Instagram     

Go Back   PNW Moto > PNW Moto > Motorcycles

Motorcycles For topics and discussions about all motorcycle makes and models

Like Tree39Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Jan 31st 2019, 01:41 PM   #121
DGA
 DGA's Avatar
Moderator
 
  Jan 2016
  PDX

  An Ape and a Husky
...Dennis Leary, is that you?
Jan 31st 2019, 05:07 PM   #122
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
Colbert
Feb 2nd 2019, 11:01 AM   #123
 VeritasImageryNW's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Allyn, WA

  '06 HD Street Bob, '85 Yamaha FJ600, '99 Honda CBR600f4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported
What source is that? The peer-reviewed Lancet scientific journal and the working group created by it?

[I forgot, logic and science (i.e., reality) has a strong liberal bias.] 😅
NPR. I don't trust them to include all the facts, just those that support the left agenda.

And I would be careful about claiming that liberals stand firm with science and logic. There are a few issues that they completely throw out science in favor of emotion and feelings.
liberpolly and MotoDan like this.
Feb 2nd 2019, 03:47 PM   #124
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
^^^
Oh, I see what you are saying. I must have read a half dozen articles discussing different findings and statements of the Lancet panel. NPR just happened to quote some passages I thought were big changes.

I do think NPR 20 years ago leaned a bit left. They interviewed union leaders and consumer rights spokespeople, and they discussed issues important to the left. But I think that has largely changed.

Now it is more mainstream reporting and mostly engages the usual players. It seldom criticizes business and tends to allow politicians and corporate heads or spokespeople to make their misleading statements without calling them out.

I often have to write letters complaining about shoddy or even biased reporting. Maybe it is their greater dependence on corporate sponsorship or maybe it is the new generations of journalists who are not familiar with going after the truth for the public rather than just letting two sides state their positions.

It is very discouraging. But NPR is probably a better source than almost any mainstream organization right now.
Feb 2nd 2019, 04:39 PM   #125
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Aprilia Scarabeo
Really? I've just heard NPR approvingly grunting to some former Bush invasion official blathering about how we have to fight in Afghanistan there so we don't have to fight them here - the very thing they were foaming at the mouth 10 years ago - only because it was in the context of dinging Trump.

NPR is a bunch of shameless liberal propagandists.

And that Lancet study is utterly idiotic. Truly nutritious plant food is incredibly expensive, and less affordable than meat, regardless of subsidies, so what they really end up pushing people towards will be pesticide-riddled rice, potatoes, and white bread with margarine - the very things that caused current diabetes and obesity epidemics.
VeritasImageryNW and MotoDan like this.
Feb 2nd 2019, 07:49 PM   #126
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
Once again, I believe you just confirmed my assertion. The NPR correspondent took a typical conservative hawk (neocon) position rather than the liberal/libertarian pacifist position the left-leaning press would have had 20 years ago.

You believe it is just anti-Trump bias. But Trump in this instance is not taking a Republican or Right position. He is a nationalist isolationist with Libertarian leanings when it comes to national defense.

You probably have hit on the real problem with food we have in this country. Besides the current interest in cooking and food shows, most people have no idea how to prepare food anymore. We eat prepared foods, or go to restaurants, or eat simple things to prepare, like frying a piece of meat or egg.

It takes an educated consumer to eat well while saving money. And this situation was created by the food industry to make money. They promised to save us time with prepared foods. They removed the nutrition and added sugar, fat and salt to make it irresistible and nonperishable and got the government to subsidize commodity crops they used.

If one compares the cost of calories of plants against meat and processed foods, you are right that the latter would win out, because of the subsidies.

But compare the cost of nutrition of plants against meat and processed foods, plants win out, having several times the nutritional value.

And, as we become smart consumers, we will find that we can eat more affordably making our whole plant food meals ourselves. A large bag of beans and brown rice can provide meals for a week and costs as much as a restaurant meal. I just made a huge pot of vegan chili for about $15. It is full of vegetables, tofu, polenta, beans, and lots of antioxidant and anti-inflamatory spices and will provide meals for more than a week. What restaurant or frozen dinner can do that for that price?
Feb 2nd 2019, 08:53 PM   #127
 MotoDan's Avatar
 
  Apr 2016
  Olympia

  2014 KTM 690 / BMW R1150 GS
Trump is an American who represents America, and is tired of being the sucker, be it picking up the tab for 70% of NATO costs, or using our military in many areas of the world with little compensation, to include unfair trade practices where we get taken to the cleaners. The hate, obstruction, resistence from the treasonus left to any action he takes is laughable.
Feb 2nd 2019, 11:59 PM   #128
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
Treason? You really wanna go there with private-Putin-meeting Trump? “I see no reason” Trump?

And Politifact declares Little Donnie’s NATO statements false.

Our ruling

Trump said "the United States was paying for anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of (NATO)."

It is not accurate to say the United States pays for the majority of NATO's costs. The United States pays for 22 percent of NATO's common fund. Beyond that relatively small amount, the cost of NATO is undefined.

The organization does total the defense budgets of its members, and based on that, U.S. defense spending equals about 70 percent. But the United States spends as much as it does because it is a global military power, which by and large, the European members are not. It is an apples and oranges comparison.

Trump pushed a flawed comparison even further by saying the U.S. paid for as much as 90 percent of NATO. That goes beyond the exaggeration of this statistic that we've seen before.

Trump’s statement contains just an element of truth, ignoring critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.”

The reason we spend more militarily than the rest of the world combined is because the world is pretty much our empire and that is what it takes to blanket the world with your military power. Being the cheapskate Jr. is, he thinks the rest of the world should chip in for our empire costs.
Feb 3rd 2019, 01:10 AM   #129
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Aprilia Scarabeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported
Once again, I believe you just confirmed my assertion. The NPR correspondent took a typical conservative hawk (neocon) position rather than the liberal/libertarian pacifist position the left-leaning press would have had 20 years ago.

You believe it is just anti-Trump bias. But Trump in this instance is not taking a Republican or Right position. He is a nationalist isolationist with Libertarian leanings when it comes to national defense.
I challenge you to find a liberal media outlet that still believes in the liberal position that we should leave Afganistan after Trump took it. Or that we shouls try to make peace with Russia. Or liberals who gave Obama shit for starting a few new wars instead of ending old ones. Liberals switch position 180 degrees on spot, depending on who is in office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported
You probably have hit on the real problem with food we have in this country. Besides the current interest in cooking and food shows, most people have no idea how to prepare food anymore. We eat prepared foods, or go to restaurants, or eat simple things to prepare, like frying a piece of meat or egg.

It takes an educated consumer to eat well while saving money. And this situation was created by the food industry to make money. They promised to save us time with prepared foods. They removed the nutrition and added sugar, fat and salt to make it irresistible and nonperishable and got the government to subsidize commodity crops they used.

If one compares the cost of calories of plants against meat and processed foods, you are right that the latter would win out, because of the subsidies.

But compare the cost of nutrition of plants against meat and processed foods, plants win out, having several times the nutritional value.

And, as we become smart consumers, we will find that we can eat more affordably making our whole plant food meals ourselves. A large bag of beans and brown rice can provide meals for a week and costs as much as a restaurant meal. I just made a huge pot of vegan chili for about $15. It is full of vegetables, tofu, polenta, beans, and lots of antioxidant and anti-inflamatory spices and will provide meals for more than a week. What restaurant or frozen dinner can do that for that price?
No, you still don't understand. Corporations didn't add fat and sugar, they removed fat and added sugar to make food palatable - based on governmental pseudo-science.

A bag of beans and rice has very little nutritional value. It is mostly calories. It is not much better than eating sugar - look at the glycemic index. It will give most people with desk jobs diabetes. People who work in fields 12 hours a day can get away with this diet, but others can't. If you want vegan food to be nutritious, you have to drop empty calories and replace them with very expensive organic vegetables. NOT ADD, replace. Cauliflower, zucchini, tomatoes, spinach, this kind of stuff. Expensive. Spices won't help either.

It has nothing to do with evil corporations. It has everything to do with government giving people bad nutritional advice based on quack science because it fit their liberal biases.

I agree that processed food is awful, though. But that's besides the point of governmental nutritional advice, let alone electric Harleys.
Feb 3rd 2019, 01:19 AM   #130
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Aprilia Scarabeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported
Treason? You really wanna go there with private-Putin-meeting Trump? ďI see no reasonĒ Trump?

And Politifact declares Little Donnieís NATO statements false.

ďOur ruling

Trump said "the United States was paying for anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of (NATO)."

It is not accurate to say the United States pays for the majority of NATO's costs. The United States pays for 22 percent of NATO's common fund. Beyond that relatively small amount, the cost of NATO is undefined.

The organization does total the defense budgets of its members, and based on that, U.S. defense spending equals about 70 percent. But the United States spends as much as it does because it is a global military power, which by and large, the European members are not. It is an apples and oranges comparison.

Trump pushed a flawed comparison even further by saying the U.S. paid for as much as 90 percent of NATO. That goes beyond the exaggeration of this statistic that we've seen before.

Trumpís statement contains just an element of truth, ignoring critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.Ē
And this is why Politifact is liberal bullshit. Obviously Trump meant the costs of keeping NATO afloat, and these costs are comprised mostly not from the paltry NATO budget, but from defense budgets of NATO countries, which is why NATO countries pledged to spend 2% of their GDP on defense, but most refused to follow up on their pledge - which is why Trump was correct in his assessment, and Politifact is full of shit. NATO secretary-general recently admitted as much:
The NATO secretary-general mounted a strong defense of the EU's efforts to increase defense cooperation, saying that NATO desperately needs that sort of EU action because after Brexit "80 percent of NATO's defense expenditure will come from non-EU allies."
https://www.politico.eu/article/nato...ending-target/
Feb 3rd 2019, 07:50 AM   #131
 MotoDan's Avatar
 
  Apr 2016
  Olympia

  2014 KTM 690 / BMW R1150 GS
By NATO's count, total defense spending of all NATO members stood at about*$957 billion*in 2017. The United States' share was about*$686 billion. Do the math, and the percentage of U.S. spending is about 72 percent.Jul 12, 2018
liberpolly likes this.
Feb 3rd 2019, 08:19 AM   #132
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
Neither of you gets it. We spend all that money not for NATO purposes but because we want to control the world militarily. It may benefit some NATO countries. But this spending is for us to protect our empire. NATO countries have agreed to add a couple percent to their military spending. But it is absurd to think other countries should spend to extend our empire. And being a member of NATO isn’t like a club with dues that haven’t been paid, which is the way Trump portrays it.
Feb 3rd 2019, 08:43 AM   #133
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
Maybe you can understand it this way.

Say NATO is a neighborhood security agreement: everybody agrees to take steps to protect their property and to come to the aid of any other property owner in a crisis.

Besides Trump and his enormous resort which dwarfs all other properties in the community, everyone has modest mansions on a small plot of land.

Then the resort owner wants to stop paying so much to maintain his property security, so be begins complaining that his poorer neighbors need to help pay for his expanse’s security expenses. They agree to add a little more, but Trump says he pays 70%-90% of total spending in the entire commuity so everyone else has to pay as much as he pays in real dollars I suppose. Or maybe he means they all need to help pay his own security bill for him.

Either way, the entire argument is nonsensical. But Trump seldom cares about reality when he says or does things.
Feb 3rd 2019, 10:07 AM   #134
 MikeMikeMike's Avatar
 
  Feb 2016
  Seattle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported
Neither of you gets it. We spend all that money not for NATO purposes but because we want to control the world militarily. It may benefit some NATO countries. But this spending is for us to protect our empire. NATO countries have agreed to add a couple percent to their military spending. But it is absurd to think other countries should spend to extend our empire. And being a member of NATO isnít like a club with dues that havenít been paid, which is the way Trump portrays it.
The rest of NATO couldn't defend itself against Russian (a country with an economy smaller than Italy) and I'm not talking about after a few waves of hydrogen bombs. Russia has the conventional forces to invade all of Europe (sans US involvement) with tanks running through the Fulda Gap en masse and Migs sweeping the skies of Tornados and Euro Fighters.

Europe has transitioned away from military spending, because being a part of the US "empire" has no down side. We have more military personal deployed in Europe, than Germany has soldiers (~64k > 61k). The best part is they resent us for our military largess, despite that being the only thing keeping them free. They should be able to defend themselves, and that means they need to spend more money and enlist more soldiers. It will strain their already fragile budgets and result in tax increases for their already overburdened middle class, and austerity for their social welfare programs. But a stronger Europe will be a better partner in the long term, especially as China begins to look outward.

Right now the 500M people in the EU who makes $20T per year couldn't defend themselves from the 143M people in Russian who make $1.5T per year and that should not be our problem.
Feb 3rd 2019, 10:19 AM   #135
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Aprilia Scarabeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported
Neither of you gets it. We spend all that money not for NATO purposes but because we want to control the world militarily. It may benefit some NATO countries. But this spending is for us to protect our empire. NATO countries have agreed to add a couple percent to their military spending. But it is absurd to think other countries should spend to extend our empire. And being a member of NATO isnít like a club with dues that havenít been paid, which is the way Trump portrays it.
No, you don't get it. Out empire is not served by defending Europe against potential Russian assault. We are doing it out of inertia of old times of Cold War. We could easily save a cool trillion dollars by withdrawing out conventional forces from Europe and keeping for them only our nuclear umbrella. And we should, just to see how fast they ramp up their military budgets.
VeritasImageryNW likes this.
Reply

  PNW Moto > PNW Moto > Motorcycles

Tags
august, electric, harley



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yamaha TY-E electric trials bike FidalgoRob Motorcycles 4 Mar 24th 2018 05:58 PM
Electric Scooters Ralgha Motorcycles 10 Nov 27th 2016 06:04 AM
Bike Night: XXX Bike Night Thursday, August 4th elSueco Seattle 20 Aug 7th 2016 11:33 PM
Anyone here buying a new KTM street bike b/4 August? Want $500? Dragon Rider Portland 0 Jun 7th 2016 06:50 AM
Electric KTM Long Way Down. Colossal achievement or failure? Thumperpilot Adventure Riding 3 Apr 7th 2016 07:39 AM




Copyright © 2019 PNW Moto. All rights reserved.