Canes announce new uniforms for LSU

[OptimusCreampie]

"There is a growing stigma within liberalism that implies activism equals conservationism"

Explain this thread then. The super conservative guy blamed liberals for this type of environmental strategy as if it were a bad thing. It isn't liberalism that implies activism equals conservationism. It's the obstinate unwillingness of many conservatives to emphatically support new environmental regulations. Yes, conservationism is a principle of conservatism. But many conservatives prioritize the current ways of doing things over changing laws in the name of environmental conservation. That's how this off topic discussion even started.

Bro don’t derail the thread it didn’t start with him it was another dude who made a dumb statement and he just debunked it in a civil way

 

[KATKER]

I dont think their ugly. I just hope it's one off thing and that's it. Keep it classic

 

[Loose Cannon]

That’s all good and great, but you failed yourself and your arguments every time you mentioned “liberals” - as if there was a conservative “correct” way and everything else fell into some monolithic “threat”. Especially, without acknowledging -“on the other side…”- that economic concerns over the environment/people is what causes oil spills, superfund cleanups, and off-shore drilling (issues that conservationists should ostensibly care about). Or just greed or negligence.

This is one of those is/ain’t issues. You believe in clean air and water and decent protections for some of the animals or you don’t. And, how you vote on those issues are more telling than the political “labels” created to divide and distract people from what’s really going on.

These are not labels that I have applied to anyone. These are the predominating ideological philosophies in the country. I didn't put anyone into any category except myself. And that is the reality for everyone. They put themselves into these categories by ascribing to and advocating for certain fundamental tenets that define one particular ideology or the other.

I did not say one was better than the other. I believe there is both an individual and a shared responsibility. I stated that certain practices demonstrate neither. For instance, regulations designed to inhibit the production of fossil fuels, or those who force alternative energy solutions onto businesses with zero regard for the economic impact of such regulations. If you want to label these business as "greedy" because they want to protect their profits and maximize return on investments for their shareholders, fine. Just remember, you put yourself in that group. Not me. I've never quite understood why it is greedy for a business to pursue the cheapest possible cost of production, whether it be labor costs, energy costs, or raw materials costs in order to produce the highest quality goods and services possible at the lowest prices possible, but not greed to demand that those same business brunt the burden of more costly and less efficient methods which generally do little to effect the profit margins, as all the cost is shifted to the consumer via higher prices and artificially limited supplies. How is it greed on the part of the business to want to pay "x" price for "y" commodity, but not greed on the part of you to demand that they pay "a" price for "b" commodity?

Give me solutions rather than bashing me over the head with the problem. Fossil fuels are dirty. I get it. Build a windmill or solar panel that can get a 747 off the tarmac or a couple million tons of goods from a port in Georgia to an emerging market in Asia, build it at a price point that is competitive and reliable. And kick back and watch the market do it's thing. Let greed work in your favor. But be sure not to make a profit or keep capital investors happy. That's a big no no.

I stated my belief that this joint project regarding our uniforms accomplishes goals of both individual and shared responsibility. And I also expressed my belief that the divide comes from subscribers of both ideologies often insisting on doing one but not both.

You labeled yourself.

 

[ScubaCane]

Excellent, I've been saying for a long time that football isn't environmentally conscious enough.

 

[Mico Jones]

Ouch ... was that too cerebral for you lol

No. But obviously for you.

Point is noone cares what the unis are made of. Except for maybe fat ******* tree huggers with armpit hair.

Usually people care about how it looks. Hence why noone wears carpeting or hamburger wrappers.

 

[Loose Cannon]

"There is a growing stigma within liberalism that implies activism equals conservationism"

Explain this thread then. The super conservative guy blamed liberals for this type of environmental strategy as if it were a bad thing.

I'm not here to defend dumbasses or dumbass opinions. If you're going to @ me, quote what I said rather than ascribing what someone else said to me.

It isn't liberalism that implies activism equals conservationism. It's the obstinate unwillingness of many conservatives to emphatically support new environmental regulations. Yes, conservationism is a principle of conservatism. But many conservatives prioritize the current ways of doing things over changing laws in the name of environmental conservation. That's how this off topic discussion even started.

Unwillingness to emphatically support something is the direct opposite of activism. You should probably begin with basic reading comprehension before debating the finer points of ideology. Conservationism is conservationism. Conservation of energy, resources, wildlife, and also fiscal conservatism. The reason many people are unwilling to emphatically support environmental regulations is because they undercut one or more other tenets of conservatism while accomplishing very little. Denying construction of modern oil refining technology that could use resources more efficiently and reduce spills by being closer to production sources in the name of protecting the environment while ignoring the massive amounts of wildlife--mostly eagles and other birds of prey--killed by wind farms, not to mention the enormous amounts of oil that is required to keep them spinning, that must be refined and transported...or protesting a pipeline that would greatly reduce the amount of cargo ships, freight trains, and tanker trucks--all which add up to far more oil spills than pipelines and offshore rigs...

Look. Done talking about this because it is a derailment from the topic, which should be that this is an excellent idea that should please people from all spectrums of ideology. I tried to have a reasoned discussion that presents both sides, but I should have known better.

 

[Loose Cannon]

You’ve done it again, you’re making assumptions and arguments I’m not making.

1. You applied the labels. It’s disingenuous to write otherwise. Own it.
2. Yes, some businesses are greedy, to imply that I’m writing that all businesses are greedy is dishonest. Spewing raw sewage and dangerous chemicals into waterways is cheaper than cleaning it first. Not scrubbing pollution before discharging it into the air is cheaper. Implying that any regulation that brings a cost to a business is de facto “economic activism/terrorism” refutes your entire paean to being a conservationist. The idea that the market works unfettered by influence of government policies is naive.
3. Where are your solutions? You’ve already created a “wall” against an ideology and the people who may disagree with you and then asked where there solutions are? That’s rich.
4. You’ve stated your political beliefs/leanings on this board before, so I know where you stand. We do agree on Rosier and the OL last year so maybe we build from there.

15-0

I provided a solution that should be an agreeable one to all. On the problem of fossil fuels, there is a solution to make current production more efficient, thereby reducing the amount of waste and consumption, while at the same time reducing the risks involved with production and transportation. Build modern refineries. The last four refineries built in the US were all built between 1976 and 1977 and each one is located on the Texas/Louisiana gulf coast. That means that every drop of oil, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, ect... is produced with technology over four decades old that has to be then transported via pipeline, cargo ship, freight train, or tanker truck all over the globe.

The problems associated with oil production and refinement are almost entirely due to fool-headed government policies that have stifled innovation and modernization.

In regards to #2. the Clean Water Act of 1972 requires "zero discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985, and fishable and swimmable waters by 1983." Cool? Cool. I think this should be strictly enforced. Accidents happen and there are loops in this that still needs to be tightened up. The most recent iteration of this law was passed in 2016, though, so we have attempted to maintain a requirement that can evolve in order to keep pace with growing and changing markets. We could do better, but government doesn't do anything very efficiently besides kill people. Government regulation is how you get seat belts on a 747, but not on public school buses.

 

[jhtheking]

I'm not here to defend dumbasses or dumbass opinions. If you're going to @ me, quote what I said rather than ascribing what someone else said to me.



Unwillingness to emphatically support something is the direct opposite of activism. You should probably begin with basic reading comprehension before debating the finer points of ideology. Conservationism is conservationism. Conservation of energy, resources, wildlife, and also fiscal conservatism. The reason many people are unwilling to emphatically support environmental regulations is because they undercut one or more other tenets of conservatism while accomplishing very little. Denying construction of modern oil refining technology that could use resources more efficiently and reduce spills by being closer to production sources in the name of protecting the environment while ignoring the massive amounts of wildlife--mostly eagles and other birds of prey--killed by wind farms, not to mention the enormous amounts of oil that is required to keep them spinning, that must be refined and transported...or protesting a pipeline that would greatly reduce the amount of cargo ships, freight trains, and tanker trucks--all which add up to far more oil spills than pipelines and offshore rigs...

Look. Done talking about this because it is a derailment from the topic, which should be that this is an excellent idea that should please people from all spectrums of ideology. I tried to have a reasoned discussion that presents both sides, but I should have known better.

Oh my and there it all is.

Yes, I know that is the opposite of activism. You should probably begin with basic reading comprehension before debating the finer points of ideology. My point was the conservatives' unwillingness to make changes to conserve the environment as it is is what is causing liberals to assume that activism is necessary. And you are the perfect example of this lmao. "Wind farms are killing birds and use a tiny bit of oil, why not just keep using oil in copious amounts and a little more efficiently?" That viewpoint is anathema to the conservation of our environment. Go study the environment for 7+ years like tons of my friends that went to the U did instead of acting like you know things cause you've gone fishing a few times. They all vehemently agree that reducing oil usage is imperative. Environmental impact of wind power - Wikipedia

Whatever I'm done with this too.

 

[thegrove]

I'm sure they have been tested..... make that I hope they have been tested to ensure they do not trap heat and are hypoallergenic. Better bring the old uni's to the LSU game....just in case.

 

[jdmorgan76]

Adidas should use this promotion in their asian soccer markets as 80% of ocean plastic comes from there...

 

[section9]

We’re one of Adidas’ flagship contracts.

So all their new bullsh*t they’ll roll out with us.

 

[Rellyrell]

honestly, anyone complaining that its even a bad look are ******* special.
Seriously, they're not much different than what we normally wear. OMG the shoulders are Green OH NO smdh. not a big deal. **** as far as the appearance is concerned, this is really conservative. I half expect some jersey that looks like this

These are god awful too, along w majority of the city series jerseys.

 

[Gatorhater]

This is so ridiculous. It’s mind boggling that people even think this way. Dumbfounded.

Surely you have heard of the old KGB? Do you think attempts to undermine a country are limited to a little hacking and some Facebook site? Serious spend some time studying history, if you can find any today’s info desert. Do you think to overwhelming number of left wing socialist, fascist and communist professors and administrators in the educations system happened spontaneously?

The decisions about what you believe or support regardless on belief, are each person right to make in America, at least at the moment. Although, I fear tha your reaction indicates that you do not belive in such and old fashion idea as freedom of thought or expression. Regardless, though, each of us should try to determine truth to the best of ones ability rather than just accept what they hear. Maybe your mind would not be boggled so often.

If you have the curiosity and are not afraid different ideas, there is an old short book written a good 50 years ago call None Dare Call it Treason. My Father in Law gave me his copy years ago. He was one of the extremely anti communist Cuban refugees from the 60s. The author updated it 25 Years later but I did not find that version as compelling. Anyway, you have the advantage of the las 50 years to decide if the dude have any idea what he was talking about. By the marvel of google you can find it easily in pdf today. I have not read it in almost twenty years but he had a section on mental health and the use of committing people as political weapon that was concerning when you consider how often you hear it spoken about today.

Back in 1970, I had a old Business Law professor who told us that in 20 years men would more like women and vise versa, we would pay for bottles of water, and that the USSR would collapse under its our weight. Trust me, I thought he was a complete idiot. I pay a lot more attention to crazy old men since 1991.

Hey, where do you stand on Rosier? Maybe we can agree on that.

 

[Lokest]

This all started because someone said recycling was for homos liberals and colin Kaepernick...lol

 

[3rd-43]

Y'all RuPaul, Jalen Ramsey, fashion police wannabe ma****ers need calm the f'uck down. I can't believe a bunch of grown *** men are on a football message board complaining about Fashion. What the f'uck?

When we beat the **** out of L$U, are y'all going to say, "If only we were wearing Cashmere trousers, with jerseys, woven only with the finest of silks, when we beat them?"

What’s that red dot?

 

[g8rh8rMD]

That’s all good and great, but you failed yourself and your arguments every time you mentioned “liberals” - as if there was a conservative “correct” way and everything else fell into some monolithic “threat”. Especially, without acknowledging -“on the other side…”- that economic concerns over the environment/people is what causes oil spills, superfund cleanups, and off-shore drilling (issues that conservationists should ostensibly care about). Or just greed or negligence.

This is one of those is/ain’t issues. You believe in clean air and water and decent protections for some of the animals or you don’t. And, how you vote on those issues are more telling than the political “labels” created to divide and distract people from what’s really going on.

If you think how you vote is what determines whether you are “good for the environment” or not, well, you’re proving Loose Cannon’s point. It’s not as simple as saying “I vote for this party so I’m for clean water and healthy children, the other party is against those things.”

Proud of what the Canes and Adidas are doing here. Especially if Rosier throws 65% with two TD’s and no turnovers plus another 80 and a TD rushing. The look of the uni’s has grown on me too. Would love to hear SMD ask the players what they think about them.

 

[jdmorgan76]

Straight garbage uniforms all to please the sjw crowd....

 

[pumbaa]

I'm sure they have been tested..... make that I hope they have been tested to ensure they do not trap heat and are hypoallergenic. Better bring the old uni's to the LSU game....just in case.

They have done it with their big time soccer teams and they worked just fine. All MLS teams have worn them, along with Madrid and Bayern Munich

 

[Insanecane]

Personally they look like fking clown suits, but whatever, just beat L$U.

 

[edcanes]