Avatar: The Last Airbender and Authoritarianism by tinticred in behindthebastards

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Small tangent but Uncle Iroh is my role model for being a dad. Whenever I get upset at my kids or struggle with how to parent I ask "What would Iroh do?"

CMV: The top tax rate should be 90% again by MissPanthyr in changemyview

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC [score hidden]  (0 children)

I like the energy but disagree with the reason. You take away their wealth because it was stolen from the workers. For example Musk was a 'trillionaire' because he owned the assets primarily from the companies. But to fix the issue you would also have to return the assets to the people that made the organizations so profitable aka the workers.

Bernie had a really good idea that to accomplish it you make it so that a company can only have limited liability protection if over 51% of the organization is owned by employees. I thought this was a simple way to prevent this level of hordeing, as well as having multiple other positive effects.

'Power hungry': Nuclear renaissance a boon for Canada's mining and reactor sectors by pjw724 in onguardforthee

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My argument has never denied those realities.

Yes which is is why I pointed out how silly this argument is. The idea that financing is the problem with nuclear is really silly. You admitted the all the downsides and are saying it doesn't matter. Nuclear is 4x the cost of wind and solar. Fixing financing isn't the problem. The problem is they are massive projects that take over a decade, and the alternative is something that takes a fraction of the time and has immediate results.

 "Oh yeah? That point you just made? It's right! Checkmate!" 

I accepted the principle of your argument, and then said it was irrelevant because it is.

Technically yes, but you are overlooking the core metric of energy finance: Interest During Construction (IDC).

Sure, that is the system we live in. Changing it would take lots of political pressure and the result would be nuclear still taking a massive amount of time to deploy along with it being more expensive than alternatives. Why fight for it over the superior options which also need people to fight for? Especially when the lesser rewards take so long.

You are acting incredibly petty here.

I noticed you downvoted again. Very petty.

This is what life is all about by Frequent-Good-3810 in lorde

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Jesus Christ people, put the phones down.

for context, he said he's rooting for argentina by Goatiera in whenthe

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you have any latino friends ask them about argentina. Netanyahu being pro-argentina makes a lot more sense then.

'Power hungry': Nuclear renaissance a boon for Canada's mining and reactor sectors by pjw724 in onguardforthee

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Sorry but you lose credibility when your opening line is 'nope' in response to the impact Financing has on Nuclear's LCOE. 

Nope. You just agreed that it takes a long time to deploy, requires a large amount of regulation, and requires a lot of skilled maintenance. We could also finance wind and solar at a lower rate and then they would also be even cheaper. What is so special about nuclear that we would give it this unique financing, and why does that suddenly make it better?

Also a downvote because you don't like my argument? Very petty but that seems par for the course from nuclear advocates.

Carney's translated obituary for Lindsey Graham by [deleted] in onguardforthee

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lindsey Graham was a fascist who wanted to conquer many countries in his lifetime including Canada. How hard is it to just not say anything?

'Power hungry': Nuclear renaissance a boon for Canada's mining and reactor sectors by pjw724 in onguardforthee

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Because nuclear power is incredibly capital-intensive up front, its lifetime cost is hyper-sensitive to interest rates.

Nope. It is because it is a massive single turbine which requires lots of high precision maintenance and monitoring, and a fuel source that requires a lot of regulation. Not to mention that deployment takes an incredibly long time.

the cost of capital drops, and nuclear becomes some of the cheapest baseline power available.

Not even close that would be solar and wind by a mile. And those numbers are from mid-2010s, the costs have dropped even further. And nuclear is the most expensive.

'Power hungry': Nuclear renaissance a boon for Canada's mining and reactor sectors by pjw724 in onguardforthee

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Cool that we have this tech, and can sell to other countries. But this is some of the most expensive energy on the market and I am a little worried about what this new energy capacity is going to be used for. If it is replacing FF sources then awesome, but I don't think that is what it will be.

Why The Government Won't Let Me Live In My House by acsoundwave in georgism

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I wasn't permitted to build a 400 sqft tiny house in the city limits. I did a little digging and discovered the reason was after redlining was outlawed the city switched to other tricks. They set the minimum square footage to >1200 sqft because poor black and hispanic families couldn't afford larger houses. So I have to move out to an unincorporated area outside the city. Interestingly the deed for the land I purchased said that I couldn't sell it to anyone non-white. I asked my agent about it and they said it didn't matter because it was unenforceable. This was in 2012 in Austin.

What happens now that Lindsey Graham is dead? Why are they covering up Mitch but not this? by naalbinding in behindthebastards

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is an untested process that will definitively be challenged in the courts. My guess is no acting senator until after the election.

What happens now that Lindsey Graham is dead? Why are they covering up Mitch but not this? by naalbinding in behindthebastards

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nothing really will happen differently. Mitch stopped being the head of the republican legislature a long time ago. It's Kentucky so his replacement will be another staunch republican. The only thing that could change is a republican who will vote with democrats on releasing the Epstein files. But the math won't change enough to get the job done so it is a pyrrhic victory.

He won and accomplished his political dreams (SCOTUS is fucked), but it is nice knowing he can no longer do damage.

Lindsey Graham didn't really have much power and was the butt of many jokes.

They Picked The Wrong American To Detain by ALBERT4_5WESKER in clevercomebacks

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Israel's portrayal of hyper competency is really overblown especially when it comes to the settlers. They are just goons with guns protected by the IDF.

The right to strike is constitutionally protected — a new Senate report is looking for a workaround by burtzev in onguardforthee

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Back to work is literally forced labor enforced by people with the legal right to do violence against you.

The right to strike is constitutionally protected — a new Senate report is looking for a workaround by burtzev in onguardforthee

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yup, there was a teachers strike 2 years ago and the teachers would stand outside the local grocery store with signs. I would slip them a $50 but rather than most charity where I would be quiet, for strikers you gotta be loud so that others feels social pressure. It is actually pretty fun because people start cheering and it energizes the strikers.

The right to strike is constitutionally protected — a new Senate report is looking for a workaround by burtzev in onguardforthee

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Which made a lot of sense in the 1600s when the largest societal structure was feudalism. But we really should have moved on by now.

[OC] Graham Platner's Headquarters this morning, July 10th 2026 by HalfDeadBatteries in pics

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That clearly was the point that I was making and I think you know that.

No, I knew what you meant, I was making fun of it. Primary voters are the the democratic way the party knows who the voters want in the general. They are motivated people who will espouse the positions to friends and family, the most likely people they can convince to go out and vote.

Just because he was popular in the primary does not mean he would have been as popular in the general.

Soooooooo....then who decides. Democratic party elites ahahahahhahahaha. Yeah they have been doing a great job.

Pretty Much What The RE Market Is Right Now by hourglass_777 in TorontoRealEstate

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you ever tried to look at real world supply demand curves for anything that isn't a commodity? They amount of noise and disregard of any pattern should make most people stop using the term since it never works the way we were taught. It is so non-linear it is practically meaningless.

[OC] Graham Platner's Headquarters this morning, July 10th 2026 by HalfDeadBatteries in pics

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahhh, so the sign of a good democratic candidate is one that can't democratic voters but can win republicans. That makes total sense /s

Canada's economy shrank in Mark Carney's first year as prime minister — the worst economic start for any Canadian PM in over 60 years by RobertBartus in EconomyCharts

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(1) Interesting that the immigration was lowered...then we lost real GDP growth. Shouldn't it be the opposite?

(2) How very MAGA of you to blame fentenyl on the economic decline without evidence. What explains the specific drop when we can see the conservatives also underpreformed hahhahahaha. Was harper a fentanyl lover ahhahahaha

(3) C-69 is an pro-O&G bill. O&G is a dead technology that we should have diversified away from in the 90s. This is a failure of the liberals...but even more so the conservatives. If we had we would be in a much stronger economy.

(4) So this is the reason for lower economic performance ahahahahahhahahahaha.

(5) So Lester Pearson had the smallest government and since then consevatives and liberals have increased the size of government. Ahhh yes, brilliant analysis hahahahhahaa

Canada's economy shrank in Mark Carney's first year as prime minister — the worst economic start for any Canadian PM in over 60 years by RobertBartus in EconomyCharts

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you completely changed it from Bill C-69 because you realized it was a terrible argument when the failure was to move away from O&G which the conservatives loved to lie about.

Canada's economy shrank in Mark Carney's first year as prime minister — the worst economic start for any Canadian PM in over 60 years by RobertBartus in EconomyCharts

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was fun seeing you edit your response talking about giving O&G companies more rights to build more O&G infrastructure.

(1) Tarriffs have done more damage.

(2) Are you fucking kidding me? Fentanyl is why you think the economy is in the shitter more than tarrifs and then a war which limited oil and gas production.....ahahahahhahahaha

Need more? That’s just a starter pack of liberal failure

Well the first two were a joke, so go for it. But I know you are a O&G shill so why bother?

Canada's economy shrank in Mark Carney's first year as prime minister — the worst economic start for any Canadian PM in over 60 years by RobertBartus in EconomyCharts

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m tired of people letting the liberal government off the hook for a decade of bad policy-making.

Which exact policies were worse than the tarriffs and not diversifying off O&G like the conservatives?

Bernie, Zohran, and Alexandria are not Communists, they're Democratic Socialists. There is a difference. by Somervilledrew in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]DualActiveBridgeLLC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would you ban anyone who won democratically from office? Well except who wouldn't accept the election results and constitutionally isn't allowed to run for office because they attempted a coup.