Two things:
1.) I saw someone the other day on Twitter call Bernie Sanders "Uncle Commie". I can't remember for sure but I think it might have been Carol Roth
2.) There used to be global warming. Then it was changed to climate change. Now, I guess the new name is Climate Disruption. I have to wonder if that will stick.
I thought it was Climate Crisis?
Just like “reproductive rights” being the new term for abortion ………God they are sick.
posted by justincredibleI thought it was Climate Crisis?
https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1138489680452886528
posted by justincredibleI thought it was Climate Crisis?
https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1138489680452886528
The whole climate issue seems to be nothing more than an attempted backdoor govt takeover of the economy and I'm not buying it.
posted by CenterBHSFanTwo things:
1.) I saw someone the other day on Twitter call Bernie Sanders "Uncle Commie". I can't remember for sure but I think it might have been Carol Roth
Correction: It was Carol Roth but the name was "Grandpa Commie"
posted by justincredibleThe whole climate issue seems to be nothing more than an attempted backdoor govt takeover of the economy and I'm not buying it.
That's exactly what it is. AOC proposed "at least $10T...." It's an excuse to transfer money to ideas and products that aren't economically viable. And you can bet there's a WHOLE LOT of corruption when you have politicians picking winners and losers with that kind of money.
If there was remotely an actual threat even 100 years from now, you'd see REAL action. Namely, we'd be building nuclear plants as fast as we can all over the world. Nuclear is not the long-term solution, but it would be the most effective and immediate way to virtually eliminate fossil fuels.
The other thing I've noticed is all kinds of activist claims end - well, and lead - with ".....because climate change". Similar to identity politics, the purpose is to quash debate - if you dare question their position, then you're a science denier.
posted by CenterBHSFan2.) There used to be global warming. Then it was changed to climate change. Now, I guess the new name is Climate Disruption. I have to wonder if that will stick.
Yep, they keep moving the goalposts because every passing year is another nail in the coffin that CO2 doesn't trigger amplifying warming effects, without which it's basically a nothingburger.
"Climate disruption" is interesting. It sounds a lot like a much more common term WEATHER. Basically, the new push is to blame extreme weather events on climate change. However, in a rare honest disclosure climate scientists mostly agree there's no evidence of an increase in extreme weather events (if anything, it leans the opposite way to LESS events). But climate is always changing, so they go and cherry-pick natural occurring changes in local weather.....and then blame fossil fuels.
posted by gutYep, they keep moving the goalposts because every passing year is another nail in the coffin that CO2 doesn't trigger amplifying warming effects, without which it's basically a nothingburger.
"Climate disruption" is interesting. It sounds a lot like a much more common term WEATHER. Basically, the new push is to blame extreme weather events on climate change. However, in a rare honest disclosure climate scientists mostly agree there's no evidence of an increase in extreme weather events (if anything, it leans the opposite way to LESS events). But climate is always changing, so they go and cherry-pick natural occurring changes in local weather.....and then blame fossil fuels.
It is funny, there is one meteorologist on twitter named Ryan Maue I think that shits on people calling weather events climate change driven. Its almost the lowest time of major tornadoes but people still blaming tornadoes in 2019 bc of climate change. Be skeptical of any science talked about by morons in congress.
posted by CenterBHSFanI would love to have her become the nominee and then lose. The howls and yowls of misogyny and sexism would be better theater than Broadway could ever pull off.
She has negative chances to be the nominee.
Tweet from today really showing her intelligence
Here's an idea: If you win 13-0—the most goals for a single game in World Cup history—you should be paid at least equally to the men's team.
Congratulations, #USWNT!
posted by iclfan2She has negative chances to be the nominee.
Tweet from today really showing her intelligence
Here's an idea: If you win 13-0—the most goals for a single game in World Cup history—you should be paid at least equally to the men's team.
Congratulations, #USWNT!
I don't understand why people think like this when: women don't sell the merch, sell tickets, bring a crowd like men do. It's too bad, I guess, but you can't force people to be more interested.
posted by CenterBHSFanI don't understand why people think like this when: women don't sell the merch, sell tickets, bring a crowd like men do. It's too bad, I guess, but you can't force people to be more interested.
Ergo, ram Title IX down our throats, because you’re mad people like men’s sports more.
posted by CenterBHSFanI don't understand why people think like this when: women don't sell the merch, sell tickets, bring a crowd like men do. It's too bad, I guess, but you can't force people to be more interested.
Also, I know the men's team is pretty trash right now (hopefully the right the ship soon smh), but they would be able to name their score against the USWMNT. The USWMNT knows it too.
posted by like_thatAlso, I know the men's team is pretty trash right now (hopefully the right the ship soon smh), but they would be able to name their score against the USWMNT. The USWMNT knows it too.
The fact that the USMNT could beat the USWNT is irrelevant.
What would be relevant to this discussion is to see the profit generated by the USMNT (tickets, merch, expenses, etc.) versus that generated by the USWNT....THAT would determine if the USWNT should be paid the same...or more or less than the USMNT.
Sam process as in the real world....
posted by wkfanThe fact that the USMNT could beat the USWNT is irrelevant.
What would be relevant to this discussion is to see the profit generated by the USMNT (tickets, merch, expenses, etc.) versus that generated by the USWNT....THAT would determine if the USWNT should be paid the same...or more or less than the USMNT.
Sam process as in the real world....
I agree. The economic factors are much more relevant to the argument. I was just throwing that extra argument in.
posted by like_thatI agree. The economic factors are much more relevant to the argument. I was just throwing that extra argument in.
But doesn't the US Women's team attract more interest/viewers than the men's team, because of their success?
I think the original argument was that the USOC paid them less. Based on success, and on economic factors, that's wrong. Maybe I'm wrong on the economics, but the US men's team got a $5.4M bonus for losing in the round of 16, while the women's team got $1.7M for winning the cup.
posted by gutBut doesn't the US Women's team attract more interest/viewers than the men's team, because of their success?
I think the original argument was that the USOC paid them less. Based on success, and on economic factors, that's wrong. Maybe I'm wrong on the economics, but the US men's team got a $5.4M bonus for losing in the round of 16, while the women's team got $1.7M for winning the cup.
I thought that was paid out by FIFA based on their revenue and how the team does. Even if it isn't you can argue the Mens WC generates more interest/revenue than the Womens WC and thus they get paid more. You're talking about a difference of less than 100M vs billions. The women making the finals is simply not equal to a round of 16 match in the mens WC. The US women generate good interest, but I doubt it is more than the men. The men even have a solid following during the WC qualifier matches. Solid enough where they have/had a contracts with networks to televise their qualifier matches. There aren't many people tuning into a random October women's WCQ match.
posted by like_thatI thought that was paid out by FIFA based on their revenue and how the team does.
OK, well that article I read then was [unsurprisingly] deceptive. I agree with you if FIFA pays the bonus, because the men's cup generates a lot more interest than the women. I was talking specifically in the US, and had wrongly assumed the bonus was paid by USOC.
I guess I'd like to know what USOC is paying the teams out of it's actual budget (excluding re-distributions that come from FIFA revenue sharing).
posted by gutOK, well that article I read then was [unsurprisingly] deceptive. I agree with you if FIFA pays the bonus, because the men's cup generates a lot more interest than the women. I was talking specifically in the US, and had wrongly assumed the bonus was paid by USOC.
I guess I'd like to know what USOC is paying the teams out of it's actual budget (excluding re-distributions that come from FIFA revenue sharing).
They are run by the US Soccer Federation, so they would be paying them. Just like most non profit sports orgs it is not much. The athletes rely on their pro leagues and endorsements. Now I believe the USWNT filed a discrimination lawsuit against the federation due inferior facilities offered and medical care. In that case, they have an argument.
