.25% YTD
which is basically double the S&P.

Eberly says Dems aren't really mad until their skin turns green and they burst out of your clothing.

You know, like Nancy Mace at the airport the other day! That was genuine outrage.

The biggest problem I see with nuclear energy in America is our corporations are insufficiently regulated as to be able to safely manage nuclear waste; much less so under Republican leadership. Heck, even Japan couldn't pull it off at Fukushima, and while they have their own types of corruption problems, the United States is still the Wild West of corruption compared to Japan's more dignified vertically integrated corruption.

This concern about small scale reactors is born out in how small scale Fracking harms communities -- which according to Republicans is just liberal propaganda.

If you want to know the future of energy, simply look to where nearly all energy ever consumed on this planet has its origins: The sun.

I won't go so far as to say wind, hydro, and geothermal and nuclear are "from the sun," though without the sun's gravity well there wouldn't be an earth, so you could make the argument.

All the coal and oil and natural gas is from decaying living matter than was plants, and thus got energy from the sun, or consumed things that consumed plants, and thus got energy from the sun.