PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on February 07, 2019, 08:01:18 PM
-
... is gone from her website! She pulled it! ;D
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq
Apparently it was even more hilarious than I thought.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1093644987256909824.html
By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried. If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful. #GreenNewDeal
-
Terrifying totalitarian plan is what that is. They're serious.
-
Harris was for it, before she took her tweet for it down. It’s not on her feed anymore.
https://mobile.twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1093573105912610816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1093573105912610816&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsamj-3930%2F2019%2F02%2F07%2Fbwahaha-kamala-harris-signs-on-to-co-sponsor-aocs-green-new-deal-and-even-lefties-think-shes-out-of-her-ever-loving-mind%2F
-
Wow, apparently there was a presidential hopeful pile-on.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/1093638801413623809
-
Epic ... about 70 Dems lockstepped in support of this thing, until Nancy said whoa. Even Beto the Beta Male was behind it ... imagine Texas without fossil fuel!
Now here’s Tucker with AOC’s advisor, a “professor.” The guy is lying, and blaming Republicans! Before the disaster was removed from AOC’s website, I saw the excerpts ... it DID say people who were unable or unwilling to work would be paid!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zt75gPoF4ZY#
-
https://moonbattery.com/the-literal-insanity-of-aocs-green-new-deal/
-
The deception in all of this is these are just trial balloons being floated, to see what takes hold.
The progressives have been set back in a major way. First, they finally won the White House with the Empty Suit. He was suppose to bring about their fundamental transformation which in part would have ensured that the conservatives would never hold power again. Then he got caught up in the celebrity of being president and, as an amateur would do, began screwing up left and right.
Their next hope was a sickly tired old crook, Felonious Von Pantsuits. She could be easily bought and with her pathological lying disorder she would never feel anything about screwing someone, or group over. Plus she had a political machine to help her rig the election, so it would be a shoe in.
The Nov 2016 happened. The epic meltdown began when they (progressives) lost the WH and congress. Their dreams were shattered, and now they realized it would take years to get back where they were in 2009.
The progressives are dismayed that there are actually people in this country that will not follow them. So? Well that's obvious, destroy all those who will not comply, and destroy anything that those "dispicable deplorables" will listen to and agree with.
They need something, anything, to wrestle power back to them in 2020. The current President has pointed out and called out all of their failures, as well as pulling back the curtain to let Americans see just how vile and contemptible the progressives truly are.
In progressive mentality, they feel their base will expand by starting the wholesale socialist state by giving everything away for free (well, not exactly free, but the masses don't need to know the details, after all, socialism is for the people, not the socialist).
Stay tuned, as we have not seen the bottom of how low they will go yet.
-
I'll never vote for a candidate that puts support behind this piece of garbage. Even if it's feigned support.
-
The progressives are having a difficult time finding a standard bearer for their cause. So far the ones that want the job are all very flawed and lack appeal.
So we have their latest creation, AOC. Young millennial, attractive, nice (fabricated) background story. Don’t kid yourself, Sandy didn’t wake up one afternoon and decide she would run for Congress, she has handlers. Her handlers have sorely underestimated their cute little puppet. She lacks skills and has the personality of a door knob.
Then they have the Irishman from El Paso that pretends to be Hispanic. He has the looks and the millennial appeal, but it ends with that.
I’ve said before, a dark horse will appear for the 2020 election. Another carefully crafted candidate. The progressives learned from the mistakes of the Empty Suit, and they are learning currently.
-
Okay, she says the right is mischaracterizing the deal as a massive government takeover. When asked if it isn’t a massive government intervention, she says “I would have no problem calling it a massive government intervention.”
Folks, do we have a little schizophrenia here, maybe multiple personality disorder?
-
Okay, she says the right is mischaracterizing the deal as a massive government takeover. When asked if it isn’t a massive government intervention, she says “I would have no problem calling it a massive government intervention.”
Folks, do we have a little schizophrenia here, maybe multiple personality disorder?
No, she's just a fuckin' airhead.
-
Okay, she says the right is mischaracterizing the deal as a massive government takeover. When asked if it isn’t a massive government intervention, she says “I would have no problem calling it a massive government intervention.”
Folks, do we have a little schizophrenia here, maybe multiple personality disorder?
Liberals emote. They do not think and no one requires them to think, or make sense.
-
Liberals emote. They do not think and no one requires them to think, or make sense.
That is why many do not come here. They can not defend their positions with logic, facts, nor evidence. Orange man bad! Why? Where are the facts and evidence? Crickets.
-
Yep, Republicans hacked her website and put a silly version of the GND FAQ up there, and she had to pull it!
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/02/the-case-of-aocs-scrubbed-faqs.php
Quotable quote (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez): “When your #GreenNewDeal legislation is so strong that the GOP has to resort to circulating false versions, but the real one nets 70 House cosponsors on Day 1 and all Dem presidential candidates sign on anyway.”
-
That is why many do not come here. They can not defend their positions with logic, facts, nor evidence. Orange man bad! Why? Where are the facts and evidence? Crickets.
Worse is “Orange man RACIST!” Not a single solitary example has ever been shown, yet that feeling is ubiquitous and pervasive. Worse, it’s also attributed to those of us who support him because...RACISM or something.
If Steingar or anyone else can show me proof that Trump is racist, I’d love to see it. No such evidence exists.
-
That is why many do not come here. They can not defend their positions with logic, facts, nor evidence. Orange man bad! Why? Where are the facts and evidence? Crickets.
If by "here" you mean PilotSpin, then I take issue with that logic. While I agree that many liberal positions are very hard to defend, especially on government run anything (the creep towards socialism), I think that if you start out by saying that liberal positions can't be defended, then there's no reason to even discuss it with you. After all, no matter what is said, nothing will be acceptable.
The reason we don't have many liberals here isn't because they can't defend their positions, it's because of how they're usually treated by a select few. The treatment part aside, why would they want to try and discuss their viewpoints when they won't be accepted by anyone to begin with? That seems to limit the ability to debate, I would think.
-
If by "here" you mean PilotSpin, then I take issue with that logic. While I agree that many liberal positions are very hard to defend, especially on government run anything (the creep towards socialism), I think that if you start out by saying that liberal positions can't be defended, then there's no reason to even discuss it with you. After all, no matter what is said, nothing will be acceptable.
The reason we don't have many liberals here isn't because they can't defend their positions, it's because of how they're usually treated by a select few. The treatment part aside, why would they want to try and discuss their viewpoints when they won't be accepted by anyone to begin with? That seems to limit the ability to debate, I would think.
I think there’s some truth to this. I talk a lot about imbalance being bad in academia. When it gets worse than say 80% one way then the majority tends to shout down and further exclude the minority. This is a huge problem on campuses. Liberals are openly rejecting and banning conservatives. If that’s true then the reverse is true, it’s not good to have a large conservative majority who shout down and pile on anyone trying to express an opposing viewpoint. In this pilot community conservatives predominate maybe at least 80% or more. This tends to drive away liberals so that they become an even smaller minority.
When that happens a place becomes an echo chamber of rigidly held views and nobody learns or grows. I see that to a small extent here but it is happening to a very large and frightening extent by liberals in media and academia. Places like this where conservatives can be the majority may even be caused by so much anti-conservatism elsewhere.
When Michael or other liberals leave their comfort zone and come here to discuss politics, at the very least they are allowing themselves to be exposed to opposing viewpoints. That’s a big credit over those who don’t - those who close their eyes and ears completely are the dangerous ones. Even if their motivation is only to debate and oppose, at least they are giving an ear to the other side. That’s all you can ask of a person, to listen to the other side and maybe think on it. Maybe nobody is going to change their viewpoint, but if they don’t at least give a listen, they definitely never will.
-
The very first election after Trump became President, more women than ever were elected to Congress. If he truly is trying to suppress women and put them back in the kitchen, he is an utter failure.
-
“To a small extent” is true ... but most of us interact with thoughtful questions and comments. Sometimes we even agree with liberals. Some liberals, like asechrest, interact thoughtfully.
If you’re truly honest with yourself, you can see that most liberal policies are awful. Indefensibly awful, even. So are some conservative policies, which we roundly criticize! We tear politicians of all stripes to shreds!
But with Steingar, for example, when questioned, it’s always back to Trump Trump Trump, grade school style insults, and vanishing. I’m still waiting for answers to thoughtful questions posed to him recently and in the past. If he would answer them thoughtfully, we would understand liberals better.
I would love to understand liberals better. Unfortunately, for the most part they seem unable or unwilling to try and enlighten me in reasoned discussion here or anywhere else.
Insult hurlers are a part of life. They suck, but I ignore them so the gist of the discussion can carry on.
Pilotspin exists because liberals at POA couldn’t stand the heat of actual discourse.
Change my mind.
I’d especially like to hear (I asked him weeks ago) why Steingar says he “hated himself” for giving students the poor grade they themselves earned. If he would answer that, I might understand liberals better. I sometimes feel there’s a conservative inside Steingar struggling to get out. Otherwise, why would he venture here, where discussion can happen?
-
Pilotspin exists because liberals at POA couldn’t stand the heat of actual discourse.
/\ /\ /\ /\
This.
-
“To a small extent” is true ... but most of us interact with thoughtful questions and comments. Sometimes we even agree with liberals. Some liberals, like asechrest, interact thoughtfully.
If you’re truly honest with yourself, you can see that most liberal policies are awful. Indefensibly awful, even. So are some conservative policies, which we roundly criticize! We tear politicians of all stripes to shreds!
But with Steingar, for example, when questioned, it’s always back to Trump Trump Trump, grade school style insults, and vanishing. I’m still waiting for answers to thoughtful questions posed to him recently and in the past. If he would answer them thoughtfully, we would understand liberals better.
I would love to understand liberals better. Unfortunately, for the most part they seem unable or unwilling to try and enlighten me in reasoned discussion here or anywhere else.
Insult hurlers are a part of life. They suck, but I ignore them so the gist of the discussion can carry on.
Pilotspin exists because liberals at POA couldn’t stand the heat of actual discourse.
Change my mind.
I’d especially like to hear (I asked him weeks ago) why Steingar says he “hated himself” for giving students the poor grade they themselves earned. If he would answer that, I might understand liberals better. I sometimes feel there’s a conservative inside Steingar struggling to get out. Otherwise, why would he venture here, where discussion can happen?
Spot on Becky. This is how I view this. The difference between asechrest and Steingar and their willingness to listen to others and engage in real debate are like the difference between night and day.
-
Spot on Becky. This is how I view this. The difference between asechrest and Steingar and their willingness to listen to others and engage in real debate are like the difference between night and day.
People change (if at all) in different ways. Some come along slowly and gradually. Others remain fixed until one day they have a Damascus Road experience. Sometimes it takes a long time of listening before anything changes.
Besides, this is issue by issue - Steingar will never say "I've decided to be conservative!" and I will never say "I've decided to be liberal!" but we can all evolve our positions on specific issues. That's how everyone should be anyway, otherwise we're just following the herd.
-
I have thought about converting to liberalism a couple of times because of their feel good positions. But when I try to defend those positions I feel stupid.
-
People change (if at all) in different ways. Some come along slowly and gradually. Others remain fixed until one day they have a Damascus Road experience. Sometimes it takes a long time of listening before anything changes.
Besides, this is issue by issue - Steingar will never say "I've decided to be conservative!" and I will never say "I've decided to be liberal!" but we can all evolve our positions on specific issues. That's how everyone should be anyway, otherwise we're just following the herd.
These are good comments. I don't want any credit for being willing to move rightward in my positions, because there is nothing objectively good about moving to the right. What is good is to always, always be open to hearing, processing, and evaluating positions that do no agree with your own. It is, in fact, the only way to understand your own position in the context of an ever-evolving world, and even an ever-evolving self.
People tend to harp on the tendency of young folks to be liberal and then change positions as they age. But isn't that actually a completely natural progression? You begin to have your own political opinions in the early teenage years. These are the years when you're almost wholly dependent on others. And, frankly, you're pissed about it. No money of your own. You're filled with hormones and emotion. You have great opinions about the world. And yet you haven't the life experience to understand how your solutions to the world's problems will affect all involved.
And so we get a proposal like the Green New Deal. Everyone, including those who are "unwilling to work", should get a living wage. And all should have free healthcare. Etc. And maybe that's true. Maybe they "should" get these things, so they don't die a horrible death. But they cant' get these things. And sometimes, the only way to understand why, is to listen, consider, and sometimes live the reasons.
-
I have thought about converting to liberalism a couple of times because of their feel good positions. But when I try to defend those positions I feel stupid.
When I switch to a “liberal” position, I can defend it. I put liberal in quotes because it’s not really about liberal or conservative, it’s about being logical and realistic.
Example: I have switched on death penalty. I used to be all for it (the “conservative” position.) Now I am against it - BUT! - specifically against the government carrying it out. (I favor it being carried out by would-be victims just before the crime, but that’s really a 2nd amendment self defense position.)
But I have become against government death penalty. The first reason is I have learned how widespread prosecutorial misconduct is leading to innocent people being convicted. The second is even when imposed it is too long before being carried out, where the prisoner gets to live in comfort away from gen pop on death row. The third is the government was maneuvered into using a lethal injection concoction which is disgraceful and connected to a corrupt profit motive, when a humane lethal injection of simple opiates would work much better and cheaper. The more I dug into it the less I trusted the government’s handling of it. Another reason is I used to like the death penalty out of pure sadistic revenge and I now believe many capital punishment criminals are mentally ill and I have lost the revenge emotion.
My position could change again if my understanding of reality changes again.
-
Example: I have switched on death penalty. I used to be all for it (the “conservative” position.) Now I am against it - BUT! - specifically against the government carrying it out. (I favor it being carried out by would-be victims just before the crime, but that’s really a 2nd amendment self defense position.)
But I have become against government death penalty. The first reason is I have learned how widespread prosecutorial misconduct is leading to innocent people being convicted.
And that's why I shifted my stand on capital punishment as well. I just don't trust the government to get it right. I've seen many death penalty cases overturned on new evidence. Here we're trusting the government to get everything right as it's a very permanent form of punishment.
On the other hand, there are some people who are just pure evil. Doing away with them is the right thing to do. But to reconcile this with making sure they have the right person? I don't know.
-
You can also be for something and against it at the same time, like abortion.
Women are going to get abortions, so they should have a clean, safe place to get them. That’s pragmatic, and deals with weaknesses in human nature, and prevents horrible exploitation by nefarious practitioners.
But I don’t think people should kill their fetuses or infants; I’m against that except in extreme medical cases, and would never vote for a politician who pushes for it as a “woman’s right.”
The life within you is not you. Its DNA is completely unique.
-
These are good comments. I don't want any credit for being willing to move rightward in my positions, because there is nothing objectively good about moving to the right. What is good is to always, always be open to hearing, processing, and evaluating positions that do no agree with your own. It is, in fact, the only way to understand your own position in the context of an ever-evolving world, and even an ever-evolving self.
People tend to harp on the tendency of young folks to be liberal and then change positions as they age. But isn't that actually a completely natural progression? You begin to have your own political opinions in the early teenage years. These are the years when you're almost wholly dependent on others. And, frankly, you're pissed about it. No money of your own. You're filled with hormones and emotion. You have great opinions about the world. And yet you haven't the life experience to understand how your solutions to the world's problems will affect all involved.
And so we get a proposal like the Green New Deal. Everyone, including those who are "unwilling to work", should get a living wage. And all should have free healthcare. Etc. And maybe that's true. Maybe they "should" get these things, so they don't die a horrible death. But they cant' get these things. And sometimes, the only way to understand why, is to listen, consider, and sometimes live the reasons.
We do evolve. We evolve especially quickly when the ephemeral idea of “free” becomes a hard chunk of cash that we earned.
I agree that openness to all sides is important. I’ll say here that it is rare to find a liberal who is.
-
You either value life or you do not. If you only value life that you approve of, stop and think what they really means.
-
it’s not good to have a large conservative majority who shout down and pile on anyone trying to express an opposing viewpoint. In this pilot community conservatives predominate maybe at least 80% or more. This tends to drive away liberals so that they become an even smaller minority.
When that happens a place becomes an echo chamber of rigidly held views and nobody learns or grows. I see that to a small extent here ...
More than you'd think. Take a look at who posts and who occasionally drops by. I would say that anyone who scores less than 75 on the 100 point left->right scale isn't a regular here. This place is an echo chamber where a dissenting voice is not desired.
Crazy work hours aren't the only reason I've been absent from posting here.
-
You can also be for something and against it at the same time, like abortion.
Well put. Most issues are complex. There is a certain case I would even say it would be morally wrong not to abort. That is where the fetus is suffering already within the womb from something that cannot be fixed and that they will die from shortly after birth anyway. We know they have pain receptors that work pretty early on. They can be in pain while still in the womb and if the pain is severe, not treatable, and the condition fatal anyway, I don’t see how it is anything but cruel to continue the pregnancy. But such situations are rare, not at all the normal reasons people seek abortions.
Women are going to get abortions, so they should have a clean, safe place to get them. That’s pragmatic, and deals with weaknesses in human nature, and prevents horrible exploitation by nefarious practitioners.
But I don’t think people should kill their fetuses or infants; I’m against that except in extreme medical cases, and would never vote for a politician who pushes for it as a “woman’s right.”
The life within you is not you. Its DNA is completely unique.
That’s pretty much my stand. In practice I guess that means I would repeal RvW and leave it up to the states. I wouldn’t support a nationwide ban on abortion any more than I support RvW, because I don’t believe it’s the federal government’s place either way.
-
Your tax money at work. How these absurd things get this far is beyond me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kXVREqhp0zA#
In other news, I guess the country is doing well when even national leaders and news media are talking about cow farts.
-
The entire Man Made Climate Change (previously man mad global warming) is the biggest SCAM since the spread of Communism. How intelligent people can believe this, and also believe that massive taxation, energy surcharges, massive income, and wealth redistribution will "fix" anything is beyond me. It is a hoax, and a scam. I guess P.T. Barnum was right! Al Gore. The new P.T. Barnum!
-
Does it get any better than this?
https://therightscoop.com/bwahaha-green-new-deal-co-author-gets-heavily-mocked-after-he-freaks-out-at-mcconnell-for-allowing-floor-vote/
Every one of those tweet responses by conservatives is troll comedy gold.
-
The entire Man Made Climate Change (previously man mad global warming) is the biggest SCAM since the spread of Communism. How intelligent people can believe this, and also believe that massive taxation, energy surcharges, massive income, and wealth redistribution will "fix" anything is beyond me. It is a hoax, and a scam. I guess P.T. Barnum was right! Al Gore. The new P.T. Barnum!
I think that is going too far. The greenhouse effect is not a scam, and much (most) of the science behind mmgw is solid. The problem is that the science has been co-opted by activists with ulterior motives, and the public is being sold on the idea that we can fix it by replacing fossil fuels with renewables, both that we have the technology to do this and that it can be done without possibly unacceptable side effects. There are many things we still don't know. We don't know what level of GHG emissions will keep gw below 1.5 C or any other random figure you care to mention. We don't know how much warming will eventually result from the CO2 we've already put into the atmosphere, and we don't know how much there will be if we continue with business as usual, nor how fast it will occur. We have some idea of some of the other effects besides warming (changes in precipitation patterns, etc.) but we can't confidently predict what will happen to local and regional climates. Sea level rise is caused by many different factors, is highly variable in different locations, and can't be predicted quantitatively with confidence either.
Global warming, and climate change, is a wicked problem (as Curry calls it) with lots of unknown unknowns, and "fixing" it won't be possible without progress in both technology and our understanding of the problem. The fixes are likely to involve trade-offs that some people will find intolerable. Climate activism is the real scam, in that it overstates our confidence in how severe the problem is, and downplays the negative consequences of the fixes it proposes.
-
How do you measure something were there is a constantly changing BASELINE, that has always changed, changed naturally, and often in an extreme fashion?
-
Obviously you can't if you have no handle on the changes in that baseline. But it's not true that we have NO handle on the changes. There are cycles, especially short term (e.g. ENSO) that we do understand. The longer timescale variations (multi-decadal and centennial) we aren't quite on top of yet. There has been some interesting work recently on millennial and multi-millennial scale variability - see the postings by Javier on Judith Curry's blog. (AFAIK this is not peer-reviewed so it's hard to judge its quality - but it's interesting still.) But it's true that we have a long way to go still before we can say that we know what the climate WOULD HAVE done had we not started burning dinosaurs.
So yes, I agree that there is a large uncertainty in how much of the recent warming is due to us. That doesn't mean that it is all a hoax. It just means that we have much more to learn about the climate system. I think we know enough to be concerned - just not enough to be sounding the alarm of imminent catastrophe.
-
Obviously you can't if you have no handle on the changes in that baseline. But it's not true that we have NO handle on the changes. There are cycles, especially short term (e.g. ENSO) that we do understand. The longer timescale variations (multi-decadal and centennial) we aren't quite on top of yet. There has been some interesting work recently on millennial and multi-millennial scale variability - see the postings by Javier on Judith Curry's blog. (AFAIK this is not peer-reviewed so it's hard to judge its quality - but it's interesting still.) But it's true that we have a long way to go still before we can say that we know what the climate WOULD HAVE done had we not started burning dinosaurs.
So yes, I agree that there is a large uncertainty in how much of the recent warming is due to us. That doesn't mean that it is all a hoax. It just means that we have much more to learn about the climate system. I think we know enough to be concerned - just not enough to be sounding the alarm of imminent catastrophe.
So... All the geniuses propelling the MMGW scam are constantly babbling the communist line. 'The only thing that can save the planet is higher taxes on anyone who earns a living.' That's their strategy.
Yet not a single one of these brainiacs can identify what the exact proper temperature should be. Se hear all about how we're warming up, even when we're cooling down. We hea all about how it's MMGW when it rains and MMGW when there is a period of little rain. Whenever there's a hurricane, it's proof of MMGW. When we went ten years without any, it was MMGW, too.
The Entire Movement is SCAM by communists who claim to be democrats and their willing liars in academia (of course most of them are communists too).
There has never been a single prediction come anywhere near true, and there never will, because the losers who claim to have the settled science are lying out their asses to get money and peer attention.
-
The greenhouse effect is not a scam, and much (most) of the science behind mmgw is solid.
The trouble as I see it is that the valid science being done does not support the conclusions being made.
Do greenhouse gasses exist and are we producing them? Yes. Do scientists understand the uncertainty of it? No. Actual conditions have consistently fallen well below the predictions and many times well below the “best case” predictions. Unsurprisingly, every hockey stick prediction graph has been wrong.
Does the science support the hysteria going on in leftist circles? Absolutely not.
What conclusions can the science reach right now? Climate changes and mankind is influencing that change. However, nature’s ability to change climate far exceeds man’s ability. We need to continue to learn and not make radical changes based on hunches.
That is it. The maturity of the science is less than a generation old. It is to be expected that they do not understand it all. Meanwhile, leftists continue to hurt the credibility of the science with wild predictions.
-
The trouble as I see it is that the valid science being done does not support the conclusions being made.
Do greenhouse gasses exist and are we producing them? Yes. Do scientists understand the uncertainty of it? No. Actual conditions have consistently fallen well below the predictions and many times well below the “best case” predictions. Unsurprisingly, every hockey stick prediction graph has been wrong.
Does the science support the hysteria going on in leftist circles? Absolutely not.
What conclusions can the science reach right now? Climate changes and mankind is influencing that change. However, nature’s ability to change climate far exceeds man’s ability. We need to continue to learn and not make radical changes based on hunches.
That is it. The maturity of the science is less than a generation old. It is to be expected that they do not understand it all. Meanwhile, leftists continue to hurt the credibility of the science with wild predictions.
^^^This. The problem is: “doing something about it” has consequences- known consequences- devastating economic consequences. All for a hypothetical and unproven future benefit.
-
^^^This. The problem is: “doing something about it” has consequences- known consequences- devastating economic consequences. All for a hypothetical and unproven future benefit.
The proven future benefit is a power grab and of course wealth transfer, which is the whole point behind this.
These people behind these initiatives could give a shit less about the environment.
Power and money.
-
The proven future benefit is a power grab and of course wealth transfer, which is the whole point behind this.
These people behind these initiatives could give a shit less about the environment.
Power and money.
I can never get a decent answer to these questions.
1. What is government going to do with the money from all the new taxes, surcharges, and fees on fossil fuels that will help man made climate change?
2. As the climate changes naturally, and constantly, how do you measure the effect of Man's measures to reduce CO2, "carbon" etc. on the climate?
3. How do you address the devastating economic effects of making energy, and all products, and services much more expensive for the poor, and middle income earner?
-
Just to play Devils Advocate, I will answer these things as I think a liberal would:
I can never get a decent answer to these questions.
1. What is government going to do with the money from all the new taxes, surcharges, and fees on fossil fuels that will help man made climate change?
The main point is that the fees will curb fossil fuel use. The extra revenue can be used to "help the children and the poor".
2. As the climate changes naturally, and constantly, how do you measure the effect of Man's measures to reduce CO2, "carbon" etc. on the climate?
All the scientists say so! And they are all peer reviewed, so they must be right because they are all smarter than we are because they are scientists and they all agree.
3. How do you address the devastating economic effects of making energy, and all products, and services much more expensive for the poor, and middle income earner?
This is what the will use the money from your first question for (all those fees and taxes on carbon use).
I don't agree, but that is how I think liberals will respond.
-
So essentially their strategy is to reduce demand on fossil fuels by making them overly expensive, and unaffordable to purchase. Obama said this in an interview when gasoline prices went over $4/gallon several years ago. He was OK with the higher cost to working people as it would reduce demand.
How does the Left reconcile the HUGE hardship that higher energy costs to run their car, home, heating, A/C, and also that ALL products and services will be much higher in cost. The people that will get hurt the most are the working poor, middle income earner who live paycheck to paycheck.
-
So essentially their strategy is to reduce demand on fossil fuels by making them overly expensive, and unaffordable to purchase. Obama said this in an interview when gasoline prices went over $4/gallon several years ago. He was OK with the higher cost to working people as it would reduce demand.
How does the Left reconcile the HUGE hardship that higher energy costs to run their car, home, heating, A/C, and also that ALL products and services will be much higher in cost. The people that will get hurt the most are the working poor, middle income earner who live paycheck to paycheck.
TRUTH. And when confronted with the reality they will use it as an excuse to implement minimum guaranteed income or other extreme wealth redistribution which will further choke the economy.
-
So essentially their strategy is to reduce demand on fossil fuels by making them overly expensive, and unaffordable to purchase. Obama said this in an interview when gasoline prices went over $4/gallon several years ago. He was OK with the higher cost to working people as it would reduce demand.
Except it doesn't. "Gasoline prices have little effect on demand for car travel."
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=19191
"Gasoline is a relatively inelastic product, meaning changes in prices have little influence on demand. "
So essentially it's an unlimited source of tax revenue. Raise the taxes on gas and people still pay it. The taxes are hidden so it's hard to see the price of the GAS. What's posted is gas + taxes. So they go ahead and raise the taxes "for the children" and demand stays the same. Yay! Free money!
-
Except it doesn't. "Gasoline prices have little effect on demand for car travel."
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=19191
"Gasoline is a relatively inelastic product, meaning changes in prices have little influence on demand. "
So essentially it's an unlimited source of tax revenue. Raise the taxes on gas and people still pay it. The taxes are hidden so it's hard to see the price of the GAS. What's posted is gas + taxes. So they go ahead and raise the taxes "for the children" and demand stays the same. Yay! Free money!
This is because we are dependent on cars now for survival. Very few people live within walking distance to their jobs. Walmart, malls, and large grocery chains killed the era when you lived in the village and walked to the bake shop, the butcher and the produce stand. Kids no longer walk to the neighborhood school. Desegregation forces travel to distant schools by carpool or bus. Gasoline is inelastic because it has become a necessity not a luxury. So high tax on gasoline is a cruel thing to do to those who aren’t rich.
-
Except it doesn't. "Gasoline prices have little effect on demand for car travel."
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=19191
"Gasoline is a relatively inelastic product, meaning changes in prices have little influence on demand. "
So essentially it's an unlimited source of tax revenue. Raise the taxes on gas and people still pay it. The taxes are hidden so it's hard to see the price of the GAS. What's posted is gas + taxes. So they go ahead and raise the taxes "for the children" and demand stays the same. Yay! Free money!
I understand that. People NEED to use gasoline, electricity generated by fossil fuel, and other fossil fuel based energy. We need to purchase products moved by energy, and that use energy in production and use oil in the components of production, like PLASTICS. There is no real choice to avoid the purchase. That is why it is so damaging to artificially raise the cost of this commodity outside of market forces.
This is where Obama, and the Greenies are wrong. We will use fossil fuels until there is something better and cheaper. The market must dictate that, not government.
-
^^^This. The problem is: “doing something about it” has consequences- known consequences- devastating economic consequences. All for a hypothetical and unproven future benefit.
Even if the science is “science”, the ”cure” is pure religion. Not politics, religion. We are asked - TOLD - that surrendering our liberty and our treasure to the government is mandatory in order to cure the planet, and anything less is effectively murder. And we are being told this not by scientists, but by politicians who have no more knowledge of this topic than my English Labrador.
So pardon me if I say “Fuck you” when you (basically the left, not you Rush) call me a science denier. I don’t deny science, I reject what this MMCC religion has done to science.
-
Even if the science is “science”, the ”cure” is pure religion. Not politics, religion. We are asked - TOLD - that surrendering our liberty and our treasure to the government is mandatory in order to cure the planet, and anything less is effectively murder. And we are being told this not by scientists, but by politicians who have no more knowledge of this topic than my English Labrador.
So pardon me if I say “Fuck you” when you (basically the left, not you Rush) call me a science denier. I don’t deny science, I reject what this MMCC religion has done to science.
Very well said, and I knew you weren't saying "fuck you" to me. ;D
-
I can never get a decent answer to these questions.
1. What is government going to do with the money from all the new taxes, surcharges, and fees on fossil fuels that will help man made climate change?
2. As the climate changes naturally, and constantly, how do you measure the effect of Man's measures to reduce CO2, "carbon" etc. on the climate?
3. How do you address the devastating economic effects of making energy, and all products, and services much more expensive for the poor, and middle income earner?
To answer your first question, I think Obama’s $800 billion “stimulus” created a model for what would happen to money extracted for “climate change.”
Of the $800 billion:
-$200b on tax credits they no one saw
-$89b to education programs
-$88b to medicare and Medicaid shortfalls
-$61b to unemployment insurance
-$33 billion - 4% - went to “shovel ready” transportation projects.
4% went where we were told it would be going. 4%. The reset was payback to unions and other constituencies.
-
Even if the science is “science”, the ”cure” is pure religion. Not politics, religion. We are asked - TOLD - that surrendering our liberty and our treasure to the government is mandatory in order to cure the planet, and anything less is effectively murder. And we are being told this not by scientists, but by politicians who have no more knowledge of this topic than my English Labrador.
So pardon me if I say “Fuck you” when you (basically the left, not you Rush) call me a science denier. I don’t deny science, I reject what this MMCC religion has done to science.
Steingar, yes YOU Michael, need to read that.^^^^^^^^^^
-
Steingar, yes YOU Michael, need to read that.^^^^^^^^^^
I wish he would watch this video:
-
Great vid Rush. Thanks. Always liked Stossel.
-
Words fail. I thought this thing died a quick, humiliating death. Please tell me it’s not going to happen.
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/tell-congress-support-sen-markey-rep-ocasio-cortezs-resolution-for-a-green-new-deal?source=feinstein
The latest climate report from the UN says we have only 12 years to transform our economy to preserve the stable climate human civilization has depended on for millennia.
The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society toward 100% clean and renewable energy, guarantee a good job to all members of our society ready to be part of this transformation, and create economic prosperity for all.
-
Words fail. I thought this thing died a quick, humiliating death. Please tell me it’s not going to happen.
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/tell-congress-support-sen-markey-rep-ocasio-cortezs-resolution-for-a-green-new-deal?source=feinstein
It's a zombie issue. It will never see the light of day in the Senate.
Who knows what happens in 2020. Democrats are as fired up as they have ever been. I expect they will have a very strong turnout, so there's a chance of them capturing the WH and both houses of Congress. In that case, lawyer up and keep your powder handy. The way to survive them will be to mount good legal challenges to everything they do.
-
The communists (democrats for the uneducated) are fired up about only one thing.
They get a bone thinking about the money and power to be captured thru the scam MMGW religion.
They are no different than the scam tv preachers who babble about giving your money to the Lord, but direct your to send it to them instead.
-
It's a zombie issue. It will never see the light of day in the Senate.
Who knows what happens in 2020. Democrats are as fired up as they have ever been. I expect they will have a very strong turnout, so there's a chance of them capturing the WH and both houses of Congress. In that case, lawyer up and keep your powder handy. The way to survive them will be to mount good legal challenges to everything they do.
Most conservatives I know are pretty fired up about this New Green Disaster/deal pending. 2020 will be verrrrry interesting.
AOC has been a God send to the GOP. If the GOP were competent at anything, I would suspect them of creating her.
-
Most conservatives I know are pretty fired up about this New Green Disaster/deal pending. 2020 will be verrrrry interesting.
AOC has been a God send to the GOP. If the GOP were competent at anything, I would suspect them of creating her.
Sandy is just another failed creation of the progressives. The progressives are all about image. They firmly believe they can create the image and then control the image through handlers to push forward their agenda.
They tried with BHO. An empty suit that could romance a TelePrompter. BHO was carefully crafted, his background carefully scrubbed and an adoring media that would run interference for him. But BHO failed, mainly due to the fact he was a rank amateur, but more importantly he got caught up in the celibrity of being president.
Sandy is a young, hip millennial and very attractive. She was created to galvanize the millennial base and get them to the polls. But the minute she opens her mouth it starts to fall apart. Her handlers can't keep her programmed. In reality she is doing more harm to the progressives than helping.
She will either be primaried out in 2020, or as I predict she will be lured away to either Hollywood or media with a 7 figure income.
-
Sandy is a young, hip millennial and very attractive.
Ew.
-
Ew.
Different strokes my friend.
-
Ew.
Yea, I agree with you there. I tend to think that women who sport Charles Manson eyes are on the psycho side of things.
-
Yea, I agree with you there. I tend to think that women who sport Charles Manson eyes are on the psycho side of things.
That aside. I was raised to be polite.
-
I think she looks ok a good part of the time, depending on how she is photographed. Others she looks a bit flakey (nuts) and has vampire teeth. There are some pictures were she is very attractive, and she does have a nice rack, so gets points for that. She is certainly better looking that Pelosi, and most other Democrats.
-
I think she looks ok a good part of the time, depending on how she photograph. Others she looks a bit flakey (nuts) and has vampire teeth. There are some pictures were she is very attractive, and she does have a nice rack, so gets points for that. She is certainly better looking that Pelosi, and most other Democrats.
Compared to Barry’s pet Wookie, she’s a knock out.
-
To me she is pretty but when she opens her mouth turns ugly as hell. MUCH prefer women whose IQ is above her chest measurement.
-
I can't look at her without feeling sick to my stomach.
-
Compared to Barry’s pet Wookie, she’s a knock out.
That’s because barry’s pet Wookiee is a guy
-
https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1099383887770206210
-
https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1099383887770206210
Fuckin A, Woods. I love that guy. He tells it like it is, always.
-
https://nypost.com/2019/02/23/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-nowhere-to-be-seen-near-bronx-home/
-
https://nypost.com/2019/02/23/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-nowhere-to-be-seen-near-bronx-home/
I haven’t even finished my coffee and you’ve ruined my day.
-
I haven’t even finished my coffee and you’ve ruined my day.
She literally Instagrammed from her new apartment today? "Literally?"
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1099854063196352512
-
The entertainment value of Sandy is the gift that just keeps giving.
-
She literally Instagrammed from her new apartment today? "Literally?"
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1099854063196352512
Literally!
-
We have a high-schooler in congress.
-
We have a high-schooler in congress.
What's even more troubling is that people voted for her. People voted this into office based upon party affiliation only.
-
We have a high-schooler in congress.
Dude, that’s so wack.
Can you imagine how her first bill will read? Only high schoolers will be able to understand it. Write it in cursive and even the Navajo Code Talkers wouldn’t be able to decipher it.
-
Dude, that’s so wack.
Can you imagine how her first bill will read? Only high schoolers will be able to understand it. Write it in cursive and even the Navajo Code Talkers wouldn’t be able to decipher it.
Like literally!
-
We have a high-schooler in congress.
Speakingof which - Oregon may lower their voting age to 16:
https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-voting-age-teenagers-lower-16/ (https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-voting-age-teenagers-lower-16/)
-
Speakingof which - Oregon may lower their voting age to 16:
https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-voting-age-teenagers-lower-16/ (https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-voting-age-teenagers-lower-16/)
What could possibly go wrong there?
-
What could possibly go wrong there?
Took the words right out of my mouth.
They can’t grant consent.
They can’t drink.
They can’t join the military.
They can’t go into bars.
They can’t rent a car for another 9 years.
But they are mature enough to vote to shape the government.
The stupidity of the left is incomprehensible.
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-says-there-is-a-legitimate-question-that-needs-to-be-asked-is-it-okay-to-still-have-children.amp
I wonder if she is so stupid that she has to remember to breath.
-
AOC: "Peoples must ask, like, is s it still ok to have children? Literally?"
-
Took the words right out of my mouth.
They can’t grant consent.
They can’t drink.
They can’t join the military.
They can’t go into bars.
They can’t rent a car for another 9 years.
But they are mature enough to vote to shape the government.
The stupidity of the left is incomprehensible.
...but they CAN vote Democrat.
-
...but they CAN vote Democrat.
So can (and will) 16 yr olds. (generally).
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1101916128928915456
-
Becky beat me to it, but...
(https://a57.foxnews.com/hp.foxnews.com/images/2019/03/1024/427/7a9e3f3f74da3ada62db2596f9f64deb.jpg)
It gave me a bit of a chuckle to see that on the Fox page this morning.
-
Becky beat me to it, but...
It gave me a bit of a chuckle to see that on the Fox page this morning.
It certainly made my day too. :)
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1101916128928915456
Yeah, but I see her (handlers) in game. Preach the zero fossils zero cars/trucks/planes, etc. THEN, they will come back and argue for the minimums of these things. There is no doubt and end game here...
-
Yeah, but I see her (handlers) in game. Preach the zero fossils zero cars/trucks/planes, etc. THEN, they will come back and argue for the minimums of these things. There is no doubt and end game here...
This is exactly what worries me. Ironically they're using Trump tactics straight out of the book. Start from an extreme position and negotiate your way to get what you really want.
-
This is exactly what worries me. Ironically they're using Trump tactics straight out of the book. Start from an extreme position and negotiate your way to get what you really want.
The difference is; they have shown no inclination to negotiate.
-
The difference is; they have shown no inclination to negotiate.
Then let’s pray there aren’t enough completely stupid people in this country to allow that insanity to come about.
-
Then let’s pray there aren’t enough completely stupid people in this country to allow that insanity to come about.
Maybe for now, but I have little hope for the future. Lots of new residents granted voting rights, voting age lowered to 16, massive urbanization and control, snowflake generation. All signs that we're headed in a very bad direction and not enough sane people around to stop it.
-
This is exactly what worries me. Ironically they're using Trump tactics straight out of the book. Start from an extreme position and negotiate your way to get what you really want.
Exactly. She exposed herself when she
Got on her soapbox exclaiming “...YOU do it. But you’re not. Until you do it, I’M THE BOSS.”
As if “IT” is something that must be done when it does not need to be “done.”
-
The importance of an end game cannot be overstated!
-
Whomever is pulling her strings wants the U.S. economy to tank maybe to devalue the dollar for currency manipulation. Who knows.
-
Whomever is pulling her strings wants the U.S. economy to tank maybe to devalue the dollar for currency manipulation. Who knows.
Soros.
-
Whomever is pulling her strings wants the U.S. economy to tank maybe to devalue the dollar for currency manipulation. Who knows.
There are two distinct ways to defeat Trump in 2020:
1) Seperate him from his base, or
2) Have the economy go into the toilet.
We are watching both of those items in play.
-
There are two ways to assure a Trump victory in 2020:
1. Dems nominate Hillary.
2. Dems keep pushing millennial Social Democrats and radical Muslims.
-
There are two ways to assure a Trump victory in 2020:
1. Dems nominate Hillary.
2. Dems keep pushing millennial Social Democrats and radical Muslims.
Hillary has ruled out running in 2020. I hope you are right about 2... unfortunately socialism (which is what "social democrats" are really pushing) appears to be gaining in popularity.
-
Hillary has ruled out running in 2020. I hope you are right about 2... unfortunately socialism (which is what "social democrats" are really pushing) appears to be gaining in popularity.
No she hasn't.
-
Conversely, the best way for Dems to win...nominate someone near the middle. It isn’t like die hard Democrats are going to vote for trump, is it? They are going to be out in force to vote against him. But if Dems put a moderate up, then they probably also draw the middle, which gives them a huge advantage
No recommendations there, just strategy.
-
No she hasn't.
Okay... she ANNOUNCED that she had ruled it out. Of course, anyone can change their mind... hard to predict.
But it would be a disaster for the Dems if they nominated her... I think she is smart enough to realize that, and they are too.
-
Conversely, the best way for Dems to win...nominate someone near the middle. It isn’t like die hard Democrats are going to vote for trump, is it? They are going to be out in force to vote against him. But if Dems put a moderate up, then they probably also draw the middle, which gives them a huge advantage
And the more conservative-leaning Dems as well. Yes, I agree. The question is, would there be enough support within the party for a more centrist nominee? I am beginning to doubt that.
-
I know how the Dems can absolutely, hands down, guaranteed win the 2020, and without any vote stealing or cheating. But I'm not going to post it for fear they'll read it and take the idea.
-
I know how the Dems can absolutely, hands down, guaranteed win the 2020, and without any vote stealing or cheating. But I'm not going to post it for fear they'll read it and take the idea.
Well, I"ll post my thought. They can win if they run a good, non-radical candidate that doesn't piss off half the country or make a fool of them self every time they open their mouth. Extra points if she's cute, but not dumb.
-
I know how the Dems can absolutely, hands down, guaranteed win the 2020, and without any vote stealing or cheating. But I'm not going to post it for fear they'll read it and take the idea.
You can’t do this to me. Tell! Otherwise I’ll be vaguely fearing some out-of-left-field strategy instead of fearing something specific. 🙂
And while you’re at it, how can the Republicans absolutely hands down win?
-
And while you’re at it, how can the Republicans absolutely hands down win?
They can donate huge sums of money to AOC's and Omar's Pacs and watch them (Dems) self destruct.
-
This is in response to Becky. For some reason when I quoted your post I kept getting an error message when I tried to post the response. Deleting your quote worked. Weird.
Alright. They will win if they run a candidate that has more appeal than Trump or whomever the Republicans run. Winning elections is much more about simple appeal than about specific policies or how much money they spend campaigning. The Republicans can win the same way. Let's hope the Dems run somebody equally nauseating as Hillary was.
-
It just did it again! See pic:
-
The democrat party is now under the control of the progressive communist. There will be no "moderates" allowed.
Winning elections is all about "messaging". If someone has a clear message that resonates with voters, they win. It's really that simple.
Right now the progressive message is "hate, racism, socialism, infanticide, higher taxes". What does that tell you?
-
You can’t do this to me. Tell! Otherwise I’ll be vaguely fearing some out-of-left-field strategy instead of fearing something specific. 🙂
And while you’re at it, how can the Republicans absolutely hands down win?
It worked for me.
-
It worked for me.
Weird. I tried another browser and got the same thing.
-
You can’t do this to me. Tell! Otherwise I’ll be vaguely fearing some out-of-left-field strategy instead of fearing something specific.
And while you’re at it, how can the Republicans absolutely hands down win?
testing hmmmm.... I removed the emoticon and it works.
-
The democrat party is now under the control of the progressive communist. There will be no "moderates" allowed.
Winning elections is all about "messaging". If someone has a clear message that resonates with voters, they win. It's really that simple.
Right now the progressive message is "hate, racism, socialism, infanticide, higher taxes". What does that tell you?
The Democratic Party lost their rudder. They are drifting aimlessly.
The Republicans aren’t much better. Half the boat is rowing, and half the boat is snoozing. They keep going around in circles, but at least they keep moving a little.