- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 27,917
- Reaction score
- 10,803
You asked me to explain the joke to your dumbass so I did. I’m sorry it hurt your feelings.
Now my feelings are hurt?
Dang dude . . . you're insightful.
Quick. What am I thinking . . . now.
You asked me to explain the joke to your dumbass so I did. I’m sorry it hurt your feelings.
Now my feelings are hurt?
Dang dude . . . you're insightful.
Quick. What am I thinking . . . now.
Probably something about finding a community college to stumble into because you feel intellectually inferior throughout most of the day, if I had to guess.
Continue with you “brown woman bad” posts. You’re not worth the time.

How'd you know? Man . . . you ARE really, really insightful.
Oooooh . . . now I get it.
What am I thinking . . . . NOW?
![]()
Of course not. That's why the statement I replied to was ridiculous. The entire point is that to make real change we'll have to move away from the track we are on now which is that "everyone", if you want to use your modified definition, drives everywhere for everything. No single strategy is going to do that; there will need to be a coordinated constellation of strategies to really achieve something significant. One of those will be finding ways to encourage reductions in car ownership and use. So even with your definition, though not specified earlier, no, everyone will not need a new car, but only if action is taken.And we're extremely happy to not be in the group you described in your post . . . at least I am.
But . . . what's your point? We don't need to be considered in all of this NGD discussion because we're not living in a city with the infrastructure required to get to wherever it is AOC wants us to get?
You’re insecure.
You’re also (still!) an obtuse moron. SAD.
Nowhere, also:Really? Where?
Billioners should definitely pay 70% tax.
Of course not. That's why the statement I replied to was ridiculous. The entire point is that to make real change we'll have to move away from the track we are on now which is that "everyone", if you want to use your modified definition, drives everywhere for everything.
No single strategy is going to do that; there will need to be a coordinated constellation of strategies to really achieve something significant. One of those will be finding ways to encourage reductions in car ownership and use. So even with your definition, though not specified earlier, no, everyone will not need a new car, but only if action is taken.
Nowhere, also:
People can’t find examples of conservatives mocking the AOC dance video in Newsweek’s ‘conservatives mock’ article
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2019...ideo-in-newsweeks-conservatives-mock-article/
As long as these people run the democratic party Alexandria will mean nothing. People attack her for her interview on Anderson Cooper who do you think Anderson works for the people? It's funny watching right wing claim that Anderson Cooper is trying to help Alexandria out LOL he's worried about his rich friends and his 100's of millions. Anderson is a stooge for the corporate neoliberal machine.
This is a great video.

I'm all for improving various technology to cut down on carbon emissions, etc. But she seriously wants to do away with use of fossil fuels within 12 years?
Then a 60-70% tax rate on some portion of 10 million of income?
If that means developing currently undeveloped land to start looking like bigger American cities no thanks . . . so I don't think a huge chunk of the country will be on board for this . . .
Your group of folks who have never had a need to own a car will likely still not need to own one . . . outside of replacing every major roadway in the US with light rails or something else it won't happen. Rural America has stayed rural for a reason.

Or that's a ridiculous reply to a valid criticism of a ridiculous post. About the first sentence, I made no such assumption, while your post, the one I was replying to, made a ridiculous assumption, that "everyone" will need a new car.
About your second line, I won't step foot in your insane country (until some laws change).
About your third line, I'm not dismissing rural anything while you're making dumb illogical assumptions. No matter what kind of vehicles people are driving, the energy demands will be unsustainable if they continue to increase. To reduce energy use, getting as many people as possible onto public transport will be a key element. Obviously things are different in lower population areas. But you made it sound like a much larger issue by saying "everyone." You already subsidize rural people left and right, so programs to help them be more green, including reduced EV prices, don't seem out of the realm of possibility to me. There are lots of options for people of varying kinds of accessibility issues, unlike trying to, say, figure out how "everyone" is going to get a new car.
Try to expand your thinking a little. You don't strike me like a bad person, but a lot of the time you come across like Clint Eastwood talking to the chair.
Exactly. Crazy eyes in terms of bangability is major points.Wood. Even more with the crazy eyes.
Why is the article fake news stupid?Besides this one, single, stupid article,
where are all these tons of liberals folks making these accusations against conservatives? Maybe they’re there, I just haven’t heard it from anyone besides this one article. Let alone from a significant number of liberals.
Why is the article fake news stupid?
The Media, Without Evidence, Claims Conservatives Furious Over Ocasio-Cortez Dancing Video
https://www.dailycaller.com/2019/01/05/media-gop-ocasio-cortez-dancing/
If I just copy-pasta their links you'd hand-wave it away with another 1-liner.Oh Daily Caller as reliable a news source as there is it would be like I posted an article from HuffPost.