Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Ghengis Jon]

Perhaps 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/politics/house-intelligence-transcripts-mueller/index.html

[Kapture1]

Perhaps 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

underscores my point from yesterday, the fucking babies are acting like fascists.

[Kapture1]

Dyv2z8CVsAAFkDB.jpg:large.jpg

[Da Geezer]

I 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).

You are speaking like a Dem hack (pardon the pun) now. How about leaving everything as is without government intervention. That has worked well on the anthropogenic part of Global Warming. The US has exceeded its goals memorialized in the Paris Accords and is moving toward a natural gas driven economy. That is much cleaner, and everyone agrees on clean. But the government will never get us there. Sell the coal to China and India so they don't have to burn cow shit. Start building nuclear plants and dams, if you can get the Greens to agree. But right now they will back no nuclear plants and they favor tearing out all the dams (getting back to nature and saving endangered species like the snail darter). If the Greens were in any way concerned with clean power they would favor dams and nuclear. They care only about political power, not clean power.

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,

[Hannibal]

[/B][/I]

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.

[Kapture1]

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.

meaning if we implement this, then abolish it after 10 years, it 'might' take us 70 years to catch back up economically.

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...

[crashcourse]

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

[hack]

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.

[Da Geezer]

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/

[Kapture1]

closure of 100 outdated coal fired power plants and built new more efficient ones lol

they are expanding their coal - power output by 25% this year alone.

[Da Geezer]

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

Indeed. But a CNN poll taken after Trump's "border speech" and the Schumer/Pelosi "rebuttal" showed more people listened to the rebuttal than to the Trump speech. I just hope folks keep lying to the pollsters.

[Hannibal]

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.
.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-w...l-power-plants

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.

[Kapture1]

I watched Abrams. And almost everyone who did will say the same thing... I can't remember any of it.

[crashcourse]

need more tiffany trump pics and less snoring trump pics

[Da Geezer]

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.