I think most dems are clear we are referring to some rich elites as worshipping profits and are greedy. They sure aren't thinking about those rural poor folks are they?
|
I think most dems are clear we are referring to some rich elites as worshipping profits and are greedy. They sure aren't thinking about those rural poor folks are they?
"It is important to understand the Republicans are basically a monolithic block worshiping profits and greed."Quote:
I think most dems are clear we are referring some rich elites as worshipping profits and are greedy.
Hmm.
Politics make strange bedfellows. Both parties are made up of groups with agendas. The dufus has subverted the republican party. Or polluted and corrupted it for his own agenda.
You give Trump too much power, they wanted a candidate who could win, they got it, anything else is the price of doing a deal with the devilQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
As opposed to the absolute moral purity of the democrats??? Please. No one is going to buy that. The whole "Green New Deal" lunacy is proof of that. The democrats have accepted an idea concocted by a very dumb and idealistic young person which would completely bankrupt the country and even then accomplish but very little. If I was Trump, I'd make AOC and her buddies the face of the democratic party. I'd run ads with her face and words on them constantly, and then remind everyone that the democrat candidates for pres have bought into her nonsense.Quote:
The dufus has subverted the republican party. Or polluted and corrupted it for his own agenda.
He had help lots of it and all repubs wanted at least the behind the scenes power elite was to shrink government and run their own agenda which is to do as they please, and that's what they got.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The country will be bankrupt all right but not from AOC or any of those young idealists. I see you adopt the spin of the dufus noise machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The Republican philosophy of endless greed and acquisition is always couched in platitudes designed to hide their true motivations. They were dog whistling and gaslighting long before those terms were in common usage. There have always been exceptions - Eisenhower, McCain, etc.
If you really think that's true then you plainly don't know the first thing about the Green New Deal.Quote:
The country will be bankrupt all right but not from AOC or any of those young idealists. I see you adopt the spin of the dufus noise machine.
Neither do you, since it was just an idea, and not a plan. Of course you vilify it, and her since you see her as a threat to your agenda and disrupts your status quo. The dufus plans to make her the face of the dems to further add to the fear of minorities taking over your country. That seems to be enough to justify the cruel words and actions directed at them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You deny his dog whistles and racism, so you are not tarnished by that brush. Too Late! You laid down with the dog and now you have his fleas!
It has been put before the House as a resolution, so it IS a plan.Quote:
Neither do you, since it was just an idea, and not a plan.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/69199...w-deal-outline
A non binding resolution to be discussed and debated and could take YEARS to formulate. I thought you liked a great economy and plenty of jobs for your grandkids and their kids?
To call such a resolution a mere "idea" is ridiculous. You might as well admit it. It is a plan in every sense of the word. Does it contain every detail? No, but no plan starts off by covering every detail.Quote:
A non binding resolution to be discussed and debated and could take YEARS to formulate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You brought up the Green New Deal and called it a plan.
Then you brought up the non-binding resolution and called it a plan.
Tal called the non-binding resolution a non-binding resolution.
You need to stop confusing yourself. Have some Kool-Aid.
To call the 14 page resolution presented before the house, which was filled with specific goals and many steps to take, simply an "idea" is completely wrong. Tal's initial comment concerned an "idea". You need to learn to read more carefully. He only wanted to run to the non-binding resolution story when it became obvious that it was ridiculous to call that an "idea".Quote:
You brought up the Green New Deal and called it a plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
He called the Green New Deal an idea. YOU called it a plan. Tal referred to the non-binding resolution as just that.
Jeez, talk about reading carefully - you take the cake!!
Where did I say otherwise? Tal's statement was, "Neither do you, since it was just an idea, and not a plan." And my reply was, and remains, that to call a 14 page house resolution an "idea" is ridiculous political speech. A plan is "a specific project or definite purpose". Yep, it's a plan.Quote:
He called the Green New Deal an idea. YOU called it a plan. Tal referred to the non-binding resolution as just that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
His "idea" referred to the Green New Deal, -NOT the resolution. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then YOU referred to the resolution as a PLAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Geezawmighty!!! You really really really need to slow down and read. And stop with the silly who said what!
STAY WITH THE ISSUE WHATEVER IT MAY BE!!!! You have a habit of doing this and it gets us nowhere. A touch here and there is ok, but don't go overboard.
Adding exclamation marks does not prove your point.Quote:
His "idea" referred to the Green New Deal, -NOT the resolution. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then YOU referred to the resolution as a PLAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Geezawmighty!!! You really really really need to slow down and read. And stop with the silly who said what!
STAY WITH THE ISSUE WHATEVER IT MAY BE!!!! You have a habit of doing this and it gets us nowhere. A touch here and there is ok, but don't go overboard.
The resolution identifies itself as the Green New Deal. The resolution is a plan. I was the one who brought it up and Tal tried to excuse it as simply an "idea" to make it, I guess, more politically acceptable. But have it anyway you want. It's a stupid idea/plan that will bankrupt the country.
I give up. You win.
I LIKE exclamation points!!!!!
Evidently so.Quote:
I LIKE exclamation points!!!!!
Call it a plan or call it an idea. I don't care, but you really should read it to see what that non-thinking person is suggesting we do. It would be a nightmare. Just about every democrat running for pres has endorsed it with the possible exception of Biden.
It just dawned on me that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about! You're just mimicking the right wing talking points given to you by the repub noise machine. I know for fact you haven't read the green new deal so have no clue what's in it. It is going to happen in one form or another though and it started decades ago, despite the billions spent to stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The GND started with AOC less than a year ago. You have no idea what you are saying. Some of the basic ideas have, of course, been around longer than that, but the GND pulled them together into one insane package. I linked it. Try reading it.Quote:
It just dawned on me that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about! You're just mimicking the right wing talking points given to you by the repub noise machine. I know for fact you haven't read the green new deal so have no clue what's in it. It is going to happen in one form or another though and it started decades ago, despite the billions spent to stop it.
This will no doubt astonish you, but the repubs don't bother to send me talking points. I'm not a republican so why would they?
There is no Green New Deal. Just some bullet points .Saikat Chakrabarti AOCs former chief of staff admitted that the GND had nothing to do with the environment .“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ief-of-change/
14 pages of bullet points? I don't think so. Read it. It speaks of a series of goals being accomplished within 10 years.Quote:
There is no Green New Deal.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...eal-Resolution
I have some nice fairy tale goals too . Just sprinky some pixi dust and fly type of stuff .Any serious bill that comes out of it is DOA even in a Pelosi Congress.
You are probably right about that, but the danger is that left-wingers will start to pound that message of "We must do something in the next twelve years." It may be that there are enough dumb people around to buy into that.Quote:
Any serious bill that comes out of it is DOA even in a Pelosi Congress.
don't bother doing anything, it is too late and would be too little anyway, that is, if you are a true believer but some of us have weighed the evidence and understand that there was never a moment when we could have done more than standby and watch
Good observation. There is a train of thought that, even if the extreme global warming scenario is true, it would be a lot cheaper to simply adapt rather than try and reverse it. At any rate, the day of carbon fuels are probably limited anyway.Quote:
don't bother doing anything, it is too late and would be too little anyway, that is, if you are a true believer but some of us have weighed the evidence and understand that there was never a moment when we could have done more than standby and watch
Even if we stopped using all carbon fuels today, it would not make any difference. The opposite is true. If you examine the evidence of long term climate you realise that we are on the precipice of an ice age. Carbon fuels may be needed to survive but anyway this has always been a northern hemisphere problem and I wish you luckQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
the retreat of the glaciers from the last ice age began long before the combustible engine .
This is true and must tell us something but noone wants to listen. You can't sell solar cells and windmills if you can't believe in AGW, it is the greatest con of the age, even better than aluminium siding, even in my country there are millions of solar cells on roofs and vast wind farms, and all it has done for us is to make us more prone to major power outages. The world tells us we are among the greatest polluters and yet our skys are clear, the air is crisp and clean, and we have met our targets
You Aussies don't know what your doing. Your black/brown outs aren't caused by solar or wind, that's over capacity. Nothing to do with AGW. Just grid management.
How would over capacity cause a brown out?
The system cannot handle the load without an engineer reroute and adding an additional power source. The grid is made of many sources depending on size. For example, everyone in a sector running AC in the middle of the day, or as in Texas, the Cowboys are playing, and the stadium DEMNDS a lot of energy. The weather is a factor also. It's about demand and meeting that demand. Grid efficiency and managing that demand is the priority.
Increase capacity in one sector usually means decrease for another during times of high demand.
here is NY we are about to depart on a most reckless experiment . WE are about to shut down the most reliable source we have powering the New York City area , Indian Point nuclear plant. We have an abundance of natural gas that the Democrat machine will not allow us to tap into . We cannot pipe in gas because il Duce Cuomo (brother of Fredo) will not allow the construction of pipelines. The next largest source is hydro power generated in the far North West of the State from the Niagara River . That has to be transmitted ;a 400 mile wire travel with all the energy loss along the way. So when we start getting brown outs and black outs it will not be because over capacity . It will be because of insufficient capacity .
That is called mismanagement by socialist state governments who took down the coal fired generation (base load) without any backup. They would not have done this if ratbags had not advocated removal of these assets because of AGWQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yes, but I don't think that is over-capacity. Wouldn't over-capacity mean having more generating capacity than is needed?Quote:
The system cannot handle the load without an engineer reroute and adding an additional power source. The grid is made of many sources depending on size. For example, everyone in a sector running AC in the middle of the day, or as in Texas, the Cowboys are playing, and the stadium DEMNDS a lot of energy. The weather is a factor also. It's about demand and meeting that demand. Grid efficiency and managing that demand is the priority.
Increase capacity in one sector usually means decrease for another during times of high demand.
Darn if you're not right. Been in the Texas heat too much today. *D I described under capacity.
"You Aussies don't know what your doing. Your black/brown outs aren't caused by solar or wind, that's under capacity*. Nothing to do with AGW. Just grid management."
*supply cannot meet demand.
I try to be right once every two or three years. (<:Quote:
Darn if you're not right. Been in the Texas heat too much today. *D I described under capacity.
How's that working for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:12 AM. |