https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-08-21-valve-talks-steam-china-curation-exclusivity

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2019/08/21/senior-citizens-connecticut-sex-public/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/anti-abortion-film-saint-john-high-school-right-to-life-1.5256824

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/screening-of-controversial-anti-abortion-film-draws-anger-in-saint-john-1.4562651

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/saint-john-unplanned-screening-draws-182725320.html

Are they letting both sides speak?

i think the key here is in the name of the school "Saint John"

founded in 1805 and is the oldest publicly funded school in Canada.

It's Canada so of course they're going to fold.

what is odd to me is schools talking about abortion but there is no place in schools for talking about why its controversial. Even if you bring up abortion as a form of contraceptive, there should be dialogue on why half the country opposes it

but that would require acknowledging that half the country ISN'T nazis who hate women

https://www.pcgamer.com/gamescoms-opening-show-was-briefly-blocked-by-youtube-for-ubisoft-copyright-infringement/

https://twitter.com/heckyessica/status/1164930366089703425

https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/1164046538047401984

this is appropriate since the guy in that ad was actually Italian: https://twitter.com/CarpeDonktum/status/1165076930951090176

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bernie-sanders-proposes-renewables-buildout-and-public-electricity#gs.xyjq44

@I Know a Fat Guy here’s an article about Bernie’s plan. You are correct. It is incredibly stupid. Plus the comment section has a nuclear debate. lol

*"The Sanders Green New Deal promises a remake of essentially all aspects of U.S. society by eliminating support for the fossil fuel industry and buoying clean energy through investments in wind and solar, energy efficiency and electrified transport. “Climate change will be factored into virtually every area of policy,” the plan reads. It requires 100 percent renewable electricity and transportation by 2030 at the latest."*
**NO.** Don't bother changing my mind.

When a conservationist calls it *'fuctardry faggotry stupid'* (and I am), it's actually that bad.

is he actually calling it "Green new deal" or is that the press?

According to the story, he did.
According to the story, he's also *"a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential candidacy."*
Draw your own conclusions.

lol just lol

Trump should release his own "Green New Deal" and have it be for wall funding

The problem is that it’s impossible to get off fossil fuels by 2030.

Plus zero energy sources will ever be essentially free.

I read Sanders plan off his website....its huge and there is tons more crazy in it

In how to pay for the GND Sanders makes the claim he will pay for the 20 million new jobs by taxing those jobs...

nah. solar, wind and hydro energy are all free. you never need to hire personnel and maintain the equipment. there are never any types of financial losses related to these industries. nope. 100% growth. those machines definitely never fail and need to be replaced

and there is plenty of cobalt and other rare earth minerals around and easy to get to so everyone can have an electric car

rare earth minerals are infinite but something something peak oil

Generally speaking the argument is that batteries can be recycled, so it alleviates any concerns about resource availability. However, the same argument can’t be used for nuclear because reasons.

Obviously both batteries and spent fuel rods can be recycled, but it’s too ‘impactful’ to recycle spent fuel rods.

you still lose material in the recycling process, though. you don't recover 100% of the battery itself. you always have losses and you still need to inject energy into the recycling process

muh environment

That’s fine, but I’m more concerned about the double standards with nuclear

oh yeah, i agree with that point

muh three mile island

Recycling is generally better than raw resources mining - energy included.

However, environmentalists will shriek over inconsequential risks of leaks with nuclear recycling because they are inconsistent

yeah, i agree. that's not the point i'm making

my point was supplemental to your argument

Right.