After Referendum Venezuela’s Maduro issues permits and claims to 2/3rds of Guyana territory; UN warns caution; is War possible?
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
thats why they know flags and "geography" the out here deciding where to run instead of fixing home. They'd rather get on the Coli and debate about Maxwells and Diversey and Sibley. I'm not Chinese or IndianHis thoghts are:
Fleeing
I read it front to back, liar. And this is the third time this week that I've been able to critique an article you posted and you had zero defense, because you know nothing of what you're posting yourself.
Tell us, what was ONE substantive, meaningful piece of information from that article? You have a superficial banking journalist from the energy investment sector who went to an environmental conference and was immediately repulsed. He drops some insults, wrote a lazy-ass "solution" that showed complete ignorance of the issue, and then left. There was nothing there. You dropped the most useless article into the discussion because you have just as little knowledge of what you're talking about as he does.
Which is why you had to resort to lying, and got caught.
Notice in this entire conversation, you have NOTHING going for you except name-calling. Every time I make a substantive argument, you lie to deflect. Every time I catch you in a lie and call it out, you can't defend the actual lie, so you name-call and deflect. Everyone can see it.
Why does being a de-growth leftist bother you so much?
Thats your title. I really dont see the problem here.
This is an ad hominem about an article that critiqued de-growth leftists, like you
You didn’t comment ton the arguments degrowth leftists make or what doesn’t make you one. You haven’t addressed this.
I didn’t lie about anything. You reject what you are. I can’t be responsible for your evasive rhetoric.
Your substantive argument is to make de-growth arguments, then deny being a de-growth leftist
You literally spelled out what you believe and its word-for-word de-growth rhetoric.
Fill Collins
Able to get note from doctor
Weasel words, weasel words
Personal politics and the ones you vote for after being thoroughly informed are inherently different things, how the hell do you become a neolib shill?
I am a neoliberal shill
I’m a partisan democrat and I like money
I’m also a left wing social democrat
Fill Collins
Able to get note from doctor
I am a neoliberal shill
I’m a partisan democrat and I like money
I’m also a left wing social democrat
You remind me of me when I was in high school, just talking out his ass, believing in nothing and everything from the same source
This must be the Indian equivalent of calling yourself an "Anarcho-Capitalist", your last descriptor is totally contradictory on your end, you're like Reagan but into transwomen
Notice how I asked @℃ertifed for ONE substantive piece of information from his own article, and he couldn't do it. He just called names and deflected, like always. But couldn't give us any substantive argument at all.
Why randomly link articles if you don't even know what's in them? Because the name calling is all he was going for anyway. Remember this post from just a couple days ago?
You couldn't defend a single one of you lies or false statements when I called them out. And now we can add:
Liar. You're the one that pivoted to resource course in order to deflect, and I already quoted the exact comment catching you. Now you can't even defend your own deflection.
Liar. You've repeated that lie numerous times and still can't quote where I've said such a thing anywhere.
Liar. The fact that other countries will do evil is not Guyana's fault or what it "deserves", and I've never said or implied any such thing. Just like US interference in the Middle East to end Iranian socialism was not Iran's "fault". It's just an inevitable side effect of being relatively poor and having large oil reserves.
Liar. Once again, I have expressed nothing but opposition to Venezuela's imperialism.
Liar. Half of my arguments (likelihood of foreign interference, likelihood of potential future conflicts, and likelihood of adding to future enviornmental devastation) were international issues. Only one statement was about corruption. How the fukk does "foreign interference" and "potential for future conflicts" not directly describe what's happening right now?
Liar. I clearly gave multiple arguments for potential international issues in that very comment, and have repeatedly pointed out how countries like Iran, Iraq, Congo, etc. have and will continue to suffer from resource curse issues due to outside interference, not just domestic issues.
Liar. I read it front to back and even did background research on the author (who bizarrely hides his name from the byline) just to confirm what was obvious from reading it.
Just like I tore apart the last two sources you posted before this, and you had zero response both of those times too except to falsely claim didn't read even when I posted fukking QUOTES that proved your claims were wrong.
For the fourth time, I'll challenge you to ONE chance to tell the truth. Did you read your own article before you posted, or not? Did you even know the author's name, or not? And can you post ONE substantive, meaningful argument from the entire article, or did you just post it cause you liked the title even though it's full of fluff and says nothing?
Why randomly link articles if you don't even know what's in them? Because the name calling is all he was going for anyway. Remember this post from just a couple days ago?
You couldn't defend a single one of you lies or false statements when I called them out. And now we can add:
Liar. You're the one that pivoted to resource course in order to deflect, and I already quoted the exact comment catching you. Now you can't even defend your own deflection.
Liar. You've repeated that lie numerous times and still can't quote where I've said such a thing anywhere.
Liar. The fact that other countries will do evil is not Guyana's fault or what it "deserves", and I've never said or implied any such thing. Just like US interference in the Middle East to end Iranian socialism was not Iran's "fault". It's just an inevitable side effect of being relatively poor and having large oil reserves.
Liar. Once again, I have expressed nothing but opposition to Venezuela's imperialism.
Liar. Half of my arguments (likelihood of foreign interference, likelihood of potential future conflicts, and likelihood of adding to future enviornmental devastation) were international issues. Only one statement was about corruption. How the fukk does "foreign interference" and "potential for future conflicts" not directly describe what's happening right now?
Liar. I clearly gave multiple arguments for potential international issues in that very comment, and have repeatedly pointed out how countries like Iran, Iraq, Congo, etc. have and will continue to suffer from resource curse issues due to outside interference, not just domestic issues.
Liar. I read it front to back and even did background research on the author (who bizarrely hides his name from the byline) just to confirm what was obvious from reading it.
Just like I tore apart the last two sources you posted before this, and you had zero response both of those times too except to falsely claim didn't read even when I posted fukking QUOTES that proved your claims were wrong.
For the fourth time, I'll challenge you to ONE chance to tell the truth. Did you read your own article before you posted, or not? Did you even know the author's name, or not? And can you post ONE substantive, meaningful argument from the entire article, or did you just post it cause you liked the title even though it's full of fluff and says nothing?
it describes you de-growth leftists who don’t acknowledge progress and have unrealistic expectations for the future of oil and its relevance. You went on to talk about the authors resume.
That was YOUR job.
You didn’t even cite anything from the article. You attacked the fact he’s a banker. Not really dodging the “anti oil” and “anti capitalist” accusations
You’re anti-oil and de-growth
This is the truth
This is getting tiring. You’re a de-growth leftist. It’s quite simple.
If I’m lying, then what is this?
You’re a de-growther.
Did I get something wrong?
You literally said you were worried about Guyana exploiting its natural resources because it would lead to invasions as a reason for why they shouldn’t do so
This is the first time you have done so on record.
I follow you.
I got you here.
Its irrelevant. The entire reason I pulled that quote was to prove, which I did, that you’re a de-growth leftist. Its content subsequently around a topic (that I’ve been discussing earlier than ANYONE on this forum (documented) in early 2022, about Venezuela and Guyana doesn’t validate anything you inherently say, especially if you said it way after I did.
Which is why you are a de-growth leftist because you want poor nations to avoid using natural resources because of fear of increasing international problems.
You’re only confusing yourself here.
…to engage in ad hominem and non-sequiturs
I thought you were interested in the content of the work
Who gives a fukk if he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs or not?
I have you on record as not even reading the sources I post. You admitted that in the other thread.
You’re a de-growther.
Argue with yourself.
You have no idea why you’re even speaking to me.
Fill Collins
Able to get note from doctor
It's a forum and I'm bored
I know plenty of people from both countries, I have an emotional investment in the situation and I'm doing my research on it
Calm down man, it's only a forum, two hours to midnight, it ain't deep
Your OWN article says that "degrowth" can mean 50 different things and he agrees with some. The rest of the article he just bounces around the conference emoting how he doesn't like the extreme ones. He didn't make a single critique with data, logic, or substance, he solely said his personal opinion which is based on the fact that he's a banking guy coming out of the energy sector. There was nothing anywhere in the article suggesting he has relevant experience or expertise in the issues concerned at all.
So your OWN article says the term means nothing without specifics. And you lied about the specifics, claiming I am zero oil, that I think the oil industry should be eliminated, and that I'm against the development of poor countries. Where you are general, you are meaningless, and where you are specific, you lie.
You didn’t even cite anything from the article. You attacked the fact he’s a banker. Not really dodging the “anti oil” and “anti capitalist” accusations
It's YOUR article, dumbass, YOU cite something from it.
I didn't cite anything because it's all fluff. He says nothing of substance, so what was there to cite? This is from the article:
So your OWN article, from your banker source, admits that there are "50 shades" of what he calls "degrowth" and that some of their concerns are legitimate. So your OWN article admits that the word, out of context, is meaningless.
Which is why I have never called myself a degrowther. I'm not obsessed with labels and name-calling, like you are. I argue positions. And in EVERY case where you have tried to attack one of my actual positions, rather than just obsessing with a label, you've lied.
p.s. - Of course I'm anti-capitalist, WTF does that have to do with anything? I've proudly proclaimed my opposition to modern capitalism on many occasions, I'm just as proud of that as Paul Robeson, Martin Luther King Jr., Fred Hampton, Bobby Seale, Stokely Carmichael, Angela Davis, Assata Shakur, WEB DuBois, Malcolm X, Bayard Rustin, Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Ella Baker, James Farmer, and literally hundreds of other people who spent their lives without the need to bootlick imperialists that you seem to have.
Last edited:
You are a de-growther because you keep ignoring the critiques of your own stance on green transitions:
Meet the lefty Europeans who want to shrink the economy
De-growers of the world, unite!
you do
by process of elimination and negative rhetoric, you do
My mom likes me
It's YOUR article, dumbass, YOU cite something from it.
I didn't cite anything because it's all fluff. He says nothing of substance, so what was there to cite? This is from the article:
You said the article has nothing of substance but this is what you believe:
Degrowth: We can't let it happen here!
We won't help the environment or the poor by valorizing poverty and decline.
www.noahpinion.blog
Green growth or degrowth: what is the right way to tackle climate change?
One set of ideas runs counter to the mainstream consensus that technology will save us from climate change. Can degrowth ever win enough converts to persuade humanity to change course?
theconversation.com
You don’t have to.
You ARE a de-growther.
Yeah. De-growth ones
If you have degrowth opinions, then whats the problem?
You are a de-growther because you keep ignoring the critiques of your own stance on green transitions:
[/URL]
You think that is the best critique of growth? You're fukking clueless. That was the main paragraph that showed how ignorant he was.
First off, how the fukk are you going to "green the economy" if you don't want to reduce oil, which was the entire original topic of our conversation?
Imagine bragging that Europe claims carbon-neutral by 2050 (no one believes this), but also ignoring the rest of the world's carbon including USA and saying you don't want to seriously reduce our reliance on oil.
Second, the issues with environmental destruction can't be reduced to "carbon" and don't disappear from some magic unspecified "greening the economy". We've seen over and over that "green tech" + "consumerism" simply leads to overexploitation of whatever resources the "green" tech requires, not to mention all the consumer goods that capitalist producers and consumers refuse to green. Reducing carbon (which we've shown zero likelihood of doing on a global scale) will do absolutely nothing to stop agricultural soil depletion, deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, water shortages, resource depletion, mining devastation, biodiversity loss, ocean overexploitation, and a dozen other critical environmental issues that threaten ecological collapse as well as millions of human lives.
Anyone who thinks we can go carbon neutral without ending our reliance on an oil-based economy is an idiot. Anyone who thinks that we can solve our environmental exploitation solely by addressing carbon is an idiot.
You're an idiot.