|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Or the people that have them and are making 10%+ on the investment. Like me.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
How would you propose to deal with the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere? The same way I'd have proposed to deal with the problem of slavery in 1860. Let whoever wants to volunteer to deal with it in their own lives do it, and let new technology gradually phase it out. Electricity, nuclear, and possibly wind and solar will be more economically feasible in 50 more years than fossil fuels, as fossil fuels get more scarce. Gasoline engines, new machinery technology, and civilized increased public pressure would have had slavery dropping state by state until 1900, when it would have been completely gone, and 600,000 men and a million horses and mules would have still been alive. If climate change fanatics don't slow their arrogance down, it's going to happen again.
How would you get agreement from China or India - or the rest of the world? How will you take account of the fact that the longer it is left the worse things will get? It is all very well to say that things should be done differently but proposing a different course of action that would actually be better is far from easy. More urgent to have a course of action on getting increasing, unsustainable debt under control.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Why is it so many creationists and RWNJs have no concept of "some? Because we have no concept of a power-hungry government magically stopping at only taking "some" liberty and money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: In other words you don’t care about the outcome - you just don’t want anything to inconvenience you. If it means that too little is done, too late then you don’t care.
quote: The civil war started because the slave states wouldn’t let go of slavery. Not because of a crusade to eliminate it.
quote: Then I guess you had better vote Democrat. The Republican policy has been to increase the debt. As Trump has done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
No, not a socialist country, but a country with some socialist policies, because most countries -- especially democratic ones -- find that using government resources to accomplish some tasks is of benefit to all their citizens "Some" yes, not constantly increasing.
Decided democratically. Yes, in different ways in different territories, so that they can be compared with each other, and the best way can be decided by those who are still deciding, or are considering changing something. It's not the same as FEDERAL decisions.
Indeed we can, and the evidence shows that GOP run state economies fail while Dem run state economies prosper. This of course includes GOP fake trickle-down give tax to the rich policies as in Brownback's failed Kansas state economy: California, Illinois, and New York (state) are three of the biggest population losers in recent decades. Just a moment...
The US Military budget is the largest hunk of federal funding in the economy. Interstate highways are run by the Federal Highway Administration. Those are both among the very few things authorized by the Constitution as being the responsibility of the Federal government.
quote: That's nice, but it's not specific about anything. Here's something that's specific;
quote: Not very well followed today, but the Federal governments powers are actually supposed to be limited to only those things spelled out in the Constitution. The states, or the people, are supposed to take it from there. The only real way to consult the people is by ISSUE VOTES, something that is seldom done today. We're pacified into thinking that it's okay for Congress to determine what people want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I asked: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? And my answer, yes. Now I would ask you to answer one loaded question from me since I answered yours. That question is; Is the U.S. $22 trillion in debt?
That you would get in a knot about that change shows that you don’t get the basic issue at all. That would depend on what the definition is of the "basic issue". If the basic issue is creating fear, scaring the public into giving up significant liberty and money, it's much easier when instances of warmth, cold, wind, storms, fires, and whatever else they can dream up is used, as compared to using only -warmth-, as a fear factor.
Well, obviously we are all in this together so we all need to. Settling who does is a big issue to be discussed. It’s not what I was asking about though. Is CO 2 a greenhouse gas? I know, it's a big secret. I'm the one that's been asking about it, and I get no answers. Why can't it be discussed now? Why do we have to wait until the next Democrat president declares a national emergency, and be surprised who gets slammed first?
You’re not discussing actions at all. You’re just suggesting hypocrisy. Of course, there is hypocrisy everywhere. That has nothing to do with the question either though. You need to focus a bit. I'd like to discuss actions, it's the climate change alarmists who are demanding actions, I'm not. I'd expect them to lay them out, not try to hide them unless of course, they're afraid to lay them out because of political backlash. I'm not talking about vague, political honey, I'm talking about nuts-and-bolts action, like federal emissions tests for cars, tests for heavy trucks, tests for off-road farm and construction equipment, tests for small engines, on and on. Mandated scrapping of useful, privately owned equipment. Closing energy plants, driving energy costs up.
So, it appears, you do think that poring toxins into the air is a bad thing. However, you seem to hope that technology will fix it all. Well, I’m a hypocrite who still burns gas in his car. A year from now that won’t be true since there is much better technology and that’s what I will use. Are you okay with the government seizing your car? Will you use the new technology even if you can't afford it? Borrow money to get it?
Also: Since this part is on the toxins question; do you agree that removing individual liberties to burn gas anyway they wanted in their cars in California decades ago was a good decision? Since California has it's current financial mess, is losing population, and has a serious homeless problem, no.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: The 19th Amendment passed when both houses of congress had Republican majorities. With bi-partisan support and with republicans that wouldn't pass muster as republicans today -- back when it was okay for republicans to be liberal and open minded. The guy in the picture you posted in Message 4127 was referring to today's Democrats. It was a lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
California financial mess? Please do tell.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
actually I think it was a triple post
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Double post.
Percy, happened when I was posting from my phone. Since there is lag on cell connection I hit post twice. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
This kind of thinking means that we are not a capitalist country either, because "capitalism" isn't mentioned in the Declaration, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the pledge of allegiance. SHOCKING!!! Who knew??? Capitalism is the ONLY THING that goes along with liberty and limited government, that is the basis of U.S. foundings.
marc9000 writes: But if you don't want to learn anything and just want to "destroy", then do your usual and look up some NY Times or Washington Post columns by young college boy liberals, and parrot them here. Why do that when I can look up facts and look at what is actually involved? THAT MESSAGE WASN'T DIRECTED AT YOU. It was to Theodoric, who asked me what I was referring to in my mention of "the text of the Constitution and intent of the framers", so that he could destroy me. I showed him, with a link, and he sputtered with rage, called me names, claimed to be referring to later amendments, the Constitution as of 2020, and destroyed me. He didn't need your help!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Which of course is all wrong. Scientists were aware of climate change over 100 years ago, What was causing that?? Too many model T's?
The Paris Accord was about all countries coming together to address the issues, including who will "foot the bill" and it is appropriate that those that are the worst offenders will pay more. With no consideration to the countries who have benefitted greatly from U.S. technology and innovation, without paying anything for it?
How do you dispose of nuclear waste? If you don't look at the full cycle including all the waste streams of a process you are not being honest. There is more to be done in that regard, but France and Sweden seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. Working on it and researching it seems like it could be a lot less painful than destroying lives and businesses in the U.S.
It's a scientific fact that some types of climate change happen that aren't in any was associated with human activity, and that they are inconsequential compared to the anthropomorphic causes of climate change. So the climate never has changed much since the beginning of time up until about 100 years ago, when humans started burning fossil fuels?
Fear mongering again. Climate change alarmists accusing others of fear mongering. You cannot make this stuff up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Just to add to the argument I can do that!
quote: https://www.americanthinker.com/...ge_is_a_flatout_hoax.html Need more?, there is plenty more. Climate Change Is A Hoax Climate Change Hoax Exposed - Cal Thomas The Great Global Warming Hoax | 'Knowledge is Power' – better-management.org reveals invaluable information Page not found | The Freedom Pub Didn't get this from a google search, google is run by liberals, so much is covered up. I got the above from a yahoo search, there's plenty more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Is the U.S. $22 trillion in debt? As I understand it, yes it is. Worse than that, the current administration has elected to run the debt up at an even higher rate than it was being run up.
If the basic issue is creating fear, scaring the public into giving up significant liberty and money, it's much easier when instances of warmth, cold, wind, storms, fires, and whatever else they can dream up is used, as compared to using only -warmth-, as a fear factor. You say "warmth". At some level of CO2 in the atmosphere it is no longer "warmth" it is catastrophe. It is pretty clear now that Florida is a gonner. The whole state. Gone! The is the simple, sure consequence of continuing to add CO2. The timing is still far from sure but it has already started.
I know, it's a big secret. I'm the one that's been asking about it, and I get no answers. Why can't it be discussed now? Why do we have to wait until the next Democrat president declares a national emergency, and be surprised who gets slammed first? There are answers suggested all over the place. Why aren't you reading about them. As I noted one answer is to rush the conversion to electric cars. I will stretch my budget to do that as my part.The governments of the world can do their part by, for one thing, stopping trillions is subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. I'd like to discuss actions, it's the climate change alarmists who are demanding actions, I'm not. I'd expect them to lay them out, not try to hide them unless of course, they're afraid to lay them out because of political backlash. I'm not talking about vague, political honey, I'm talking about nuts-and-bolts action, like federal emissions tests for cars, tests for heavy trucks, tests for off-road farm and construction equipment, tests for small engines, on and on. Mandated scrapping of useful, privately owned equipment. Closing energy plants, driving energy costs up. The first emissions tests for cars came in because the air was becoming more and more poisonous. Are you saying you want those rules removed? As we've learned more we see more is needed.
Are you okay with the government seizing your car? Will you use the new technology even if you can't afford it? Borrow money to get it? If I am poisoning my neighbors then yes, cars that are the worst offenders have to go. That has been true here for some decades now and cars are taken off the road if they are too dirty. Though the rules are not, yet, taking CO2 into account. I will either use cleaner technology or, if I can't afford it then I can't drive. It would be immoral to do otherwise and, as I said, I am aware that I am immoral every time I start the engine.
Since California has it's current financial mess, is losing population, and has a serious homeless problem, no. What, exactly, does any of that have to do with the air being cleaner in LA than it was decades ago? It can't be that you are advocating poisoning people over money. No one would do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
So, totally disconnected from reality.
Your reply had no connection to my message.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024