One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Thank you for the fires GOP!
Page: <<prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 next>>
Sep 16, 2020 11:53:58   #
America 1
 
eagleye13 wrote:
sUp!!!!
It is the "reduce CO2" BS that does not hold water.
Political BS.

Is there a way to get Democrats to cut down on their CO2 emissions? (breathing)


Send them all to CA.

| Reply
Sep 16, 2020 13:19:14   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
America 1 wrote:
Send them all to CA.


"Send them all to CA."
Well it does get Democrats elected

But; No problem;
The Pacific sea breeze sends their long winded sighs to New York.

| Reply
Sep 17, 2020 07:52:15   #
Barracuda2020
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Okay. I looked at it. It may be non-political, but it is an industry webpage. Hardly non-biased. I did not see anything about how much of it is being paid for and/or subsidized by taxpayers. As I said in a prior post, when the government was set to end the subsidies on the wind farm near Corpus Christi, the owners said flat out they would declare bankruptcy because the wind farm was too expensive to keep running it without them It was a number of years ago. I have not researched it in 5 years or more, so perhaps technology has improved enough so that it is at least a break even project, but I doubt it.
Okay. I looked at it. It may be non-political, b... (show quote)


Take a look at what other countries are doing who are not enslaved by oil companies, they are progressing into the real future and not riding the back of a dinosaur and living in the past working for the OLD masters of the universe.

| Reply
Sep 17, 2020 08:48:42   #
RandyBrian
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Take a look at what other countries are doing who are not enslaved by oil companies, they are progressing into the real future and not riding the back of a dinosaur and living in the past working for the OLD masters of the universe.


YOU take a look at them. Every one is either directly dependent, to one extent to another, on fossil fuels, or nuclear energy, or indirectly dependent on other countries. Many of them dependent on US for protection or for much of their needs.

| Reply
Sep 17, 2020 10:56:18   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
eagleye13 wrote:
sUp!!!!
It is the "reduce CO2" BS that does not hold water.
Political BS.

Is there a way to get Democrats to cut down on their CO2 emissions? (breathing)


This appears to a common argument among the science-deniers. They think because CO2 is naturally produced it can't possibly be a problem. I'm curious... do you not understand the variable nature of physics or is this just an excuse to deny it for the sake of political BS?

Just because something occurs naturally doesn't mean there can't be too much of it. Did you know people have died from too much oxygen? People die from too much alcohol too. Did you know that alcohol also occurs naturally?

This is what I call a 3rd grade limit. Where people can recognize elements but they aren't sophisticated enough to recognize the varied effects they have at different levels of composition and interaction.

Yes, our lungs expel CO2. But not gigatons of it. Yes, CO2 is a natural part of our atmosphere and it naturally functions as a greenhouse gas which helps retain heat from the sun. But as humans, we depend on conditions maintained by a limited amount of heat retention and with industry pumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, we are pushing the heat retention to levels we probably won't survive.

It's really quite simple which is why the way you folks continue to remain so willfully ignorant just astounds me. Talk about dedication to political BS!

| Reply
Sep 17, 2020 11:54:01   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Uspatriot2 wrote:
Hope this works. It is an article you might like to read

Thanks for sharing. I'm not going to dispute the details in the article but I will point out that the entire premise is misguided.

Everything mentioned in the article applies to a limited percentage of the land, while ALL of the land is affected by climate change. It's a little bit like being surrounded by a thousand enemy tanks and someone comes up with the brilliant solution to destroy two of them.

Also, the article fails to mention that those policies signed by Clinton were specifically designed to limit logging in protected areas and the construction of roads to support that logging. But more roads would not have made any more difference to the fires than minor cracks in the sidewalk would make to a pedestrian.

On the other hand, more logging may have helped a little by virtue of the fact that there would be nothing left to burn so... should we clear cut every remaining forests in the country? Is that really what you think the answer is?

Now for the massive gaping hole in the argument. Logging and "clearing the underbrush" are NOT the same thing. Logging is a profitable operation focused on harvesting living trees for lumber. Clearing the underbrush is an expensive task focused on removing dead growth and there is no profit to be made from doing this.

The "Party of Business" supports logging because it's profitable. They do NOT support the clearing of underbrush because that's an expense without a return. Here's a fact. No Republican in government has ever, EVER proposed a budget for clearing dead wood from the forest! And this really isn't surprising since they fight every government policy that forces industry to spend money on cleaning up their own pollution.

What you have a disinformation campaign where Republican voters are led to believe that logging and clearing underbrush ARE the same thing. This way they can justify the logging AND blame liberals for the fires.

I don't know fire expert Bob Zybach personally, so I can't tell which one it is but he is either contributing to the disinformation intentionally, or his expertise on fires doesn't extend to the slightest understanding of Republican politics. It's hard to imagine anyone in his position being so ignorant of the difference between what Clinton was trying to prevent and what actually caused the fires to burn so intensely these past few years.

| Reply
Sep 17, 2020 12:23:02   #
1ProudAmerican
 
Simple Sam wrote:
In your view 4 feet of dead wood (which if cleared would reduce fires), protesters setting fires, and California draining the water from the land has absolutely nothing to do with the California/Oregon fires?


...and don't forget the "gender reveal parties" gone wrong....LOL

| Reply
Sep 17, 2020 13:14:31   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Take a look at what other countries are doing who are not enslaved by oil companies, they are progressing into the real future and not riding the back of a dinosaur and living in the past working for the OLD masters of the universe.


The countries that are progressing into the the real future are for the most part real nations. We are not a real nation and I think that's a key difference.

I suppose I'll need to explain this...

Let's just take some samples... France, Germany and... let's say, Norway. In France, they speak French. In Germany they speak German, in Norway they speak Norwegian. True nations develop over thousands of years and almost always have their own language. It's one thing that makes them unique as a nation. On the other hand, Americans speak English, Colombians speak Spanish, Brazilians speak Portuguese. These are not true nations of people... These countries are essentially business enterprises initiated much later in history during the Imperial Age as colonies (property of other nations). Those other nations are easily identified by the language spoken... the American colonies were owned by England, the true nation that created the English language. Colombia was owned by Spain, Brazil was owned by Portugal, etc...

But the language of other nations isn't the only thing that former colonies have clung to. They have also clung to the primary purpose of a colony; to operate as an enterprise. The foundation of our republic was laid down by privileged landlords in a colonial enterprise system and to this day our republic continues to put priority on business not people. Even our culture submits to the idea that business has to be served first.

In contrast, real nations put people first because that's what a nation is... people. The French government for instance can't escape their obligation to the French nation. But the U.S. can because there *is* no American nation... there is an American enterprise powered by a population of workers with hyphenated nationalities because less than 20% of them have roots that go back any further than three generations in America.

This is why people in America can't get healthcare unless they work. In France people get healthcare for being French.

This doesn't mean efforts in America to put people first don't exist. Obviously they do and this is a defining feature of the American Left. It's also a defining feature of the Columbian left, the Brazilian left, etc...But the struggles on the left to put people first have far less clout in the countries that lack true nationality. This is why so many leftist movements in Latin America have failed while they have been so successful in Europe.

I think this is a vastly understated reason why people in places like France and Norway are better served by their respective governments and why they are not enslaved by industry the way we are.

| Reply
Sep 17, 2020 13:31:25   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
1ProudAmerican wrote:
...and don't forget the "gender reveal parties" gone wrong....LOL


Number of fires = roughly the same.
Intensity of fires = not even close to being the same.

So yes, the "4 feet of dead wood" is a factor as that is the fuel that is responsible for the intensity of the fires. Gender reveal parties on the other hand, really haven't made much of a difference... Accidentally starting a fire has always been commonplace.

If not for the "4 feet of dead wood" created by the climate change that Republicans have allowed, the fire started by the gender reveal party would probably have been contained and extinguished before it became national news.

BTW, liberals have opposed gender-reveal parties based on the idea that gender determination should wait until the child is old enough to decide if his/her/it's biological gender matches their psychological gender.

Also, the gender-reveal party that started the fire was in Yucaipa which is which is almost entirely Republican. This probably explains why they have a Republican Mayor (Denise Hoyt), a Republican assemblyman (Mike Morrell) and a Republican Representative (Paul Cook). It probably also explains the gender reveal party.

Yes, there are Republicans in California - mind-blowing isn't it?

| Reply
Sep 17, 2020 13:43:00   #
RandyBrian
 
straightUp wrote:
The countries that are progressing into the the real future are for the most part real nations. We are not a real nation and I think that's a key difference.

I suppose I'll need to explain this...

Let's just take some samples... France, Germany and... let's say, Norway. In France, they speak French. In Germany they speak German, in Norway they speak Norwegian. True nations develop over thousands of years and almost always have their own language. It's one thing that makes them unique as a nation. On the other hand, Americans speak English, Colombians speak Spanish, Brazilians speak Portuguese. These are not true nations of people... These countries are essentially business enterprises initiated much later in history during the Imperial Age as colonies (property of other nations). Those other nations are easily identified by the language spoken... the American colonies were owned by England, the true nation that created the English language. Colombia was owned by Spain, Brazil was owned by Portugal, etc...

But the language of other nations isn't the only thing that former colonies have clung to. They have also clung to the primary purpose of a colony; to operate as an enterprise. The foundation of our republic was laid down by privileged landlords in a colonial enterprise system and to this day our republic continues to put priority on business not people. Even our culture submits to the idea that business has to be served first.

In contrast, real nations put people first because that's what a nation is... people. The French government for instance can't escape their obligation to the French nation. But the U.S. can because there *is* no American nation... there is an American enterprise powered by a population of workers with hyphenated nationalities because less than 20% of them have roots that go back any further than three generations in America.

This is why people in America can't get healthcare unless they work. In France people get healthcare for being French.

This doesn't mean efforts in America to put people first don't exist. Obviously they do and this is a defining feature of the American Left. It's also a defining feature of the Columbian left, the Brazilian left, etc...But the struggles on the left to put people first have far less clout in the countries that lack true nationality. This is why so many leftist movements in Latin America have failed while they have been so successful in Europe.

I think this is a vastly understated reason why people in places like France and Norway are better served by their respective governments and why they are not enslaved by industry the way we are.
The countries that are progressing into the the re... (show quote)


Friend, I am researching your views on man made global warming, and am giving you the benefit of a doubt when it comes to credibility. However, this post denigrates that credibility. You are basically trying to redefine what a nation is, claiming the US is not a 'true' nation. Utter nonsense. You are trying to use that new definition to justify why the US does not live up to your expectations. More nonsense. Your underlying assumption is that businesses are NOT people, and they are. The vast majority of wealth is owned by many millions of individuals owning tiny portions of various corporations. That is not a perfect system, but neither is it a weakness......it is a strength. As far as the other countries are concerned, they can afford their various 'free' benefits, lame though many of them are, because the United States of America has spent trillions of dollars over the last 80 years to free them, to protect, them and to stabilize and support them.
Every one in America has healthcare. Inefficient, expensive, and frustrating as it is, it is still the best. A few weeks ago my wife's doctor referred her to a knee specialist. We waited 3 days for an appointment. The specialist sent her for an MRI. We had twelve choices of where to go get one within a one mile radius of her doctor. It was late in the afternoon, so we had to wait until the next day. It cost $300 with no insurance coverage. How long would she have waited in Canada? Or Norway? Or France or England? Months at least. More likely years. In those countries, only the rich and influential get swift and top notch medical care.

| Reply
Sep 17, 2020 16:14:30   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Friend, I am researching your views on man made global warming, and am giving you the benefit of a doubt when it comes to credibility. However, this post denigrates that credibility. You are basically trying to redefine what a nation is, claiming the US is not a 'true' nation. Utter nonsense.

I'm not asking for credibility, I am simply presenting arguments to be judged on their own merit. People can be wrong about one thing and right about another.

My argument on nationhood is far less objective than my argument that the current global warming trend is anthropogenic. Even so, I invite you to point out any of my supporting statements that you can prove to be wrong. Honestly, it's a collection of observations that suggest a fundamental difference between two types of countries.

The term "nation" is fairly ambiguous to start with. Wikipedia defines it as...
"a stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture"

So, I'm really not trying to "redefine" anything. The term "nation" is just the closest approximation that I can think of to describe my thoughts. This is often the challenge of original thinking.

RandyBrian wrote:

You are trying to use that new definition to justify why the US does not live up to your expectations. More nonsense.

It's not that the U.S. doesn't live up to my expectation... it's more like it doesn't live up to my standard but that is exactly what I do expect and my argument offers a possible, partial explanation for that. In other words, my disappointment is exactly what I expect and here's why.

I'm not sure it even makes sense to suggest that I am trying to justify my disappointment. LOL

RandyBrian wrote:

Your underlying assumption is that businesses are NOT people, and they are.

Well, that's one way to spackle over the reality that business decisions often conflict with public interest! LOL! Look, I know business is people. I co-founded three businesses over the span of my career, it's not an alien concept for me. But I also know about the conflicts that arise between private and public interests. So, you can try to hide that with as much of that "business is people" kumbaya as you want but the conflict of interests, once realized, isn't something that can be unrealized.

RandyBrian wrote:

The vast majority of wealth is owned by many millions of individuals owning tiny portions of various corporations.

That's actually incorrect. As of 2019, 70% of the wealth in America is owned by only 10% of the people. The bottom 50% of the American people own less than 7%. The other thing to realize is that the tiny shares we all have in the stock market don't yield the same returns as the shares being bought up by people in the top 10% that are so big, they actually manipulate the market.

You're actually providing more fodder for my argument. Wealth distribution is not as uneven in the progressive countries that serve the people first. Not only are the antitrust laws, designed to limit run-away corporate power, much stronger in the progressive countries that I mentioned but those cultures don't try to hide it either. The fact that so many Americans think vast majority of wealth is shared between many millions of people is I think attributed to a culture of ignorance designed to keep Americans in the dark about how they are getting shafted.

RandyBrian wrote:

That is not a perfect system, but neither is it a weakness......it is a strength.

I think that's a relative statement. Yes, it's a strength for any one who wants to exploit people for profit.

RandyBrian wrote:

As far as the other countries are concerned, they can afford their various 'free' benefits, lame though many of them are, because the United States of America has spent trillions of dollars over the last 80 years to free them, to protect, them and to stabilize and support them.

Yeah, I don't agree with any of that either. I honestly think it's spoon-fed BS. First of all, progressive politics offers nothing for free. Every benefit is paid for through taxes. Secondly, there's no basis for suggesting the benefits provided by progressive governments are any more "lame" than what we have here. I lived in Europe for a few years and my experience with healthcare over there was far superior to what I've experienced here. Granted, that's only the experience of one person, but various studies over the years seem to agree with me. Cancer treatment is the ONLY service provided in the U.S. that proves to be better here than anywhere else and I suspect that's because of the profit potential in cancer treatment.

I don't agree with that tired old argument that progressive countries can afford to spend money on their people because the U.S. is protecting them either. It's true that not allocating the majority of their revenue to military spending allows them to spend more on their people instead. But they would make that decision whether the U.S. military was there or not. In fact it's been a half a century since countries like Germany and France has actually asked for any protection from the U.S.

So why are we there? Well, this gets back to the theme of my argument. It's great for business. Our military-industrial complex thrives on the illusion that the whole world needs our protection. It "justifies" the billions of dollars that American tax slaves are forced to dump into it. In fact, ever since the Balkan War, Europeans have been proposing a united European Army but each time it came up the U.S. insisted that no such army should exist. It's been suggested that the reason for this is that it would weaken the illusion that the U.S. MUST be there.

So, it's not that these progressive countries need or even want the "protection" from the US military. It's more about the U.S. MIC securing their sales.

RandyBrian wrote:

Every one in America has healthcare.

Then how is it that neither of my kids do? If EVERYONE in America has health insurance, why do so many of my friends not have any?

RandyBrian wrote:

Inefficient, expensive, and frustrating as it is, it is still the best. A few weeks ago my wife's doctor referred her to a knee specialist. We waited 3 days for an appointment. The specialist sent her for an MRI. We had twelve choices of where to go get one within a one mile radius of her doctor. It was late in the afternoon, so we had to wait until the next day. It cost $300 with no insurance coverage. How long would she have waited in Canada? Or Norway? Or France or England? Months at least.
br Inefficient, expensive, and frustrating as it ... (show quote)

Again, I've lived in England for a while where I used their National Health. My first hand experience says that our system is far from being the best. I've heard people bring up that "long wait" argument over and over and over and over again, like some kind of mantra, but having experienced both systems first hand, I would take the British system anyday. Long waits happen in both systems, for various reasons and people often cherry pick the examples to suit their narrative. There is absolutely nothing inherent in the systems that make one more prone to long waits than the other.

My father and my uncle both got Parkinson's at roughly the same time a few years back. My dad lived in PA and my uncle lived in England. They both got about the same treatment, but the National Health system sent young people to my uncle's house to help my aunt with daily chores so she could spend more time helping her husband. All my mom got from our system was a pile of bills that she's still trying to pay off eight years later.

I'm sure you're not going to want to believe what I am saying... I am familiar enough with your arguments to know that they often come from many years of exposure to the same stories and I'm not expecting to turn it all over with a single post on a web site, but I'm being honest with my opinions here and I'm open to correction if I'm wrong.

I am also aware that my politically incorrect arguments often offend the patriotic side of a person's belief system, so I just want you to know that I am not "slamming" America just to be spiteful. I am simply describing my observations and theories. Please don't take offense.

| Reply
Sep 17, 2020 18:02:47   #
P Lightfoot
 
I think all the climate change fanatics should go jump off of there flat earth

| Reply
Sep 17, 2020 18:09:14   #
P Lightfoot
 
5 arsonists caught so far and 1 started 6 fires

| Reply
Sep 18, 2020 09:02:40   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
straightUp wrote:
This appears to a common argument among the science-deniers. They think because CO2 is naturally produced it can't possibly be a problem. I'm curious... do you not understand the variable nature of physics or is this just an excuse to deny it for the sake of political BS?

Just because something occurs naturally doesn't mean there can't be too much of it. Did you know people have died from too much oxygen? People die from too much alcohol too. Did you know that alcohol also occurs naturally?

This is what I call a 3rd grade limit. Where people can recognize elements but they aren't sophisticated enough to recognize the varied effects they have at different levels of composition and interaction.

Yes, our lungs expel CO2. But not gigatons of it. Yes, CO2 is a natural part of our atmosphere and it naturally functions as a greenhouse gas which helps retain heat from the sun. But as humans, we depend on conditions maintained by a limited amount of heat retention and with industry pumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, we are pushing the heat retention to levels we probably won't survive.

It's really quite simple which is why the way you folks continue to remain so willfully ignorant just astounds me. Talk about dedication to political BS!
This appears to a common argument among the scienc... (show quote)


sUp; are yo not aware that CO2 makes the grass grow green.
Sure their can be too much of something.
CO2 is not one of them.
CO2 eradication is political BS.
Soo who is chasing $$ with that BS
As always; follow the money, and the agenda behind it.

| Reply
Sep 18, 2020 09:38:02   #
Tug484
 
eagleye13 wrote:
sUp; are yo not aware that CO2 makes the grass grow green.
Sure their can be too much of something.
CO2 is not one of them.
CO2 eradication is political BS.
Soo who is chasing $$ with that BS
As always; follow the money, and the agenda behind it.



| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2020 IDF International Technologies, Inc.