Not sure what point NOAA is trying to make. We have the same weather as we did in the past.

If that was true, it wouldn’t need so much government subsidies.

maybe it needs subsidies because its very new and were trying to make it grow faster?

Yes, subsidies are used for that purpose because, without them, the companies that invest in the technology would go bankrupt. But it’s far from being “the cheapest energy in the world”, which is what this debate is about.

That doesn’t make any sense.

The amount of subsidies for fossil and nuclear pales in comparison to wind and solar.

https://www.pv-tech.org/10-year-solar-itc-extension-standalone-storage-credit-and-ptc-revival-included-in-draft-budget-bill/

If solar is so much cheaper than sustainable energy, why does congress want to extend current subsidies for two more decades?

you lost. solar won. https://gizmodo.com/renewables-now-exceed-all-other-forms-of-new-power-gene-1788195297

I’m not in a competition with solar. Read the very first sentence in the article you cited. “Last year, renewable energy accounted for more than half of all NEW forms of power generation produced worldwide”.
NEW forms of energy - not energy produced. I won the debate a long time ago. You lost and all your irrelevant sources don’t change that.

https://wichitaliberty.org/economics/energy-subsidies-electricity-production-2/

solar panels are tested for hail, not golf balls.

Hail comes bigger than golf balls and it does the same damage.

Solar Plus storage is now the cheapest form of energy in the world. The tipping point already occurred. Fossil and nuclear are racing to the bottom.

So, it would take over 36,000 acres of solar panels to produce the same energy as one nuclear power plant. And that’s using older nuclear technology. Advanced commercial designs, slated to be operational by 2030 - so much for your lie that nuclear is racing to the bottom - will produce ever more energy with less resources.

https://www.nei.org/news/2020/increased-buzz-advanced-reactors-momentum

very few nuke plants are being built because their cost and subsidies are astronomical compared to solar.

Source?

36,000 square feet of solar is nothing compared to the billions of square feet of rooftops available.

You mean over 156.8 million square feet to produce a fraction of the energy. And those solar panels (on the ground and on rooftops) are gonna cost a fortune to replace after each Texas hailstorm dumping golf ball+ size stones on them 😂

you keep getting debunked. this is fun :)

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+batteries+do+utilities+use

You haven’t debunked a single point I make. All you do is parrot stuff you find in the Internet.

my source is the fact that renewable energy is outpacing any new nuclear plant construction. economics speaks louder than sentiment.

Which is why the reality that solar is currently unable to outpace sustainable energy sources debunks your pie in the sky view of a possible future.

I'm prohibited from installing solar where I live.

So move. Or would it cost too much to do that?

your conservative fantasy of fossil and nuclear is toast. https://www.google.com/search?q=renewable+energy+growth+projections

“Projections” meaning not current. Welcome back to the real world.

you're making a fool of yourself with that graph. renewables are growing, nuclear and coal are going away.

You made a fool of yourself all along. The fact that renewables are growing doesn’t change the fact that they still only account for a fraction of total energy production. You’re living in a dream world thinking we’re already there, but we’re not. Not even close, so wake up.

keep arguing with history and reality. as well as math and physics.

You’re the one arguing with reality. You keep stating future projections as if they exist today. And you’ve lost the physics debate multiple times with multiple people. You keep trying to argue politics while ignoring physics 😂😂😂

different density and ice shatters. sue them if you don't like private enterprise.

I’ve seen first hand what less than golf ball sized hail did to the unprotected solar panels of my old water heater. It also did enough damage to get me a new roof and rooftop AC system, thanks to homeowner insurance. Of course everyone’s premiums whet up after that event.

I had a rooftop solar electric company come by a few months ago. They took a copy of my electric bill so they could use it to assess what kind of ROI we would get. Even with all the rebates and tax credits it still wasn’t going to be worth the investment.

So, yeah, I know what I’m talking about. I get my information first hand, not from online corporate solar sales pitches.

Batteries aren't required at homes because the solar pushed onto the grid can be more cost effectively stored in central batteries by the utilities. Do some research silly. There aren't any new nuclear plants coming online. And from 9am to 3pm it's mostly solar on the grid right now. Good enough for me to plug in. When more storage is brought online, solar will be discharged after the sun goes down. Your conservative paradigm is over.

Wrong. There’s more power produced from wood than from solar.

What batteries do the utilities use?

What leftist fantasyland do you live in? Do they have rides? 😂

hail isn't a problem for solar yet. evidence to the contrary? solar provides peak power that can be stored when sun is down for less than fossil and nuclear. change my mind.

I had a bid done for solar panels on my roof a few years ago. But because I live near a golf course, they wanted me to sign a waiver that they would not be responsible for damage caused by golf balls. That right there tells me they already know it’s a problem.

FYI, I have a solar water heater and it’s great. Unlike lithium batteries, the water tank acts as an efficient “battery” that stores hot water for when we need it. And since it only uses one panel, it’s easily protected from golf balls by a metal grate.

most southern and western states COULD be predominantly solar during the day if they built out enough solar and stored the surplus in batteries for night time use. Like california is doing.

The California mandate requires new homes and buildings to be equipped with rooftop solar panels. But they don’t require any batteries. Why? Because we don’t have the battery technology to store solar energy efficiently. It also requires 50% of its energy be produced through clean energy sources by 2030. Clean energy includes sources like hydroelectric and nuclear. So they still won’t be predominantly solar and Californians will still rely on energy produced by sustainable sources even if they are successful with their initiative.

No I very much want to keep the place that I have. Also if you live in a place that is predominantly solar on the grid during the day you don't need to have your own rooftop system. Just plug in your EV during the middle of the day when the grid is not used and solar ratio to other sources is dominant.

*if* you live in a place that’s predominantly solar. But, as you know, there is no such place in the US. So, your EV is getting charged with power primarily produced by fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydro electric. They only way your EV can be a solar power source for your house is if you are completely off the grid and waited every morning for your EV to recharge off your solar array before driving to work.

I live in Arizona which has the most sunny days in the nation. Even then, nobody with solar panels on their roof is off the grid. It reduces their use of sustainable power but it doesn’t eliminate it. And nobody’s EV battery will power their home over night, especially while running their HVAC system.

Many homes prohibit solar on roofs. But yes, the rest of the world is replacing, not augmenting. It's the fossil that will augment the renewables. https://www.google.com/search?q=world+replacing+fossil+with+solar

Is that why YOU don’t use solar?

https://www.google.com/search?q=world+augmenting+fossil+with+solar

if they are only augmenting with renewables and not replacing fossil with renewables, why are conservatives crying rape?

They aren’t

If solar energy is so inexpensive, why haven’t you converted your home to solar?

the rest of the world is switching to solar and wind and dumping fossil and nuclear. hmmm.... i wonder why?

They aren’t. They are just augmenting reliable power sources with solar and wind, not replacing them

Because those states can do whatever legal thing they want

You keep trying to make this a political issue but it’s just a matter of physics. Solar and wind power are not reliable and sustainable. They require the energy they produce to be stored for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Fossil fuels have much higher energy density than any energy storage devices used by solar and wind. That’s why solar and wind require so much subsidies - because they are so expensive compared to the amount of reliable energy we get from them. It isn’t a red vs blue state thing. There’s only a handful of countries that have implemented more solar power than the United States and most of them have government-owned and operated energy production. This means their government is better positioned to redirect taxes for “clean” energy subsidies.

Why do you think the US has to provide so much tax incentives to get people to install solar panels on their roof? If solar was such a great option, we wouldn’t need to be bribed to install it. We’d do it because it’s more cost effective. It’s like why people opt for gas-powered stoves, dryers and water heaters over electric versions - because gas costs less and is more efficient to use. If solar or wind ever becomes the same, we won’t need to bribe people with tax credits to get them to install it. They will do it on their own.

Source?

LOL Typical response. You can’t refute the data so you try to diss the source.

You talk about an “energy economics war” as if there’s some kind of fight between political parties to determine viability of solar and wind power. LOL, the fact remains that solar and wind are not self sustainable power sources. They both rely on fossil fuels to manufacture, transport, assemble and maintain. On top of that, they're not even all that environmentally friendly. Think of all the hazardous waste from discarded batteries, windmill blades, broken panels, etc. Then there’s the toxins produced by mining operations to get the materials they are built with in the first place. We hear about all the promises of “clean” energy but it’s still just a dream. We aren’t there yet and will rely on fossil fuels and other sustainable energy sources, like nuclear, for many decades to come. The best we can do is augment our existing energy with solar and wind.

It also has the least energy density. You must collect A LOT of solar to do anything useful with it.

so if solar is such a bad choice, why did you get it?

I never said it was a bad choice, I said that it was expensive to go completely off-grid.

Mine reduces my monthly electric bill. Next year, I'll add a few more panels and a few more batteries.

but according to your economics, solar ends up costing more than grid power.

Your argument was to go fully solar, which is expensive to do. I spend a few hundred here and there to expand my system, which shaves a little off my electric bill every month. Sort of a, save as you go plan.

i didn't say fully replace utility bill, i said replace gas car fueling which is way more cost effective than replacing cheap grid power with home based solar.

why do you need battery backup? do you live in texas or something?

the battery system isn't part of the grid tie system, it's basically a UPS for some agricultural equipment.

agriculture? the kind that uses wasteful flood watering conservatives prefer? or the efficient drip methods liberals are trying to legislate?

Incubators and brooders - My wife breeds chickens

so why not vote democrat and get more of them built?

in red states, home solar IS prohibitively expensive. everywhere else, it's not.

so you're admitting solar works to reduce costs. good boy!

That was the first thing I said? Did you parents have any children that lived?

centrally built solar farms are much cheaper per KW than home bases systems. cheaper than fossil or nuclear. change my mind.

I never said they weren't, I said that building your own home solar to go off grid was prohibitively expensive.

change my mind.

Hahaha, you haven't built any solar arrays, have you?

Well, I have one - and it's not cheap.

First, you have your panels. You can get cheap panels, but a hailstorm can ruin them in short order.

Then, there's the charge controller. You can get a cheap charge controller - but you'll lose a lot of power to heat if you go cheap.

You'll need something to charge. Lithium Ion is the go-to battery on the market now, and they're quite expensive. The next cheaper option is Lithium Iron Phosphate, which is only slightly cheaper.

Once you have your gather and storage solution in place, you need to turn it into something useful - like 120v AC, so you need a microinverter. A small one will set you back a few hundred dollars.

I use mine to reduce my power consumption, because I don't have enough roof or battery capacity to be 100% off-grid. Hell, my computers pull more power than the panels can collect on a sunny day.

It's not cheap....not by a long shot.

Good info, thanks.

HAHAHAHAHAH

So, you want to put electricity into the grid in the daytime - when everyone who has solar is putting electricity into the grid - but at night, when no solar is participating in feeding the grid - you want to pull power from an EV?

Do you know how much energy it takes to charge an EV? It's A LOT. Then, you've discharged your EV to run your house overnight - how are you going to drive your EV when you spent that energy running your home?

And you're suggesting that I replace solar collection batteries, which are expensive, with an EV - which is much more expensive?

What is wrong with your brain?

sounds like you overpaid for your solar or you got it long ago or you're lying. or a combination of the 3.

Well - I understood my comment and you didn't - so I'm going with - no.

Charging an EV with solar will require a SHITLOAD of solar panels. EV takes a LOT of power to charge. If you want to power your house AND charge your EV - it's going to take 2 shitloads of panels.

Then you want to run your house on the EV batteries overnight? What's the point of having an EV then? You won't be able to drive it because you'll discharge it overnight running your house.

most people commute less than 40 miles per day. change my mind.

1000 watts of panels and inverters doesn't cost very much. 1000 watts of panels @ 6 hours of sun is 6000 watts in the EV battery which is 20 miles per day, enough for most people and the payback is 1-2 years compared to gasoline or 50% interest equivalent. 5 panels @ 200 watts each is $1,250. Inverter is a few hundred dollars.

20 miles isn't a useful range. Maybe it's fine for you because your moms basement is so close to the kitchen, but the rest of the country has things to do and places to go other than gamestop. The average distance driven daily for an American is 29.2 miles. Auto manufacturers put it at 32 miles (12k miles per year). When you consider emergency use, a vehicle with only a 20 mile range is pretty useless.

"Daddy, I broke my leg"

How is it going to feel telling your role-play partner that they can't see a doctor for 2 days because you need that much time to charge your car? I mean, you'll be happy changing that diaper for 2 days....but the real problem is - does your mom have enough hot pockets?

you must not know how to read. i said 200 watts x 5 panels = 1000 watts since the beginning.

$1,250 mistake is a lot less than your $10,000 lie

it's also a lot less than will be necessary to charge an EV to a level where it becomes useful. 20 miles range is a joke, and would take 5 100w panels 6 hours to achieve. A full charge would take 200 hours.....that is, daylight hours = so 25 days.

The national average for a fully off-grid solar system is $50,000 for a 20KW system. What I suggested was enough to fully charge an EV during a single day....no batteries, not running anything in your house.

200 watts with a 30 year warranty. anything else you'd like debunked?

AHAHAHAHAH 200 watts? To charge your 20 mile range (3000 watts) would take 15 hours - more time than the sun will shine on the panels. It would basically take 2 days to charge your EV enough to drive 20 miles! That would get me to the grocery store and back....once.

You have no clue, and although it's amusing - it's also tiring. You're so clueless.

200 x 5 is 1000. but conservatives can't do math.

So, you meant to type 1000 watts instead of 200 watts - and that's my fault?

It doesn't change the numbers much. It would still take 3 hours to get 20 miles out of your EV.

Useful solar takes a lot of roof space, a lot of money, and a lot of maintenance. The panels don't last forever, and they leach toxic chemicals (primarily lead) into the groundwater. You can mitigate that by purchasing panels which use silver solder for the interconnects, but that adds cost.

I'm blocking you now, because you're annoying and I feel like I'm getting dumber for having interacted with you for so long.

if you need 40 miles, just double the $1,250 and it's still paid off in 2 years.

And what wattage output are those panels? I was pricing high output low cost (and subsequently low durability) panels. If those panels only output 100 watts, then you'll need 4 shitloads of them.

by the way - 5 panels at $250 is $1250

I have thousands of dollars worth of solar - and it's not enough for me to go off grid.

Solar is in no way cheaper than gasoline.

Gasoline is very energy dense. I get 36,000,000 joules out of 1 tank (2 gallons = $6) in my generator (4 hours @ 2500 watts) - and I can extract that energy day or night, rain or shine. Storing that energy requires only a metal or HDPE container. With the proper additives, that energy storage can last for well over a year.

Contrast solar, which is NOT energy dense. Each 100 watt solar panel can only generate 1,440,000 joules in a 4 hour period. There's loss in the charge controller, there's loss in the microinverter. Let's say the system is perfectly efficient - it would take 25 solar panels to achieve the same power output. However, that set of 25 solar panels can only operate for maybe 8 hours during the day, and only on days with good weather. Assuming you want to generate the same amount of energy as the gas generator in the same 4 hour period - now you must have 150 panels. If you want to use that energy at night, you need a way to store it.

Storing that energy requires batteries that have a finite life. If you leave LIPO batteries charged, they degrade - they're designed for charge/discharge cycles - holding a charge for long periods alters them chemically. You can't store that electricity for a year.

Here's the kicker - the 2500 watts from my generator can only operate my refrigerator, freezers, and some lights. I can't run air conditioning or the water heater at the same time with that little power. Hell, making coffee takes 1000 watts!

You really don't know anything about this subject.

Because you're talking about the cost to charge an EV, not the cost for the average consumer to generate enough electricity to charge an EV.

Those charge stations get their power from the power company - just like your house.
It comes from from a combination of fossil fuels, coal, nuclear, even wind, and solar - whatever's cheapest at the time.

Whatever rosy view you have of the world, you should take the blinders off and look at the real big picture. The one your college professors painted for you is a fantasy. There's a reason they're living in academia and not in the real world, and it goes hand-in-hand with a very truthful saying:

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

1000 watts of panels is $10,000 MINIMUM (the cheapest possible panels).

A Tesla model S takes 100KW to charge (100,000 watts). To fully charge a Tesla model S would require 12.5 days.

I'm not saying that solar isn't good, obviously - I have solar. It just isn't capable of replacing the existing infrastructure, which is built on extremely cheap and reliable fossil fuels. There are new solar technologies being discovered every year. Maybe one day we'll get a combination of solar, wind, and fusion - who knows. To go off-grid and still live a modern lifestyle - is prohibitively expensive.

do YOU own solar?

i don't think he owns solar. his lies are debunked by a quick internet search.

I'm not asking about him

Do YOU own solar?

nope. neither does he.

How would you know?

The internet can't tell you everything

Unless you know where he lives, then you can't say it with 100% certainty

Then why are you paying such high prices for conventional energy instead of switching your house to run off solar and wind only? 😂

Bet your Internet sources can’t answer that, can they?

if he's not lying his system is very old when it was very expensive. my prices are from today, his are from 2005.

then that's your answer

wether i own solar or not, he's wrong about the cost TODAY. maybe he is right about the cost from 15 years ago when he got his system.

if solar is so bad why did he get it?

my answer is he's lying.

It isn’t. Speaking of “source”, where is your source?

the internet. yours?

Same, plus physics and science.

How many solar/wind powered ships, trains and trucks are used to build, transport, assemble and maintain solar/wind power plants?

How many EV charging stations run exclusively off solar/wind power?

Why isn’t your house able to completely disconnect from the power grid and natural gas or LP fuel and run exclusively off solar and wind power?

If solar is so cheap, why do YOU still use fossil fuels?

Conservatives already lost the EV debate. They are overtaking gas and Diesel because they are much cheaper to operate maintain and own. And they are much cleaner. And the cost of batteries and solar is only dropping while the cost of gasoline is only going up. The South will not rise again.

Once again you’re trying to make this political. No wonder you’re clueless. It doesn’t matter what political party you side with. Solar and wind are not sustainable power sources and physics doesn’t care who you vote for.

If you understood physics and math you would understand that renewables can be stored in many different types of batteries for less money than fossil and nuclear can be generated.

If you paid attention to non-political propaganda, you’d know that there are no batteries currently available for less money. They are predicting maybe there will be by 2045. But right now even gasoline is 100 times more energy-dense than a battery. That means you would need 100 lbs of battery to go as far as 1 lb of gasoline can take you. That’s a lot of battery to lug around and, unlike a gas tank, your EV battery doesn’t get lighter as it drains.

so why does it only take 50 cents of electricity to go 30 miles?

Because the electricity used to charge your EV wasn’t generated by solar and EV charging stations are subsidized.

Wrong again. Grid power is only 10 cents per kwh. Multiply that by 5 miles per kw and you're at 50 cents to go 30 miles.

things are transitioning whether you like it or not.

Yes they are and I hope renewables become viable and affordable. You seem to think, just because I’m not fooled by all the hype about solar being cheaper than fossil fuel or nuclear, it means I don’t want renewable energy to take over. I’m just pointing out the fact that solar and wind are NOT currently cheaper than other sources.

That article didn't mention storage being the new cost equalizer for renewables that makes fossil and nuclear irrelevant as base load power. And it didn't mention EVs as the ultimate form of storage without having to buy backup home systems for short outages.

You already lost the EV debate with WiseCracker.
Think about it. If you powered your house over night with the juice stored in your EV, you wouldn’t be able to drive very far until it recharged the next day. And since EVs already have such a limited range, compared to gasoline or diesel Vs, they are even more impractical if doubled as power storage.

but they are. which is why they are transitioning.

But they aren’t
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-05-20/nobody-takes-the-renewable-energy-transition-seriously/

https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+plus+storage+is+now+the+cheapest+energy+in+the+world

False, it takes more energy to produce solar than you get out of it.

It depends on how it is used. To provide electricity to a house in the South Western states it is less expensive to the person buying it because of the government subsidies. Without the government it would not. And then there are places where people use solar for 100% of their electricity but the city or county still forces them to pay an electric bill.

If solar is used to try to power a city then you have problems because it just cannot generate enough.

Yes there is but the problem is capturing it and getting it to where it is needed. We can continue to ruin every square inch of the country like what is happening with windmills by putting up solar panels. But those panels will have to produce enough watts to carry that electricity into the cities.

The other problem is nighttime and cloud coverage. Solar panels are useless at night and almost worthless depending on how cloudy it is.

Solar is just not capable of competing with natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric because those places run 24/7. Contrary to what the left is saying there is such a thing has clean coal. There are several clean coal plants around the country, mostly east of the Rocky Mountains.

If we can make hydrogen plants safe enough that shows more promise than solar does. I for one do not want to see all of our wilderness areas carpeted in solar panels with windmills sticking up in between each panel.

if conservatives don't fly nazi flags, why do they fly nazi flags? https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+nazi+flag

Hydrogen fuel cells are a net cost loser because it's three parts energy in for every part out. Hydrogen cost between $6 and $12 per gallon equivalent and hydrogen cars are just electric vehicles with a hydrogen supply. Batteries cost less. Regular electric vehicles cost $0.50 per gallon equivalent.

Solar can be stored when it isn't needed in electric vehicles for much less than buying gas. Wind blows harder at night which can also be stored in batteries.

Natural gas can take care of the rest we don't need cold or nuclear. Nuclear is the most expensive source in the world, solar and wind is the cheapest. Natural gas is in the middle.

I have absolutely no problem with solar on the individual level. If you want to put solar panel on your roof or in your yard then go right ahead. That is awesome. No more electric bill.

I just don't think solar is the solution for towns and cities. Maybe at some point in the future someone invents a solar panel that is what we currently have on mega steroids. And that could happen.

For the longest time I have always heard the nuclear is the cheapest and most efficient but then someone informed me that nuclear is heavily subsidized by the government. That being the case then nuclear is out. I think nuclear is safe.

I think it is ironic how the left, in particular, is so opposed to nuclear energy but then when Obama was president he sends John Kerry over there eager to give them billions of taxpayer dollars and all of the equipment they could ever want to build nuclear bombs...oops I meant to say nuclear power plants. If nuclear is so awesome that Obama went out of his way to give it to Iran (so they could nuke us later with it) then why is the left so adamant about stopping nuclear energy in America?

Well... anyway... I don't know what they break through will be that gives us clean energy as cheap as we currently make it but when it happens that will be awesome.

then why are there so many nazi flags and confederate flags at trump rallies?

There aren't. That is a figment of your imagination.

There are Nazi flags at Nazi rallies and there are Confederate Battle flags everywhere. Confederate Battle flags do not mean racism. It was just one of many flags used in the Civil War and it is used by 3 separate groups of people. 1. Bikers and pickup truck drivers who want to show their rebellion to societal norms. 2. Southerners (both white and black) who are proud of where they are from. 3. Idiots who hate everyone.

The left has a habit of showing up at conservative events with Nazi paraphernalia (ie t-shirts, hats and flags) conveniently at the exact same time the news media shows up. As soon as the news media leaves so to the guys with Nazi paraphernalia.

I used to go to Tea Party events a lot and we were warned about this situation. We were asked not to engage with them. The left has a narrative to portray and if reality does not fit that narrative they make it fit. Just like how they news would show up at Antifa/BLM events during the day when all of the peaceful protesters were there and then leave when the peaceful people went home and everyone else started rioting, burning, looting and killing.

This picture show 1 of 2 possible things. One it is a group of white supremacists. The other is that the dude with the Nazi flag is a plant brought their by the same news crew who took the picture.

I know it is a very hard concept for the left to wrap their tiny brains around but the Confederate Battle Flag does NOT always mean white supremacy. The flag and white supremacy are two separate things. The fact that a handful of white supremacists fly the flag does not mean the flag represents white supremacy.

But the biggest issue that you need to understand is that if the white supremacy movement did move entirely on the right then it means we have people on the right who are just as stupid as people on the left. The only difference is that there are fewer stupid people on the right.

those are just antifa pretending to be conservatives :)

Finally!!!! Sheesh. How much time did you spend on the punching bag? You can punch a punching bag a thousand times and it swings back. Not much worse for wear. It can't hear you. You can't convince it not to swing back. Yet again. You can't get a victory over a punching bag.

It started off out of boredom. Then I got bored of just flapping my gums in the breeze. So I quit playing his game.

"The_Knight_Who_Says_Ni

This picture show 1 of 2 possible things. One it is a group of white supremacists. The other is that the dude with the Nazi flag is a plant brought their by the same news crew who took the picture."

That other picture showed this thing: A Unite the Right march.
You know, that Alt Right group of white wannabe supremacist rejects. Of course, as Trump said, some of which he's sure are fine people - from the 'both' sides, that is, before you get your panties in a twist.

Alt Right as in an alternate right. The alt right happened when the overtly racist left split from the covertly racist left.

Now that the covertly racist left has become more overt you'll soon see them come back home to your side.

We have nothing in common with them and you guys have everything in common with them. It's time you guys owned them just like you used to.

so white nationalists are liberals?

Who knows and who cares? They fit the mold of the modern liberal but for some reason, known only to them, they have decided at some point to switch from Democrat to Republican. Clearly the Nazis have tons more in common with the left than the right. They are socialists after all.

So are you done now? Your game is boring.

nice to hear you capitulate. too bad trump can't concede.

I recognized the game early on and I should have ended it much sooner but I guess I was bored or something and just kept letting you bait me. You can call it capitulation if that makes you feel good. I'm just bored with the game.

doesn't make sense that white nationalists are liberals when white nationalists attack liberals. you done now?

Yeah. I'm done.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nazi+trumpers

Another babbling tl;dr

Guy, how many times did you say I OWNED and KILLED slaves?
So don't get weepy on me when I lob your own nonsense back at you.

Difference is,
YOU come from a family that had,
YOU come from a family that fought to keep them,
YOU come from a family of centuries spanning Democrats,
YOU come from a family that lived in the segregatist Jim Crow South,
YOU come from a family that switched to Republican to conserve your Southern ways via Reagan.

Now you can stomp around with your thumbs in your ears hollering your script like your life would be torn asunder without it, I really don't care.
But that blood is in YOUR hands, throbbing through YOUR veins with the thunder of a Niagara churning in Hell and there ain't a dang thang you can do about it.
And that makes me smile.

toodles!

don't feel bad capitulating, that's what southerners are good at doing :)

hahaha

In your dreams

if blacks support the flag of slavery, it's probably just stockholm syndrome.

Oh, that's right, you're the one that claimed you never heard of the Alt Right in your life but they're Leftists because Pearl Jam and Alanis Morrisette AKA the bands that aren't your fave, Billy Ray Cyrus?

They're Far Right, Trumpites, QAwrong, the new GOP, Donny's Ruskie worshipping party. They're the same exact breed that produced the slave owners and Jim Crowers you yourself said you descended from.

For whom it may concern, he had said earlier this year that his matrilineal line were literal slave owners back in the day, and and like his pa were a Conservative registered Democrats in Georgia since then till segregation before switching to Republican when the DNC ditched that scene.
Please look it up and deal with those comments accordingly.

Nope that's not me. I heard of the alt right probably about the same time as you. And because I own a computer that has an Alt button I knew what the "alt" in alt right meant.

And there you go again with your guilt by association narrative. "Hey everyone! This guys ancestors owned slaves. Let's cancel him because we are mindless idiots who cannot figure out that a person living on the 21st century might not think the same as someone living in the 19th century".

Come on, Man! Use your brain for just once in your life. I know it's gonna hurt a whole lot because you haven't ever done that before but maybe just once you might give it a try.

You don't have to tell anyone to look up my comments. I will confirm that for you right now. I have 2 family lines on my mom's side that owned slaves.

This is the part that is really going to hurt for you. THEY owned the slaves, I do not. THEY believe in slavery I do not. THEY were Democrats, I am not.

"The_Knight_Who_Says_Ni 0 ups, 15h

Nope that's not me. I heard of the alt right probably about the same time as you. And because I own a computer that has an Alt button I knew what the "alt" in alt right meant.

And there you go again with your guilt by association narrative. "Hey everyone! This guys ancestors owned slaves. Let's cancel him because we are mindless idiots who cannot figure out that a person living on the 21st century might not think the same as someone living in the 19th century".

Come on, Man! Use your brain for just once in your life. I know it's gonna hurt a whole lot because you haven't ever done that before but maybe just once you might give it a try.

You don't have to tell anyone to look up my comments. I will confirm that for you right now. I have 2 family lines on my mom's side that owned slaves.

This is the part that is really going to hurt for you. THEY owned the slaves, I do not. THEY believe in slavery I do not. THEY were Democrats, I am not."

▶️ Modda 0 ups, 5h, 1 reply
All your babbling wall of lying text And you got whupped into submission by one liners and quit | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
hahaha

▶️ "The_Knight_Who_Says_Ni 0 ups, 3h
In your dreams"

Oh really?
Here's some California dreaming for you:

▶️ "The_Knight_Who_Says_Ni0 ups, 8h
So are you done now? Your game is boring."

▶️ "The_Knight_Who_Says_Ni 0 ups, 3h
It started off out of boredom. Then I got bored of just flapping my gums in the breeze. So I quit playing his game."

▶️ "SSTTUUTTAA 1 up, 7h, 1 reply
nice to hear you capitulate. too bad trump can't concede."

▶️ "The_Knight_Who_Says_Ni 0 ups, 3h
I recognized the game early on and I should have ended it much sooner but I guess I was bored or something and just kept letting you bait me. You can call it capitulation if that makes you feel good. I'm just bored with the game."

▶️ "SSTTUUTTAA 1 up, 8h, 1 reply
doesn't make sense that white nationalists are liberals when white nationalists attack liberals. you done now?"

▶️ "The_Knight_Who_Says_Ni 0 ups, 7h
Yeah. I'm done."

https://i.imgflip.com/5enu15.jpg

Pick one of those countries and move there. End of story. You can have all of your wildest dreams come true.

By the way your chart is ridiculous but lets say that it is true. That means Britain, France, etc all have bankruptcies caused because people cannot afford their high taxes which includes their medical bills and the medical bills of everyone else.

any evidence of people in socialist countries filing for bankruptcy because of high taxes? any evidence of the stolen election? crickets.

if capitalism is such a good motivator, why does walmart have such bad service, junk products and high employee turnover?

Because that is what the consume demands of Walmart. If the consumers ever changed then Walmart would go out of business.

Obama was a centrist not a left winger that's why Obamacare didn't have price caps.

If solar only works on an individual rooftop level why is the rest of the world building it out and using storage for when the sun doesn't shine?

Obama was/is a communist. He was raised by his communist mother and communist grandparents. His mother had Frank Loyd Marshal be Obama's mentor in Obama's teens. Marshal was on the FBI's communist watch list.

Obama said when he went to college he "sought out the Marxist professors". He met Michelle when Obama joined the "New Party" that was created in Chicago and fell apart not too long after. The New Party was a communist party.

Everything about Obama was communist. When he first was elected president he tried take over the banks and the auto industry. Obamacare was his first step and trying to take over the healthcare industry. When the government takes control of all of that they have complete control over the lives of every individual. They can control who lives and who dies. They can control what we spend our money on. BTW this is what Biden was installed as president to make happen. This is what the Great Reset is all about. Collapse the global economy and "Build Back [worse]".

This is not a theory. This is a plan. It was crafted by the UN and the World Economic Forum. John Kerry said that Biden is fully committed to the Great Reset.

This is why we are having excessive inflation right now. The value of our currency is plummeting. Because socialists are idiots when it comes to economics (and everything else) they do not understand (or care) that if they collapse the global economy millions of people will starve to death. All production of everything comes to a halt. There are no more jobs. The money will have been made worthless. Socialism is the exact wrong choice to try to restart an economy because socialists are idiots and everything they do is the exact opposite of how you make an economy strong.

I imagine that if the few remaining people who are able to scrounge up enough food to survive rebuild on their own then if we don't become like Mad Max then the world will be like North Korea.

Sweden is not dumping free medical care or tuition. They are cutting back on other things though. Things that are less essential.

I didn't say they were. I said they are still very socialistic. Socialism is NOT free healthcare. Health care is only part of socialism.

Socialism is no private property ownership and the government controlling the means of production. It is sold with the idea that the government provides for the collective and that all your needs will be met. That never works because what the government decides the collective needs is never enough. And has costs to the government keeps skyrocketing the needs of the collective keep getting cut back until eventually the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

You cannot have freedom without private property rights. If you do not own your property (and I do not mean just land, I mean everything, including your body and your life) then someone else does. Someone else decides what what to do with you. It is always sold as the decisions are made by the collective. That is where democratic socialism comes from. But in actuality it is never the collective. It is always the oligarchs who control everything and everyone.

Socialism always makes the oligarchs rich and everyone else lives in abject poverty. Venezuela is the textbook example of true socialism. Communism is just a variation of socialism. It is more authoritarian.

Another textbook example is planned to start in 2030. That is what the UN's Agenda 2030 is all about. Only this time it will be global. There is no escaping it. And there is absolutely no freedom of choice and your life is of no value unless the oligarch think it is valuable. The moment they no longer think you have any value then you are exterminated.

You can own property in Sweden and other Western industrialized nations that offer socialist benefits such as single-payer healthcare.

Do you even read what I am typing? I said that Sweden and the other countries are NOT socialist. Sweden tried it and backed off a little. They are more socialist than we are.

But it is like making brownies and adding caca. Once you add it no one wants it. The more you add to the mix the less people will want to try your brownies.

Socialism is crap. The more you add the worse it gets. If you go 100% crap then everyone starves. Some people try to tell you that you have to have a mixture of crap with the brownies or it won't taste right.

Then there are people like me who do not want any crap in their brownies. Not even a molecule. But people like you think that we need a entire butt load of crap in their brownies.

Call them conservatives or republicans. They're both the same in the United States.

NO they are not the same.

Democrats are on the same side as Nazis, Fascists, Communists and any other variation of Socialists.

Corporations are just little communist countries.

Where do you come up with this stuff. You offer a service to the corporation and they pay you money for that service. It is pure capitalism. If you do not want to offer your service then you can quit. If they are not happy with your service they they can stop paying you for it. If they run out of money then they can stop paying you for it.

The entire situation is voluntary. They may require you to offer your service in a specific matter that you may not like but you are always at liberty to take your services elsewhere. For example I am a software developer. All I need to get my work done is electricity, a computer and an internet connection. I have all of that at home but my employer insists that I drive to work every day. If that bothered me enough I could work somewhere else that does allow me to work at home.

Communism is where the government tells you what you do for a living and where you work. They tell you how much you are supposed to produce in a day. If you don't like any of that then you can die.

but corporate hospitals and insurers ARE free market priced. they have no socialism making them expensive and burdensome to Americans. unless you consider republican enablers socialist....

We haven't had a free market in over a century. Anarchists (not the Anarcho-Communist "useful idiots") will tell you that you cannot have a free market and a government. They are right. But you can have a mostly free market. We lost the free market when the Progressive infestation happened in the early 20th century. That is why hospitals and especially the heavily regulated insurance industry is so costly.

Unfortunately too many Republicans don't understand what I just said either. They're like you.

Muslims who commit mass shootings are conservatives. White guys who shot up grocery stores are conservatives. The Columbine kids never voted. Anything else you'd like debunked?

Classical conservatives NOT modern conservatives. You need to understand that. Your side successfully stole the label liberal.

There is no freedom in Nazism, Fascism, Communism or any other variation of Socialism. They are authoritarian regimes, just like Sharia law is.

They are all classical conservatives and modern liberals. Those who stand for freedom are classical liberals and modern conservatives and libertarians.

I think the Columbine kids were too young vote at the time. But that does mean they didn't have political opinions. They had been well indoctrinated by the leftist teachers in high school.

debunked, but many conservatives say it. https://www.google.com/search?q=there%27s+no+shortages+under+capitalism

What is debunked? Did you not read my answer to your question? Shortages are not related to capitalism. They can be caused by limited natural resources, business shut downs, poor management, etc.

Under socialism the incentive to work is taken because you are not working for yourself or your family, you are working for the government. You cannot motivate people when they see no benefit for the effort they put in. That causes production to slow and as a result shortages.

Make America Great Again means paying 10% more taxes to get free high quality medical and college is worth it compared to $1000 a month premiums and $10,000 deductibles.

When Woodrow Wilson forced the Progressive Income Tax scheme on America he kept promising the rich that they would pay no more than 7%. And for the first year that was the margin for the top earners in America. But the time Wilson left office the top tax bracket was about 75%.

How long do you think that 10% is going to last once the bills come in.

The problem with the left is not that they don't understand economics but that they refuse to do the math on anything they propose. Because the math would get right in the way of what they want.

The rich in America just do not have enough money to pay for everything the left wants. If the left took 100% of everything the rich have -- and I do not mean just the uber rich, I means people earning over 100,000 per year -- then to pay just the current bills the government has (not the additional stuff like healthcare and tuition) the rich would completely run out of money in about 9 months.

The problem with socialism is that it will eventually crash under its own weight.

If left-wingers are mass shooters why are they against guns that can commit Mass shootings?

Duh... Because they're radicals. Most of them stole their guns anyway. Marxists mostly believe in violent revolution to achieve their goals. Marxists have no regard for human life. If they did they wouldn't be Marxists.

If liberalism is a mental disorder, why are all the mass shootings by conservatives in red states?

They're not. I have been paying attention to all of the mass shootings. I read the entire article. I read subsequent articles. I started with the Columbine shooting (they were leftists).

As it turns out there 3 groups who commit mass shootings (4 or more people). First and foremost are radical leftists. The next group are a political psychopaths. After that are Muslim terrorists.

This idea that conservatives are doing the mass shootings is a complete and total myth. It is what the left wants to believe. Even TV shows portray mass shooters as conservatives.

It is all show. When it comes down to it it is always about 80% leftist. Radical leftist, not your rank and file liberal or Democrat but the real crazies.

And no, I did not get this from Fox News. I got this from the regular news. Sometimes you have to wait a day or two because the first news articles either don't know or refuse to tell you what their motivation was.

All I ask is that you go back and read the entire story and if political persuasion is not in that article then read another one. It will shock you.

About the only shooter that I could not find anything on was the Vegas shooter. I did find out that his friends were Democrats but that is about as close to it. The other thing is that he shot up a country music festival and most country music fans are conservatives.

if there's no shortages under capitalism, how come there are so many shortages now?

if single payer is socialist, then sweden is socialist.

Who ever said that shortages had anything to do with capitalism?

Single payer is a part of socialism but it is not socialism in its entirety.

if capitalism is always low priced, why are corporate hospitals and private insurance so expensive?

Because of the socialists trying to turn us into a socialist nation.

then why do right wingers fly nazi flags?

They don't. Nazis fly Nazi flags. Nazis hate freedom. The are not modern conservatives.

then why do right wingers call single payer "socialist"?

because socialists want control of your life. Anything taken out of the private sector and done by the government is socialistic. It then becomes more expensive and of lower quality. Governments are not motivated to keep costs down. When a social service fails the government always takes the opinion that it would work if the threw more money at it. So they raise taxes and throw more money at it. When it continues to fail they repeat the process.

In the private sector if a product or service fails the business goes out of business. So they are extremely motivated to offer the best at an affordable price. They are extremely motivated to keep costs down and quality up.

In the end the free market always benefits the consumer. The government harms the consumer and benefits only those in power.

your internet, computer and electricity were all subsidized.

Electricity probably is but the internet and my computer are not. No one's is.

Neither party wants government efficiency which would pay for everything the people want like Western Europe benefits without the high taxes needed to support waste and inefficiency without many benefits.

You're right. Neither party wants government efficiency. That is why I left the Republican party. Trump spent money just like Obama did and Obama was the worst.

But you're not getting it. There is just not enough money to pay for everything the left wants. Socialism does not work. Ask the president of Sweden. He said they tried full on socialism but had to back off it because they were about to collapse. They are still very socialist but they have gone to a market based rather than government based economy.

all the other western industrialized countries have single payer, what's wrong with that? works very well in sweden.

Then move there. Plain and simple. If you think you would have a better standard of living in another country then move there. Expatriate and everything.

Because single payer costs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than free market health care. BTW we haven't had free market health care in over a century. We've been struggling along with a heavily regulated health care industry which lead us to Obamacare.

You don't see the fact that you are paying more because all you see is not having to pay for office visits. But your taxes on everything are through the roof. Like how in Denmark the actual cost of a car is the same as in the US but with the taxes that car will cost 3 times as much as what we pay for a car. How do I know this? I have a friend who escaped Denmark because he said it is too insane to live there. The cost of living is unbearable. Denmark has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

So by all means MOVE THERE. But you might want to save some money so that when you find out how expensive all of that free stuff is you can come to America.

so why didn't he regulate health insurance prices?

Obamacare is an interim system. The architects of Obamacare said themselves that Obamacare was temporary. It was designed to fail so that single payer would sound more palatable to the American people.

All during Obama's administration the Republicans kept sending bills to the House floor to totally eliminate Obamacare but once Trump got elected they completely shut up about it. Trump was able to remove the mandate but we still have this nightmare healthcare system. I'm surprised that Biden's first act was to sign a bill that put the mandate back on. I'm glad he didn't.

What right does our government have to force to pay for healthcare? The left brought up auto-insurance as justification for it. But two wrongs do not make a right. Plus auto-insurance is mandated at the state level. What the left wants is to have health care run at the federal level. Because there is nothing like the federal government having too much information about you.

Plus if it as the federal level then the Marxist eugenicists can decide who in the nation gets to live or die. Eugenics is a major part of socialism and always has been. Eugenics where were men get to play with the lives of people. That is why the push is so hard on the left to get single payer. That is why the left is trying to convince you that healthcare is a right. It is NOT a right. A right is a freedom that does not infringe on other peoples rights. So if the government is giving you healthcare then they have to make slaves of the healthcare workers. And their salary and all of that equipment is now heaped up on our already burdensome taxation scam.

My body and my life is NOT the government's responsibility. I don't want them anywhere near my health.

well then the failed drug war is also eugenics. and the racial profiling used to enforce it, the prison industrial complex, the wallmart live/work hamster wheel, etc.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. How can you even begin to think there is a connection between any of that. No wonder they say "liberalism is a mental disorder".

I mean, it depends on if your state supports solar energy or not. My home state being Georgia does not. One more thing for me to blame Governor Kemp for, I guess.

too bad. it would reduce rates and stabilize the grid while cleaning up the air.

So would recycling

yup. they are against that too.