Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

its actually a thread about the highly questionable platforming of greta thunberg

that people who don't want this discussed keep trying to divert it into a discussion about climate change denialism, the sources of funding of any writing they disagree with, the imaginary number theory of government capital finance, the morality of people being allowed to disagree with them, and the certain success of collective socialist planned economies if only the denialistas could be crushed is cute.

but it doesnt change what this thread is about.

^^^ This ...

Tuisceanch

Deleted User wrote: »

so instead of a thread of questioning the rather puzzling and quite high-level platforming of thunberg as 2019s cause celebre, this thread should be about anything that three posters can drag it to?

and the thread about thunberg should start another thread about thunberg?

i think youve made very good contributions to this thread on climate change, not that i welcome the discussion in this thread, but does that request not strike you as a little rich?

Well the OP did mention the socioeconomic demands of her demands,although I'm not sure she made any proposals in that regard,and it did also mention climate change so surely they were subjects that were intended to be discussed.At the end of the day it's only a thread so don't know why people get so worked up about things.It just seems like a lot of squabbling about nothing in particular. Anyway what's so surprising about Greta's Thunberg sudden rise to prominence as a feted climate activist when the kardashians became world famous for saying absolutely nothing of the remotest interest about anything at all.

ha, we can agree on that much, certainly!

(re the squabbling)

"Anyway what's so surprising about Greta's Thunberg sudden rise to prominence as a feted climate activist when the kardashians became world famous for saying absolutely nothing of the remotest interest about anything at all."

they have enormous tits. its a thing.

and besides, try going into a thread about their rise to prominence and insisting that it was actually a thread about celebrity through the lens of communism, or that any criticism of the platform provided to the kardashians was misogynistic or anti- are they iranian? im going to say iranian, or that it was in fact evidence that you or anyone of that opinion was obviously x, or that every opinion you had on it was based on an article someone dug up and claimed was funded by oj simpson, who kilt a woman, why do you defend oj simpson killing that woman?

i mean. look, you can see how a few posters (and it really is just two) who behaved like that in a thread would get on your goat after a while.

Tuisceanch

Deleted User wrote: »

ha, we can agree on that much, certainly!

(re the squabbling)

In fairness i do find it a source of entertainment. There aren't many good comedy programs on TV these days.

Tuisceanch

Deleted User wrote: »

"Anyway what's so surprising about Greta's Thunberg sudden rise to prominence as a feted climate activist when the kardashians became world famous for saying absolutely nothing of the remotest interest about anything at all."

they have enormous tits. its a thing.

i mean. look, you can see how a few posters (and it really is just two) who behaved like that in a thread would get on your goat after a while.

That's what it boils down too really.People have got on each others nerves.

Re.: other subject - a bit too large for my taste but that's probably broadening the discussion too far.

Tuisceanch

Deleted User wrote: »

and besides, try going into a thread about their rise to prominence and insisting that it was actually a thread about celebrity through the lens of communism, or that any criticism of the platform provided to the kardashians was misogynistic or anti- are they iranian? im going to say iranian, or that it was in fact evidence that you or anyone of that opinion was obviously x, or that every opinion you had on it was based on an article someone dug up and claimed was funded by oj simpson, who kilt a woman, why do you defend oj simpson killing that woman?

I don't know much,if anything at all about them,except that there's a suspicion of Botox about them. That's a very amusing and imaginative way of expressing your experience of the thread.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

"Anyway what's so surprising about Greta's Thunberg sudden rise to prominence as a feted climate activist when the kardashians became world famous for saying absolutely nothing of the remotest interest about anything at all."

they have enormous tits. its a thing.

and besides, try going into a thread about their rise to prominence and insisting that it was actually a thread about celebrity through the lens of communism, or that any criticism of the platform provided to the kardashians was misogynistic or anti- are they iranian? im going to say iranian, or that it was in fact evidence that you or anyone of that opinion was obviously x, or that every opinion you had on it was based on an article someone dug up and claimed was funded by oj simpson, who kilt a woman, why do you defend oj simpson killing that woman?

i mean. look, you can see how a few posters (and it really is just two) who behaved like that in a thread would get on your goat after a while.

We've had

• Greta is being abused.
• Greta's parents are pushing her.
• She is mentally incapable of understanding the situation.
• She is just a puppet.
• Organisations are just using her to make it look like they care.
• She is a hypocrite.
• She should still be in school.
• She's just 16 and knows nothing.
• There is no climate problem.
• There has always been problems with the climate.
• It's all an excuse to tax, tax, tax.
• What about the RCP4.5?
• And now this nonsense about a pseudo-comparison with a non-existent thread.

I wonder what will tomorrow bring?

Tuisceanch

Tell me how wrote: »

We've had

• She is just a puppet.

Was there any conclusion as to what type of puppet she is?

• Marionette
• Hand puppet
• Rod puppet
• Ventriloquist dummy
• Finger puppet
• Shadow puppet

or is that still being discussed? Was there no speculation as to whether she might be a robot from the future?

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

sorry man, i understood you perfectly well, there's really no need to keep repeating yourself. You just didn't make any sense- repeating it again won't help either, before you set off.

if you have to invent a three paragraph definition of what "cost" means in order to tell people why things don't "cost" anything, then people will tend to see through that- or do you find otherwise?

it's an interesting approach though.

If you think I said it didn't cost anything, then you didn't understand me at all. You'd have to be pretty much wilfully misunderstanding, to say that.

Why don't you say, what you think the GND would cost, then? 99% chance, you are talking about it having a fixed monetary cost - like I dealt with.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

its actually a thread about the highly questionable platforming of greta thunberg

that people who don't want this discussed keep trying to divert it into a discussion about climate change denialism, the sources of funding of any writing they disagree with, the imaginary number theory of government capital finance, the morality of people being allowed to disagree with them, and the certain success of collective socialist planned economies if only the denialistas could be crushed is cute.

but it doesnt change what this thread is about.

This here is the first sentence of the thread:
"Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet."

That statement introduces into the discussion - in the very first sentence! - a discussion about what is proposed to arrest climate change, and it is a false statement about what Greta advocates, opening that entire side of discussion for debate.

Otherwise, if it weren't part of the thread, people would be threadbanned for it - right?

KyussB

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Isn't this essentially synonymous with quantitive easing where in this case, as opposed to what happened in the 2008 crash when the increased money supply was used to purchase the bad assets of the banks,liquidity is injected into the economy to fund government infrastructure projects whilst closely monitoring the costs of inflation.

Not exactly - what I propose can use government bonds (currently around ~0% interest) to pursue this - and because of QE, the money for those bonds would (in large part) be coming indirectly from QE (from QE to financial markets, then finance markets to government bonds).

If we cut out the middle man, though - then yes, it would be exactly that. There would be ideological objections to this, though (there is no valid economic reason to object to that, but politically today, it is verboten).

Presently, we don't need to cut out the middleman though - since interest rates are practically ~0% it's as good as having a printing press.

Closely monitoring inflation is essential for this - and that is what I mean about spending up to maximum GDP - it's only when you reach that point, that inflation starts to kick in - so you mustn't maintain net-spending, when maximum GDP is reached.

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

Not exactly - what I propose can use government bonds (currently around ~0% interest) to pursue this - and because of QE, the money for those bonds would (in large part) be coming indirectly from QE (from QE to financial markets, then finance markets to government bonds).

If we cut out the middle man, though - then yes, it would be exactly that. There would be ideological objections to this, though (there is no valid economic reason to object to that, but politically today, it is verboten).

Presently, we don't need to cut out the middleman though - since interest rates are practically ~0% it's as good as having a printing press.

Closely monitoring inflation is essential for this - and that is what I mean about spending up to maximum GDP - it's only when you reach that point, that inflation starts to kick in - so you mustn't maintain net-spending, when maximum GDP is reached.

Yes that's essentially what I thought you were getting at. I started reading those links you posted about M.M.T and have Stephanie Kelton's book on my wish list. Very interesting stuff. Do you have a background in economics and/or finance yourself,if you don't mind me asking?

oh kyuss you do amuse

i used "costs". the little winky things about the word matter. you'd need to be wilfully etc to etc. behave!

and then "cost the GND for me if you think my figures dont work!."

no. your theory of imaginary free expenditure really doesn't put me under any burden to do any such thing. first instance, and lord but its been said plenty, im not in a thread about your funding of a GND by inventing new modes of macroeconomic dark matter monetary theory and in the second instance your gibberish places no onus on me to perform any gibberish of my own.

im sure the awards youre no doubt about to receive any day now for figuring out how to print money by repeatedly pointing to GNP or wtf ever will cool the burn left by ppl on the internet thinking its such obvious transparent raving. i do hope we merit a mention in your acceptance speech.

im not going to skirt any closer to backseat modding than i already have- which has already been too far tbh- to comment on whether ye should be threadbanned. but nice try!

the style of argument, when the issue is swaying large bodies of public opinion, that says "read these fifty links and this fifty paragraph post and THEN come back to me, baby!" is that people can just yknow, not.

KyussB

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Yes that's essentially what I thought you were getting at. I started reading those links you posted about M.M.T and have Stephanie Kelton's book on my wish list. Very interesting stuff. Do you have a background in economics and/or finance yourself,if you don't mind me asking?

Nice Always glad to see someone take an interesst in that - it can take a while to grok it all, but it's well worth it. They are (in my view) some of the major architects behind the Green New Deal, especially the Job Guarantee part of it.

I don't, no - I do work programming on a prominent game engine - I've been learning about economic topics for most of the last decade, and while I'd like to study/research it with a proper course which covers heterodox views (maybe in my own time alongside work someday), or be more politically involved with it, it wouldn't make sense for me with my current work

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

Nice Always glad to see someone take an interesst in that - it can take a while to grok it all, but it's well worth it. They are (in my view) some of the major architects behind the Green New Deal, especially the Job Guarantee part of it.

I don't, no - I do work programming on a prominent game engine - I've been learning about economic topics for most of the last decade, and while I'd like to study/research it with a proper course which covers heterodox views (maybe in my own time alongside work someday), or be more politically involved with it, it wouldn't make sense for me with my current work

I'm very intrigued as I'm from an IT background but I won't pry. I wonder if you could hazard a guess as to what book these quotes originates from:

It is important to remember that banks do not really want to have their loans repaid, except as evidence of the dependability of the borrower. They make a profit from interest on the loan, not repayment of the loan. If a loan is paid off, the bank merely has to find another borrower, and that can be an expensive nuisance. It is much better to have the existing borrower pay only the interest and never make payments on the loan itself. That process is called
rolling over the debt. One of the reasons banks prefer to lend to governments is that they do not expect those loans ever to be repaid. If we had a truth-in-Government act comparable to the truth-in-advertising law, every note issued by the Treasury would be obliged to include a sentence stating: "This note will be redeemed with the proceeds from an identical note which will be sold to the public when this one comes due.

THE MANDRAKE MECHANISM . . . What is it? It is the method by which the Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing; the concept of usury as the payment of interest on pretended loans; the true cause of the hidden tax called inflation; the way in which the Fed creates boom-bust cycles.

In the 1940s, there was a comic strip character called Mandrake the Magician. His specialty was creating things out of nothing and, when appropriate, to make them disappear back into that same void. It is fitting, therefore, that the process to be described in this section should be named in his honor.

It is difficult for Americans to come to grips with the fact that their total money-supply is backed by nothing but debt, and it is even more mind boggling to visualize that, if everyone paid back all that was borrowed, there would be no money left in existence.

The entire function of this machine is to convert debt into money. It's just that simple. First, the Fed takes all the government bonds which the public does not buy and writes a check to Congress in exchange for them. (It acquires other debt obligations as well, but government bonds comprise most of its inventory.) There is no money to back up this check. These fiat dollars are created on the spot for that purpose. By calling those bonds "reserves," the Fed then uses them as the base for creating nine (9) additional dollars for every dollar created for the bonds themselves. The money created for the bonds is spent by the government, whereas the money created on top of those bonds is the source of all the bank loans made to the nation's businesses and individuals. The result of this process is the same as creating money on a printing press, but the illusion is based on an accounting trick rather than a printing trick.

Not very fair I know but think Woodrow Wilson and establishment of the Federal Reserve.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

oh kyuss you do amuse

i used "costs". the little winky things about the word matter. you'd need to be wilfully etc to etc. behave!

and then "cost the GND for me if you think my figures dont work!."

no. your theory of imaginary free expenditure really doesn't put me under any burden to do any such thing. first instance, and lord but its been said plenty, im not in a thread about your funding of a GND by inventing new modes of macroeconomic dark matter monetary theory and in the second instance your gibberish places no onus on me to perform any gibberish of my own.

im sure the awards youre no doubt about to receive any day now for figuring out how to print money by repeatedly pointing to GNP or wtf ever will cool the burn left by ppl on the internet thinking its such obvious transparent raving. i do hope we merit a mention in your acceptance speech.

You want me to put a number on the cost of the Green New Deal - and my point is, the government can afford anything (at ~0% interest presently), up to the point of reaching maximum GDP.

You want a number you can wave around to say it's impractical, financially - I've provided an explanation that shows anything is practical/affordable, so long as it doesn't try to push the economy beyond maximum potential GDP.

That's how it works. That's how government finances work.

KyussB

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I'm very intrigued as I'm from an IT background but I won't pry. I wonder if you could hazard a guess as to what book these quotes originates from:

Not very fair I know but think Woodrow Wilson and establishment of the Federal Reserve.

Heh, welcome to the rabbit hole I didn't know WW said that - and while it's accurate, it gets some of the details a bit wrong (inflation doesn't really come about through the interest)

Here is a good document (although not entirely right about QE) - worth bookmarking for citing - which leaves no doubt on that topic, even just from the first paragraphs, and from an uncontestable source:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf

Once people start to going down this rabbithole, it takes a while, but eventually on the other side, people will be able to see that there are zero problems funding something like the Green New Deal (and pretty much anything else...) - it's not a problem of money, it's only a problem of the resources and labour we have available, and how to allocate them.

Tell me how

KyussB wrote: »

Heh, welcome to the rabbit hole I didn't know WW said that - and while it's accurate, it gets some of the details a bit wrong (inflation doesn't really come about through the interest)

Here is a good document (although not entirely right about QE) - worth bookmarking for citing - which leaves no doubt on that topic, even just from the first paragraphs, and from an uncontestable source:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf

Once people start to going down this rabbithole, it takes a while, but eventually on the other side, people will be able to see that there are zero problems funding something like the Green New Deal (and pretty much anything else...) - it's not a problem of money, it's only a problem of the resources and labour we have available, and how to allocate them.

There are 2 elements to the discussion about money in my opinion, one is whether or not you have it, the second is whether the general population are in agreement with how you intend to use it.

The second one is the largest stumbling block in terms of the GND in the US in my view. And there are a number of factors which play in to this.
One of them, is the abhorrence a lot of Americans have (particularly those of a conservative persuasion) with the government getting more involved in the market space. This is already evident in terms of healthcare and education fees and will be an even stronger battle in terms of the GND given the changes which will be required. The second is the sway which lobbyists for traditional enterprises such as Oil and Gas have over key government figures. They will oppose anything which risks the potential they have for extracting every last cent from every last drop of oil in the ground.

Disturbingly, latest movements have been towards wide scale fracking when what needs to be happening is reducing the extraction of fossil fuels instead of increasing it.

Even Obama hinted towards this with his recent comments that the Democrats need to be careful of selecting someone too radical for their presidential candidate (a comment seemingly aimed towards Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren). America is a long way from moving in the direction it needs to unfortunately.

KyussB

Tell me how wrote: »

There are 2 elements to the discussion about money in my opinion, one is whether or not you have it, the second is whether the general population are in agreement with how you intend to use it.

The second one is the largest stumbling block in terms of the GND in the US in my view. And there are a number of factors which play in to this.
One of them, is the abhorrence a lot of Americans have (particularly those of a conservative persuasion) with the government getting more involved in the market space. This is already evident in terms of healthcare and education fees and will be an even stronger battle in terms of the GND given the changes which will be required. The second is the sway which lobbyists for traditional enterprises such as Oil and Gas have over key government figures. They will oppose anything which risks the potential they have for extracting every last cent from every last drop of oil in the ground.

Disturbingly, latest movements have been towards wide scale fracking when what needs to be happening is reducing the extraction of fossil fuels instead of increasing it.

Even Obama hinted towards this with his recent comments that the Democrats need to be careful of selecting someone too radical for their presidential candidate (a comment seemingly aimed towards Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren). America is a long way from moving in the direction it needs to unfortunately.

The first question on money though, is the game changer. Once enough people realize that that question makes no sense for the US - that money is always available, the limit is reaching maximum GDP, not money (and even then portions of GDP can be shifted to other tasks...) - that is a paradigm shift which permanently changes the political narrative, about money.

When this change in narrative happens in the US, it will change the political/economic narrative on the whole planet.

When people talk about funding the Green New Deal (or anything else), it will no longer be a discussion about "Why are my tax dollars paying for x, y z?" etc. - that would no longer make any sense - it will become a discussion about "Why are there unemployed/homeless people, when nothing is stopping us paying them a living wage to work on tasks (renewable infrastructure, training/R&D, retrofitting structures for energy efficiency etc.) to fight climate change?" - "Why do I have to work this shitty minimum-wage/retail job that I hate, when I could be paid a living wage to do anything in the Job Guarantee?" - "Why am I paying for public transport, if fares are not actually needed to keep it running, and if we want to incentivize it?" - "Why do I have to choose work that is profitable, when we (up to a point...) can afford to choose work that is socially beneficial instead?".

That's only a small (and could be better) selection of ways the narrative changes. The long and short of it is: It completely redefines how economic policy is thought about and talked about - once it goes mainstream. It will leave all special interests cast aside due to public pressure, politically, once enough of the public understands how it actually works - and that point is inching closer (might be another decade or two, still, though).

Tell me how

KyussB wrote: »

The first question on money though, is the game changer. Once enough people realize that that question makes no sense for the US - that money is always available, the limit is reaching maximum GDP, not money (and even then portions of GDP can be shifted to other tasks...) - that is a paradigm shift which permanently changes the political narrative, about money.

When this change in narrative happens in the US, it will change the political/economic narrative on the whole planet.

When people talk about funding the Green New Deal (or anything else), it will no longer be a discussion about "Why are my tax dollars paying for x, y z?" etc. - that would no longer make any sense - it will become a discussion about "Why are there unemployed/homeless people, when nothing is stopping us paying them a living wage to work on tasks (renewable infrastructure, training/R&D, retrofitting structures for energy efficiency etc.) to fight climate change?" - "Why do I have to work this shitty minimum-wage/retail job that I hate, when I could be paid a living wage to do anything in the Job Guarantee?" - "Why am I paying for public transport, if fares are not actually needed to keep it running, and if we want to incentivize it?" - "Why do I have to choose work that is profitable, when we (up to a point...) can afford to choose work that is socially beneficial instead?".

That's only a small (and could be better) selection of ways the narrative changes. The long and short of it is: It completely redefines how economic policy is thought about and talked about - once it goes mainstream. It will leave all special interests cast aside due to public pressure, politically, once enough of the public understands how it actually works - and that point is inching closer (might be another decade or two, still, though).

I cannot see such a paradigm shift occurring any time soon. Even without the special interests focused on maintaining the status quo, what you are talking about is more an acceptance of a socialist narrative (or at least would be seen as such) by a population pre-wired to be suspicious of anything the government is advocating for.

I haven't looked in to the specifics of the GND at all yet so maybe I am missing something but appealing to a collective shift to a focus on the benefit of all for society is not at all imminent. If it were, America would already be a very different country.

Tuisceanch

Tell me how wrote: »

The second is the sway which lobbyists for traditional enterprises such as Oil and Gas have over key government figures. They will oppose anything which risks the potential they have for extracting every last cent from every last drop of oil in the ground.

Disturbingly, latest movements have been towards wide scale fracking when what needs to be happening is reducing the extraction of fossil fuels instead of increasing it.

Yes it's virtually inconceivable to envisage the major oil companies shifting from that position as leading UK environmentalist Jonathon Porritt reflects,in this article https://tinyurl.com/ran3f8x, on his years working on green energy projects with Shell and BP.

There have always been good, far-sighted people in the big oil and gas companies. From time to time, they’ve succeeded in getting sufficient traction amongst their senior colleagues to make the prospect of becoming ‘genuinely integrated energy companies’ – investing as much in renewables, storage and energy efficiency as in hydrocarbons – more or less realistic.

But with BP that moment came and went under the leadership of John Browne; and with Shell, that ‘integrated agenda’ pretty much died after Mark Moody-Stuart moved on. In both companies, the hydrocarbon supremacists rapidly regained the ground they’d lost; doing renewables as Corporate Social Responsibility was fine, but anything that threatened to go seriously ‘beyond petroleum’ was deemed to be deviant heresy.

Even the emergence of the ‘unburnable carbon’ analysis (with the headline that very significant percentages of already proven, extractable reserves of coal, oil and gas will need to stay in the ground to give us any chance at all of avoiding the spectre of runaway – and potentially irreversible – climate change) left them entirely unmoved.Please remember that these are companies that employ some of the best scientists in the world, and who have explored in commendable detail various scenarios regarding the impact of climate-induced change. One of Shell’s scenarios is appropriately titled ‘Chaos’, but apparently without the remotest trace of irony.

And these are companies whose senior managers know, as an irrefutable fact, that their current business model threatens both the stability of the global economy and the longer-term prospects of humankind as a whole.

If you also consider this quote from the following document,Shell Energy Scenarios to 2050 https://tinyurl.com/ssq2p9w

Many are quick to doubt the science. Amid such ambiguity a discontinuity is building as expert and public opinion diverge. This divergence is not sustainable! Society continues to face a dilemma posed in Shell Energy Scenarios to 2050: a failure to reduce emissions now will mean considerably greater cost in the future. But concerted global action is still too far off given the extreme urgency required.

Not only fracking but also the decision in August of the Nebraska Supreme Court to lift one of the last major hurdles for the Keystone XL pipeline in the state.

However the fact that individual states under the umbrella of the U.S. Climate Alliance http://www.usclimatealliance.org/ are committed to taking real, on the ground action that urgently addresses the climate challenge,despite the opposition of the incumbent occupant of the White House is encouraging and this recognition also fuels the real possibility of a democratic president being elected who is truly committed to some form of a GND and China is also taking positive steps so its not all bad news.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

You want me to put a number on the cost of the Green New Deal - and my point is, the government can afford anything (at ~0% interest presently), up to the point of reaching maximum GDP.

You want a number you can wave around to say it's impractical, financially - I've provided an explanation that shows anything is practical/affordable, so long as it doesn't try to push the economy beyond maximum potential GDP.

That's how it works. That's how government finances work.

?!

i dont want any of those things. stop blaming me for your being set off!

im begging you to stop repeating this stuff unasked!

how dare you, as the woman sez

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

This here is the first sentence of the thread:
"Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet."
That statement introduces into the discussion - in the very first sentence! - a discussion about what is proposed to arrest climate change, and it is a false statement about what Greta advocates, opening that entire side of discussion for debate.Otherwise, if it weren't part of the thread, people would be threadbanned for it - right?

Well for the multitude of endless wittererings about everything and anything - then for sure taking a look at the OPs premise is certainly not a bad idea.

Let's look at that again

"Climate saint Greta Trunburg" (The subject of the sentence)

" is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York" (The verb dictating the action etc )

"to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet." (Concludes the sentence using a number of adjectives describing the outcomes etc)

So there we have the the premise of thread ie - climate guru Greta in the US and her various rantings and demands

Well nothing particularly hard to understand there except that has been translated into

• Greta cannot be criticised :mad:

• Greta is the new messiah or wtte :pac:

• The Green New Deal will save the planet

• The Green New Deal is not socialist nor has any communist links whatsoever!

• Money is free! Everything else is a lie! :eek:

• Anyone not believing greta is a saint is a denialist!

• The Koch family / brothers are evil incarnate and hold any opinion on anything you support them!

• wash rinse repeat of the above ...

So just to put a bit of perspective on all that - here is what one of the admins previously said about this thread when someone else didn't quite get it either ....

Mr E wrote:

In a thread that started with lots of tongue-in-cheek remarks, it's another tongue-in-cheek remark...

So right back on topic here is something a little more relevant and seasonal ... How dare you!

hetuzozaho

I see on day 15 things are going well on the latest sailing. I'd enjoy an audio book floating along there I reckon!

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1199737129737367552

#uniteBehindTheScience

Professor Moriarty

gozunda wrote: »

Well for the multitude of endless wittererings about everything and anything - then for sure taking a look at the OPs premise is certainly not a bad idea.

Let's look at that again

"Climate saint Greta Trunburg" (The subject of the sentence)

" is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York" (The verb dictating the action etc )

"to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet." (Concludes the sentence using a number of adjectives describing the outcomes etc)

So there we have the the premise of thread ie - climate guru Greta in the US and her various rantings and demands

Well nothing particularly hard to understand there except that has been translated into

• Greta cannot be criticised :mad:

• Greta is the new messiah or wtte :pac:

• The Green New Deal will save the planet

• The Green New Deal is not socialist nor has any communist links whatsoever!

• Money is free! Everything else is a lie! :eek:

• Anyone not believing greta is a saint is a denialist!

• The Koch family / brothers are evil incarnate and hold any opinion on anything you support them!

• wash rinse repeat of the above ...

So just to put a bit of perspective on all that - here is what one of the admins previously said about this thread when someone else didn't quite get it either ....



So right back on topic here is something a little more relevant and seasonal ... How dare you!

Emojis, a meme and tumbleweed. Hard to argue with that.

gozunda

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Emojis, a meme and tumbleweed. Hard to argue with that.

Nah it was that other poster who started rabbiting on about tumbleweed. But no matter! And I cant take credit for the the Emojis - just following KyuusBs lead on that - but hey they do brighten the place up.

And deary me - wrong on the meme too. It's not a meme - it's an actual jumper!

You can buy yours here!

https://www.popjumpers.co.uk/product/greta-thunberg-how-dare-you/?attribute_colour=Bottle+Green&attribute_size=Medium

Anyway seems the penny has finally dropped! Welcome on board to the thread about saint gretas "How Dare You!" crusade across the world. Never too late you know Jumpers optional!

Fr_Dougal

Greta is Antifa, how the he’ll could take anything she says seriously. Then again she doesn’t say a whole lot off script, she’s like a puppet for hire and her reward is being able to mitch off school.

Professor Moriarty

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Greta is Antifa, how the he’ll could take anything she says seriously. Then again she doesn’t say a whole lot off script, she’s like a puppet for hire and her reward is being able to mitch off school.

She's also Antifa? Kudos to her.