Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Ghengis Jon View PostPerhaps Putin's cock holster shouldn't have sent out a tweet "misspelling" the House Intel Chairman's name as Adam Schitt.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/polit...ler/index.html
Last edited by Kapture1; February 6, 2019, 02:41 PM.
- Top
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by iam416 View PostI mostly agree about the "Green New Deal". I think there is broad support for sensible approaches to climate change and I'm absolutely stupefied when I actually read the "Green New Deal." One could certainly articulate a climate change policy as you have that is stripped of, well, non-climate change policy, and poll high enough to get at least something passed. It's not a hard sell to push for more R&D dollars and less coal subsidies (the Ds have already lost WV by a landslide, so who cares -- and Ohio is probably tough for them, but PA is getting better).
The Green New Deal that AOC proposes will cost $ 49 TRILLION over 10 years. All the wars in US history have cost $ 7 Trillion in today's money. The failed Great Society program has cost about $ 3.5 Trillion since 1968 or so. Where does the money come from? Well, it comes from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need. And the government is absolutely the neediest of all, so they get everything. This is all about control and income redistribution and nothing about the environment. As Bastiat said,
Last edited by Da Geezer; February 6, 2019, 03:53 PM.
- Top
- Likes 1
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Hannibal View Post
So when she said that Climate Change is this generation's WWII, she was actually underselling it.
Actually in terms of global wealth destruction, a major world war is probably an apt analogy.
We do this, stick a fork in the US, we are no longer the leaders of the free world, no longer the world's economic super power, no longer the force for good in the world. Maybe China can show us how it should be done...
- Top
Comment
-
watched ksttate kick KU's butt last night so missed the speech but
funny watching every network nbc, cbs, and cnn use the exact same excuse that the reason the rating were so high was because only trump supporters were watching
45 million people watched that speech last night. 75% approval rating for that speech
love to see how many TV's flipped off when abrams went on
only 62 million voted for trump btw-- I would say trump has a pretty good base sticking with him. question is can any of the dems build a base like trump.
keep it up on late term abortion and socialism and his base will be doubled in 2020
- Top
Comment
-
1. There is no country building solar at a rate faster than China's.
2. Chna has also announced the closure of 100 coal-fired power plants and an emissions trading system for coal-fired power.
3. If you believe the devil is in the details, well, me too. We'll see. But the carbon tax proposed by Greenspan/Volker/Baker/Schultz/Stephen Hawking/Exxon/BP/ConocoPhillips et all proposes a border-adjustment tax that should address that. If you're not taxing carbon to the same level the US is, your goods are subject to a tariff if you want access to the US market. And I've heard some pretty high praise for that plan from unexpected corners. It's revenue neutral and does not increase the size of government. The Green New Deal is dumb compared to this idea.
4. Geezer is crazier than every person on this board combined, and that's still true if you count me thrice.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hannibal View Post
So when she said that Climate Change is this generation's WWII, she was actually underselling it.
Actually in terms of global wealth destruction, a major world war is probably an apt analogy.
With the caveat that World War !! actually existed in fact. Climate Change, or anthropogenic global warming, only exists as a theory. Since 1980 there have been 1,260 documented statements by "opinion leaders and scientists" of dates when the earth would pass the point of no return. And they have all been wrong. When models are constructed to predict the future, they can only take into account known factors, and that means the past. They can't know what they don't know. And they can't adjust for disruptive and unknown factors like fracking.
But you are correct in that a future major war with a nuclear exchange could torch $ 49 Trillion in real wealth. But notice, there is no one I am aware of that wants a nuclear war. The Dems are actively pushing for the Green New Deal, which would destroy an equal amount of wealth, just as you say. Why would anyone favor that?
And, since I'm in the questioning mood let's go back to something I said during the 2016 campaign (and immediately thereafter) about "Russia...Russia...Russia". The current administration is opening more federal lands to oil and gas exploration and is opening the continental shelf too. Oil has been around $ 50/barrel for the last two years rather than the $ 75/bl that was predicted. This is due to more exploration, fracking, more pipelines, and less regulation.
Consider it from Putin's point of view. Let's say the cost of production is $ 40/bl. Putin's profit from producing a barrel of oil for export is about $10/ rather than the $35/ as predicted. Oil and gas are the only big exports Russia has, and Putin's profit is about 1/3 of what was expected. Why would Putin support a candidate that promised to harm Russia (and Saudi) by making the US a major producer of O+G?
A good article on social justice:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...cs-power-play/Last edited by Da Geezer; February 6, 2019, 04:24 PM.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by crashcourse View Postwatched ksttate kick KU's butt last night so missed the speech but
funny watching every network nbc, cbs, and cnn use the exact same excuse that the reason the rating were so high was because only trump supporters were watching
45 million people watched that speech last night. 75% approval rating for that speech
love to see how many TV's flipped off when abrams went on
only 62 million voted for trump btw-- I would say trump has a pretty good base sticking with him. question is can any of the dems build a base like trump.
keep it up on late term abortion and socialism and his base will be doubled in 2020
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by hack View Post1. There is no country building solar at a rate faster than China's.
2. Chna has also announced the closure of 100 coal-fired power plants and an emissions trading system for coal-fired power.
.
Lots of orange and pink in Asia. Not nearly as much in the rest of the industrialized world. If China has any plans to go "green" then they certainly aren't following through on them yet.
And they won't. They would be stupid to do so, as would we. Ditto for migrating away from the internal combustion engine.
Last edited by Hannibal; February 6, 2019, 04:46 PM.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by hack View Post1. There is no country building solar at a rate faster than China's.
2. Chna has also announced the closure of 100 coal-fired power plants and an emissions trading system for coal-fired power.
3. If you believe the devil is in the details, well, me too. We'll see. But the carbon tax proposed by Greenspan/Volker/Baker/Schultz/Stephen Hawking/Exxon/BP/ConocoPhillips et all proposes a border-adjustment tax that should address that. If you're not taxing carbon to the same level the US is, your goods are subject to a tariff if you want access to the US market. And I've heard some pretty high praise for that plan from unexpected corners. It's revenue neutral and does not increase the size of government. The Green New Deal is dumb compared to this idea.
4. Geezer is crazier than every person on this board combined, and that's still true if you count me thrice.
- Top
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment