Should We Wait Until We Need Oxygen Masks Like Beijing Before Doing an AOC Green New Deal?

[James_Madison_Lives]

- There can be debate over whether burning fossil fuels causes global warming. That's fine and though I think it does, I have no problem with someone who disagrees.

- There is NO debate over whether it causes pollution, and the more we burn, the more it causes.

Question to all the rabid-dog Ocasio-Cortez haters, and it can only be called that since the woman has barely taken office. She's young and she's pretty, and I think there is something else going on with either repressed sexual identity problems or impotent old men.

- Do we wait for the planet to become like Beijing or Tokyo, where people put a dollar into a street corner vending machine for a few breaths of fresh air? How many more pollutants do you want to breath?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12051354/Chinese-buy-up-bottles-of-fresh-air-from-Canada.html

https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03526/china-pollution_3526951b.jpg

[UWDude]

Yes.
I live here.
The air is wonderful.
Doing something right.
Not broke, don't fix.

[acptulsa]

Firstly, CO2 is not a pollutant. If we're ever to regrow the rain forests, we're going to need plenty of it. Let me tell you a secret about this carbon climate crazy talk: They know solar and wind aren't ready to shoulder the burden, and they're doing this because they want more reactors weaponizing more uranium. The environmental disaster that will create will last centuries. This "Green New Deal" has much to do with destroying the economy and middle class, and basically nothing to do with the global environment.

Secondly, the EPA exists to cover the asses of polluters so they can't be sued.

Thirdly, the advantages of allowing the actual victims to recover actual damages for their suffering was pointed out to you earlier today in another thread, and nothing about minarchy is against that.

[juleswin]

Why is it that people think smug is CO2. CO2 is a colourless and odourless(for the most part) gas. Generally, if you can see it and it clouds the air then you are looking at some other gases in the mix.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Tokyo? The air is fine in Tokyo, especially for such a densely packed place. China has some issues to be sure, but Japan has fine air. Shanghai is a different story.

[James_Madison_Lives]

Tokyo? The air is fine in Tokyo, especially for such a densely packed place. China has some issues to be sure, but Japan has fine air. Shanghai is a different story.

Link?

And what about South Korea? New Delhi? Someone has to take the lead in something else beside invading countries and it should be us. I have never seen such piling onto anyone like AOC for saying such benign and self-evident things. Is the oil lobby all over this friggen forum or what?



https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/south-korea-once-again-choked-by-dangerous-smog/

https://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/thediplomat-800px-smoggy_seoul_6907570245-386x236.jpg

[Superfluous Man]

The pollution problems in Beijing and elsewhere are never due to their governments intervening too little in the free market.

As with your other thread about education, the solution to the problem is less government and more freedom.

[Superfluous Man]

I have never seen such piling onto anyone like AOC for saying such benign and self-evident things.

There is nothing at all benign about the Green New Deal. It is murderous and evil and, if implemented, would cause 100 times more suffering than any pollution or anthropogenic global warming ever could.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Link?

And what about South Korea? New Delhi?
I've never been either of those places, but I have been to Tokyo and to Shanghai and Hong Kong. I live in LA and the air in Tokyo is better than here and the urbanization there is much denser. Shanghai and Hong Kong have problems with air, Tokyo does not.


Someone has to take the lead in something else beside invading countries and it should be us. I have never seen such piling onto anyone like AOC for saying such benign and self-evident things. Is the oil lobby all over this friggen forum or what?


"Self-evident things" like spending almost 100 trillion dollars on light rail, inefficient energy, and other assorted boondoggles to eliminate air travel? Let's say the threat is as dire as she says. What in the Green New Deal is actually good policy? I haven't seen anything.

[spudea]

if government control was the solution don't you think China would have solved the terrible air quality by now????

[acptulsa]

Smog is what happens when smoke meets fog (thus the name). Since a very great deal of electricity comes from coal or gas, clearly this electric car nonsense is a way to export urban smog from the cities where the cars are to the countryside where the electricity is generated. Which, naturally, sounds great to urban hipsters.

The jokers in the deck are numerous. Power transmission losses mean more fuel is burned than would be burned in internal combustion cars, especially considering how incredibly heavy electric cars are. The facts that heavy cars require bigger tires and batteries use rare minerals and go bad way too soon mean this business is set to put all that much more strain on the environment. The fact that the electric car mandates are nationwide in scope means the poor will be forced onto public transit, and the rural populations (who are seldom wealthy) are put in the impossible situation of having no cars available that can get them a hundred miles to work and back.

As for real pollutants, we have pretty much cleared that problem up. We began working on carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the 1970s. Just about all you get from modern auto exhaust pipes is carbon dioxide (which you also exhale and plants love) and genuine water.

These people pretend to be compassionate but they're out to screw the poor. Hard.

[phill4paul]

Air is fine in the country. Don't live in cities.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Wouldn't it be ironic that Alexandria Congress Girl's plan actually encourages even more pollution? Her proposal represents another urban-rural divide. I'm guessing a lot of the rural electrical co-ops would fold because of overwhelming government regs and takeover. These are the discouraging acts that result in migration to the cities. And people piling into concentrated areas of cities is actually what results in these pollution problems.

Furthermore, it's even more ironic that her predecessor name--The New Deal--actually encouraged the electrification of rural areas while she wants to reverese that.

[acptulsa]

Wouldn't it be ironic...?

All that stuff is true. And it isn't irony, it's nefarious design. It is the tyranny of the urban majority being used to screw the rural, quite likely so the powerful can seize control of the rest of the farms and starve the rebellious.

And the only reason that idiot bar wench from the Bronx is being used to sell it is, anyone can see she's way too stupid to come up with a plan this evil, devious and dastardly. And she is too. But that doesn't mean it isn't that evil. That just means she didn't devise it.

They are trying to do a Chagos Island to Kansas.

[oyarde]

Sorry , Oyarde does not believe in any New Deal being peddled by any communist .

[James_Madison_Lives]

The pollution problems in Beijing and elsewhere are never due to their governments intervening too little in the free market.

As with your other thread about education, the solution to the problem is less government and more freedom.

And exactly how does that solution work in the reduction of pollution? It's easy to mouth slogans.

[bv3]

The pollution problems in Beijing and elsewhere are never due to their governments intervening too little in the free market.

As with your other thread about education, the solution to the problem is less government and more freedom.


Well, if people that polluted could be held liable in courts--and not hide behind regulation and statute, we might actually get them to stop.

[Dr.3D]

Air is fine in the country. Don't live in cities.
Well, every once in a while, I do catch wind of the dairy farm to the north of me when they are spreading manure out on the field.

But when I do catch wind of it, I just think, for land sake, that stinks.

Smell that dairy air.

[acptulsa]

And exactly how does that solution work in the reduction of pollution? It's easy to mouth slogans.


Well, if people that polluted could be held liable in courts--and not hide behind regulation and statute, we might actually get them to stop.

J_M_L, how many times do we have to say it? Libertarian philosophy believes in legal recourse through the courts.

Now stop pretending no one said it. Please just stop.

That is a much, much better deal than any victim ever got from EPA Superfund debacles.

[euphemia]

Climate change is a crock. There is nothing mankind can do or ever did do in all of history that would send more CFCs into the air than one single volcanic eruption.

People are not here by accident. People are made in the image of God, with a propensity toward creativity. We just don’t have the power to wreck the earth. Parts of it may be very toxic, but that would be more the result of the sin of Adam and Eve than modern technology.

[acptulsa]

There is nothing mankind can do or ever did do in all of history that would send more CFCs into the air than one single volcanic eruption.

Volcanic eruptions emit chlorofluorocarbons?

[kcchiefs6465]

Lol.

How many solar panels do you have? Don't bother answering.

[Anti Federalist]

Question to all the rabid-dog Ocasio-Cortez haters, and it can only be called that since the woman has barely taken office. She's young and she's pretty, and I think there is something else going on with either repressed sexual identity problems or impotent old men.

LOL did I wander into DU forums?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

She's young and she's pretty, and I think there is something else going on with either repressed sexual identity problems or impotent old men.




Well, this is prolly a more interesting topic. But sureesly, I wouldn't underestimate looks. I'm guessing the congress girl will take a short term nose dive at the hand of banshees like Feinstein, but she'll reinvent herself later. Around 2032, Hillary will be wielding a cane. Kamala and Tulsi will be over the hill. I'd guess that Alexandria could be the JFK Wonder Girl by that time. Who knows.

[tommyrp12]

Looks like a communist China problem. Don't be communist China.

[fcreature]

She's young and she's pretty, and I think there is something else going on with either repressed sexual identity problems or impotent old men.

No she's not.

The rest of your post is nonsense as well.

[Anti Federalist]

Looks like a communist China problem. Don't be communist China.

You wanna be Communist China?

This is how you be Communist China.

LOL at the New Bolsheviks pushing old line lefties like Sanders, who were around when the USSR was.

And there was no filthier, more polluted place on earth than the old Soviet bloc.

But idiot humanity being what it is, and idiot kids having the attention span of gnats, means we'll likely have to live through it all again.

[acptulsa]

No she's not.

The rest of your post is nonsense as well.

Seriously. The only thing that keeps her from being as plain as a refrigerator is, she has the eyes of a lunatic. She turns me off cold.

I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one.


You wanna be Communist China?

This is how you be Communist China.

LOL at the New Bolsheviks pushing old line lefties like Sanders, who were around when the USSR was.

And there was no filthier, more polluted place on earth than the old Soviet bloc.

But idiot humanity being what it is, and idiot kids having the attention span of gnats, means we'll likely have to live through it all again.

No kidding. Socialist Seven Year Plans and New Deals made China into China. How does the thing that caused their problems solve ours?

[James_Madison_Lives]

Seriously. The only thing that keeps her from being as plain as a refrigerator is, she has the eyes of a lunatic. She turns me off cold.

I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one.



No kidding. Socialist Seven Year Plans and New Deals made China into China. How does the thing that caused their problems solve ours?

lol says the old neckbeard virgin. It doesn't matter, you still haven't answered the post.

[acptulsa]

lol says the old neckbeard virgin. It doesn't matter, you still haven't answered the post.

Victims sue polluters. Check. Burning it in the country and losing half of it in resistance pumping it to the city to charge overweight little cars does not result in less burning. Check. Carbon dioxide is needed by plants and the three toxins cars used to produce in quantity are now scrubbed by catalytic converters (in power plants not so much). Check. Nukes are for weapons and hundreds of years of poisonous waste. Check. The ways this mess will disproportionately affect rural family farmers and displace them. Check.

What part of which post have I allegedly not addressed? Your childish insinuation-laden guesswork about my identity, my prowess and my neck?

[euphemia]

Volcanic eruptions emit chlorofluorocarbons?

Yes. Broken down specifically, water vapor, mostly, then a lot of CO2, CO, sulphur, fluorine, hydrochloric acid, and more.

[bv3]

Didn't Beijing go through two centuries of industrialization in like fifty years?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Mass transportation is the poor man's wheels. Libtards have tried to sell it for decades, but the rest of the crowd ain't buyin'.

First off, the country is too big. Second, it's a tough sell even in New York, the most compact U.S. city. I lived in that rat hole, and the subway-bus sucks ballz. I was still 7 blocks from the last stop on the R train. That's a crappy walk if you're carrying 8 grocery bags. You also have to carry around an umbrella at any chance of rain. My commute time to work by car was 45 minutes, but 75 minutes by subway.

People think it works in places like LA, Chicago, Boston, Wash-Baltimore, Miami, Filthadelphia, etc. I've driven in all those cities, and you can easily see that they're just too spread out. Mass transport does not work for the majority. I don't know the status of that LA rail, but last I heard it was a big debacle.

[acptulsa]

Didn't Beijing go through two centuries of industrialization in like fifty years?

Sounds about right. In any case, New York City uses nearly as much electricity and has more automobiles (though fewer motorcycles and motor scooters) and nobody's selling oxygen on the street corners.

We need socialism so we can avoid the problems socialist countries have and we don't? Excuse me for remaining unclear on the concept.


Mass transportation is the poor man's wheels. Libtards have tried to sell it for decades, but the rest of the crowd ain't buyin'.

Interstate rail worked pretty darned well before the federal government usurped it. There's a whole thread on that. The first few posts are instructive.

[enhanced_deficit]

Patience.

Sometimes things look far worse from a distance than when you're sitting on them. Few decades ago people were getting scared when national debt hit $5T and today $22 T debt eveyone is cool as cocumber. Worrying about climate pollution from cars today is like screaming about national debt when it hit $1T. We have long ways to go cars smog pollution would kill anyone or their lungs.

[tommyrp12]

But idiot humanity being what it is, and idiot kids having the attention span of gnats, means we'll likely have to live through it all again.

Outta Rep.

Propaganda is propaganda and the government has effective propaganda.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgCnpCBORyM

[acptulsa]

Patience.

She was an energetic mover and shaker for Ron Paul. Patience is not one of her virtues. It's too bad; her energy is wonderful but motion wants direction and not much of Ron Paul's wisdom rubbed off on some.

The MSM screams, 'It's an emergency!' and many people jump. Ron Paul supporters were never useful idiots for the psychopaths, but he has retired now and some of his people are letting themselves get led by the nose.

[bv3]

Sounds about right. In any case, New York City uses nearly as much electricity and has more automobiles (though fewer motorcycles and motor scooters) and nobody's selling oxygen on the street corners.

We need socialism so we can avoid the problems socialist countries have and we don't? Excuse me for remaining unclear on the concept.

So, what is the other factor that makes Beijing air toxic? I usually hear coal but I've never checked it out. I am aware of scrubbing technology that has been around for at least 10 years that mitigates the pollution caused by coal fired plants.

Doesn't seem very communist to fill your comrade's air with poison...but never mind that. Yes to new sources of energy, no to inimical government interference. Remove shields used by the big polluters, expose them to common law liability. No more of this, b-b-b-but the EPA says acceptable levels are... The only acceptable level of anything, including pollutants, is the amount that does not harm other people. Obviously, a person wouldn't have to wait until they suffered that harm--but there is procedure for injunctions, yes?

Now let me say something else. Are vehicle emissions really a significant contributor to so-called climate change? When did they start keeping reliable climate data? 1800's I imagine. Are we to assume that any trend seen in the data began at the time collection began? I think thats foolish. What other factors could contribute to such a phenomenon? If we are talking global threat, these answers must be basic and easily provided by someone who believes humans are responsible for climate change.

I think current energy practices are more directly toxic than climate change anyways. People are being poisoned, and poisoning themselves, but probably don't know it. The ones that do know it don't appear to care or are otherwise powerless to do anything about it.

I believe in nuclear energy, and straight up launching that depleted shit into space, and using that as a reliable and long lasting stop gap until something truly revolutionary can be discovered.

[James_Madison_Lives]

Firstly, CO2 is not a pollutant. If we're ever to regrow the rain forests, we're going to need plenty of it. Let me tell you a secret about this carbon climate crazy talk: They know solar and wind aren't ready to shoulder the burden, and they're doing this because they want more reactors weaponizing more uranium. The environmental disaster that will create will last centuries. This "Green New Deal" has much to do with destroying the economy and middle class, and basically nothing to do with the global environment.

Secondly, the EPA exists to cover the asses of polluters so they can't be sued.

Thirdly, the advantages of allowing the actual victims to recover actual damages for their suffering was pointed out to you earlier today in another thread, and nothing about minarchy is against that.


Not talking about CO2. You cannot burn petroleum based fuel without generating other byproducts, nice hits of methane, arsenic and mercury, sulfur, carbon monoxide, and whatever other crap they decide to put into your antifreeze. Coal is even worse. You can't even eat the fish or wild game anymore without rolling the dice on a hit of mercury or other toxin. It gets pumped into the atmosphere when we burn coal then flushed into the water when it snows or rains. We have effed up this planet but good. http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/educ/hgfish.aspx

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Interstate rail worked pretty darned well before the federal government usurped it. .

Did it? If it did, then why did the government take over? Or, did it work in a different time? Did it work in limited circumstances for a limited number of people? Are people just being nostalgic about it? I'm sure it had advantages over horses, but then came the car and rail's time was over. You know that people love their cars here, and there was no way mass rail or buses could compete with that after the 1920s.

I'm actually asking these questions, but sometimes it's not an either/or. I lived in New York City. If you're in Manhattan, then the subway might not be half bad. If you're in any of the other four boroughs, then it gets to be a diminishing return the further out you go. It works better in Brooklyn and the Bronx than Queens. Forget about Staten Island. I also lived in New Jersey, where it's very limited. Just like Long Island.

Rail and buses seldom take you door-to-door, which is a very limiting factor.

[bv3]

Not talking about CO2. You cannot burn petroleum based fuel without generating other byproducts, nice hits of methane, arsenic and mercury, sulfur, carbon monoxide, and whatever other crap they decide to put into your antifreeze. Coal is even worse. You can't even eat the fish or wild game anymore without rolling the dice on a hit of mercury or other toxin. It gets pumped into the atmosphere when we burn coal then flushed into the water when it snows or rains. We have effed up this planet but good. http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/educ/hgfish.aspx
"Only 17 percent of mercury deposited in the U.S. originates there, according to the USEPA. As much as 83 percent comes from international sources. USEPA research indicates that U.S. mercury sources influence concentrations in the environment much more in the eastern U.S., and global sources are more significant contributors in the West."

Seems to be larger indictment of rudimentary coal burning than anything else.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

How can two people have world views that are so different?



"Got styrofoam boxes
For the ozone layer"

--Neil Young, Keep on Rockin' in the Free World (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvb6Lmg2p_4)




"Both ends of the ozone burnin.
Funny how the world keeps turnin."

--Toby Keith, American Ride (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNDcAWNscg8)






Yeah, I know those two clowns are political dipshits, but dem songs is catchy! :frog:

[Anti Federalist]

Smog is what happens when smoke meets fog (thus the name). Since a very great deal of electricity comes from coal or gas, clearly this electric car nonsense is a way to export urban smog from the cities where the cars are to the countryside where the electricity is generated. Which, naturally, sounds great to urban hipsters.

The jokers in the deck are numerous. Power transmission losses mean more fuel is burned than would be burned in internal combustion cars, especially considering how incredibly heavy electric cars are. The facts that heavy cars require bigger tires and batteries use rare minerals and go bad way too soon mean this business is set to put all that much more strain on the environment. The fact that the electric car mandates are nationwide in scope means the poor will be forced onto public transit, and the rural populations (who are seldom wealthy) are put in the impossible situation of having no cars available that can get them a hundred miles to work and back.

As for real pollutants, we have pretty much cleared that problem up. We began working on carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the 1970s. Just about all you get from modern auto exhaust pipes is carbon dioxide (which you also exhale and plants love) and genuine water.

These people pretend to be compassionate but they're out to screw the poor. Hard.

+rep

After the urban hipsters chased away local industries and exported the pollution to make their shiny things in China.

To use, literally, tons of fuel a day on one single mega container ship alone, to ship it all back to them.

[Anti Federalist]

lol says the old neckbeard virgin. It doesn't matter, you still haven't answered the post.

Let's assume your point: that massive government regulation on an international scale is needed to address this issue. That the entire structure of modern society must be changed to prevent an ecological catastrophe.

1 - Who pays? Right now best estimates on the cost of implementing the Green New Deal are around $93 trillion dollars. We're broke and already owe $22 trillion. So where does the money come from?

2 - What controls will be enacted on me, personally? Ban my woodstove? Ban my children? (She mentioned this the other day) Ban my car certainly. But what else? Because to carry this out, you will have severely restrict everybody's food, energy and resource usage. With that in mind, who decides who gets what resources? When the future president Ortez is sworn in, will she eschew a government tax tractor and walk to the inauguration like Jimmy Carter did?

[Anti Federalist]

Did it? If it did, then why did the government take over? Or, did it work in a different time? Did it work in limited circumstances for a limited number of people? Are people just being nostalgic about it? I'm sure it had advantages over horses, but then came the car and rail's time was over. You know that people love their cars here, and there was no way mass rail or buses could compete with that after the 1920s.

No, it really did build this country. Long before car access suburbs, there were rail access suburbs and resorts. My old home town on the Jersey Shore was one.

Post WWII government enacted the Interstate Highway Act which almost killed the railroads by making the taxpayer pay for them and the upkeep.

Government took over the passenger rail system with the abysmal Amtrak system, which still, like the postal service, has a near monopoly on long distance passenger rail.

The railroads have recovered and are very profitable now, as far as bulk freight goes, because they are many times more efficient than trucks and planes


I'm actually asking these questions, but sometimes it's not an either/or. I lived in New York City. If you're in Manhattan, then the subway might not be half bad. If you're in any of the other four boroughs, then it gets to be a diminishing return the further out you go. It works better in Brooklyn and the Bronx than Queens. Forget about Staten Island. I also lived in New Jersey, where it's very limited. Just like Long Island.

Rail and buses seldom take you door-to-door, which is a very limiting factor.

I used to commute into NYC for while on the North Jersey Coast route.

Parked my truck in Bay Head and rode in.

[phill4paul]

Well, every once in a while, I do catch wind of the dairy farm to the north of me when they are spreading manure out on the field.

But when I do catch wind of it, I just think, for land sake, that stinks.

Smell that dairy air.

I hear it's the same way living near petroleum producers. Makes you wonder how many are affected.

Someone should take an oil factory census.

[Superfluous Man]

And exactly how does that solution work in the reduction of pollution? It's easy to mouth slogans.

For more than a slogan, you have to spend some time reading. You aren't asking a new question that hasn't already been addressed extensively.

Since pollution is exacerbated by government interventions in the market (in numerous ways that we could get into talking about if that's necessary), it is obvious that removing that cause of the problem would lessen the problem. Will there still be pollution? Yes, of course. But just because a solution doesn't eliminate all pollution doesn't mean the ways that it does improve the situation are any less meaningful.

Here's a good place for you to get started. This short chapter from Rothbard's book is just the tip of the iceberg.
https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution

[Superfluous Man]

Well, if people that polluted could be held liable in courts--and not hide behind regulation and statute, we might actually get them to stop.

Exactly. That's a really big part of it.

[acptulsa]

Not talking about CO2. You cannot burn petroleum based fuel without generating other byproducts...

Sure. I already addressed that.


nice hits of methane...

Say what? What manner of propaganda have you had your nose in? Methane is flammable. You can get lots of stuff as a byproduct of combustion. But everything that's flammable burns in the fire, right?

I think someone lied to you. They seem to want you to be unable to differentiate the tailpipe of a car and the tailpipe of a cow.


... arsenic and mercury, sulfur, carbon monoxide, and whatever other crap they decide to put into your antifreeze.

While you were declining to pay attention, I addressed CO. I also addressed hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. Petroleum is a hydrocarbon, and nitrogen and oxygen can wind up reacting with each other under enough heat and pressure. Carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, water and oxides of nitrogen are pretty much the only things you can cook up with those ingredients. And I did address those. U.S. automobiles have pollution controls that won't fit on little Chinese scooters.

Sulfur isn't in gasoline, but is in diesel. We put up with it because with mass transit, you move more weight and diesels do that better. It's a tradeoff. As for arsenic and mercury, those are impurities more often found in coal. Mercury, in particular, is an element. It cannot be created. It can only be moved from one place to another. And if antifreeze is escaping any vehicle, that's a job for a mechanic. It isn't an emission, it's a leak.

I'm sorry, am I boring you? I thought I saw your eyes glaze over. Gee. This world is a complex place. Saving it might require as much study as energy and action. Obviously whoever dreamed up this so-called Green New Deal has studied. But can they be trusted?

Nuclear power? Ask the people living around Chernobyl if that's environmentally friendly. Oh, wait. You can't. No one lives there any more. Perhaps anyone who advocates that crap as green has another agenda--like producing weapons we hope they never use.

So what do we know for sure? Propaganda serves money interests. The U.S. is indeed too spread out to make mass transit easy. Electric car batteries are heavy, don't last long, are full of rare earth minerals we'd have to rip our land up to get (or conquer a few more countries and rip them up) and are still only as clean as the power plant that feeds them. Oil companies have lots of money and would rather see you use oil and natural gas than coal. So there's a skew in the propaganda you have to watch out for.

Meanwhile, debt results in printing more money, and that's what makes the middle class and poor more poor. Nationwide "solutions" punish the family farmers that grow our food, allowing Monsanto to take over whole huge tracts and grow their GMOs and spray their Roundup. Because few people actually eat wild game in this country.

They like to use scare tactics to turn people who are concerned into useful idiots for their agendas. When people become useful idiots, they'd much rather "keep the faith" and scoff at the people who tell them the truth. But listening and losing "faith" isn't as hard as waking up in the "brave new world" of nuclear radiation and poor people and global currencies and imperialism and rotting used batteries and say, "What have I done?"

Surely turning off the TV (brought to you by ExxonMobil and Halliburton) and listening to a few presumed "neckbeard virgins" is better than that.

What's that you say? You don't think you're propagandized? You don't think you're getting untruths and half-truths? You don't think very important information is being withheld from you? Maybe you're right. Maybe you're fully informed. Well, let's agree to disagree and go see what's new in that ongoing border skirmish between two nuclear weapon-armed nations.

What? Didn't hear about that on the MSM? Hmmm... Let me show you to a few neckbearded virgin friends of mine. They don't want you to be ignorant...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531913-Breaking-Indian-fighter-jets-entered-Pakistan-area


Did it? If it did, then why did the government take over? Or, did it work in a different time? Did it work in limited circumstances for a limited number of people? Are people just being nostalgic about it? I'm sure it had advantages over horses, but then came the car and rail's time was over. You know that people love their cars here, and there was no way mass rail or buses could compete with that after the 1920s.

I believe I recommended a thread...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285290-Intercity-Passenger-Rail

Yes, the railroads were all that. They still are. Most cities and towns west of the Mississippi were founded by railroads. The railroads won the Old West, not the Winchester. World War II was won by American railroads enabling the Arsenal of Democracy. Goods move from Japan to Europe over American railroads because unloading one ship at Long Beach and putting the containers on another at Norfolk gets goods there faster than the Panama Canal or Suez Canal.

The companies that perform that miracle every day would still be providing interstate passenger trains if they could have. And only the Lord knows how fast and appealing they would have become over the last 48 years. But the Nixon Administration made that impossible.

Read at least the first page of that thread. It has too much information to retype here. Give me a break and click.

[Working Poor]

I think we should down all planes and stop all gas and diesel vehicles one day a year. Then progress to one day a month. I think this qould amaze people to see how clear the sky becomes. Does anyone remember how clear the sky got when all air traffic was stopped on 9-11? Here is a link to an essay I wrote on it:

http://splendra49.blogspot.com/2006/10/pollution-solution.html

[Danke]

-
Question to all the rabid-dog Ocasio-Cortez haters, and it can only be called that since the woman has barely taken office. She's young and she's pretty...


https://www.allaboutvision.com/eye-exam/free-exam.htm

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't know. James Madison is starting to turn me to the position of pro-blacked out smog covered earth.

[kcchiefs6465]

https://www.allaboutvision.com/eye-exam/free-exam.htm
I'd sooner fuck Jack Nicholson.

[James_Madison_Lives]

Let's assume your point: that massive government regulation on an international scale is needed to address this issue. That the entire structure of modern society must be changed to prevent an ecological catastrophe.

1 - Who pays? Right now best estimates on the cost of implementing the Green New Deal are around $93 trillion dollars. We're broke and already owe $22 trillion. So where does the money come from?

2 - What controls will be enacted on me, personally? Ban my woodstove? Ban my children? (She mentioned this the other day) Ban my car certainly. But what else? Because to carry this out, you will have severely restrict everybody's food, energy and resource usage. With that in mind, who decides who gets what resources? When the future president Ortez is sworn in, will she eschew a government tax tractor and walk to the inauguration like Jimmy Carter did?

All Cortez did was address the elephant in the room, by throwing out a plan for discussion about cleaning up the planet. It's not perfect only a starting point but you would think she was a Holocaust denier. Is that how all green initiatives will be met?

The oceans are dying, there is no debate about that, fish toxified by plastic microspheres and mercury. I hope you don't eat tuna too often because by the time you are old your head will be nodding uncontrollably like you have Parkinsons - nerve damage. https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/06/too-much-tuna-too-much-mercury/index.htm

There is no need to jump to ad absurdum conclusions like they are going to ban your woodstove. Giving solar and wind farms the same supports that we already give the oil industry, the oil depletion allowance, would be wise public policy. Heavily tax plastics so that only uses, medical, etc., for which there are no substitutes are feasible. Look at all the plastic packaging that winds up in the trash when you buy something as simple as a razor. Is that really necessary? And every bit of that winds up in landfill or the oceans. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, GRANDKIDS! YOUR SELFISH GRANDPARENTS WHO ACTED LIKE A 28-YEAR-OLD WOMAN FROM THE BRONX WAS EVIL PERSONIFIED WHEN SHE SUGGESTED CLEANING UP THE PLANET!


MICROBEADS AND OCEAN POLLUTION
https://www.mbnep.org/2015/10/08/microbeads-and-ocean-pollution/
https://www.mbnep.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/RaceforWater_PeterCharaf_MicroplasticsAzores_2-624x416.jpg


https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/plastics.html
https://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/ocean_plastic_islands_456.jpg



Great Pacific Garbage Patch
https://www.theoceancleanup.com/great-pacific-garbage-patch/
https://www.theoceancleanup.com/fileadmin/media-archive/img/Pages/GPGP/4_Effects/TOC_Entangled_Turtle_by_Francis_Perez.jpg

[Superfluous Man]

The oceans are dying, there is no debate about that

Not only is there debate about that, but it's a nonsensical notion.

What does it even mean for an ocean to die?


Giving solar and wind farms the same supports that we already give the oil industry, the oil depletion allowance, would be wise public policy.

No it wouldn't. It would be a terrible idea.


Heavily tax plastics so that only uses, medical, etc., for which there are no substitutes are feasible.

Also a terrible idea.

The costs of the problems you're worried about are negligible compared to the devastation your solutions would bring.

[acptulsa]

Giving solar and wind farms the same supports that we already give the oil industry, the oil depletion allowance, would be wise public policy.

Seen worse. But few if any people here approve of the oil depletion allowance. The middle east wars, which provide bodyguard service for the oil cartel, are even less popular on this forum. That might not create the subsidies that companies (like Solyndra) can kick back to politicians (like Obama) and waste accomplishing nothing. But it'll put wind and solar on an equal footing with other things. Which suits us admirably.


Heavily tax plastics so that only uses, medical, etc., for which there are no substitutes are feasible. Look at all the plastic packaging that winds up in the trash when you buy something as simple as a razor. Is that really necessary? And every bit of that winds up in landfill or the oceans. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, GRANDKIDS! YOUR SELFISH GRANDPARENTS WHO ACTED LIKE A 28-YEAR-OLD WOMAN FROM THE BRONX WAS EVIL PERSONIFIED WHEN SHE SUGGESTED CLEANING UP THE PLANET!

Are you shouting about Cortez again? Gee, lady, I haven't even seen her promise to introduce a repeal of the federal tamper-resistant packaging regulations that make a bunch of those plastic bubbles mandatory. Maybe you should suggest she do that. We might see it and say, 'Wow! She does have a lick of sense after all!'

[Anti Federalist]

All Cortez did was address the elephant in the room, by throwing out a plan for discussion about cleaning up the planet. It's not perfect only a starting point but you would think she was a Holocaust denier. Is that how all green initiatives will be met?

Exactly.

A what?

A plan.

A plan that is centrally managed.

In other words...central planning.


The oceans are dying, there is no debate about that, fish toxified by plastic microspheres and mercury. I hope you don't eat tuna too often because by the time you are old your head will be nodding uncontrollably like you have Parkinsons - nerve damage.

I have spent my entire life making a living on the world's oceans. Over 35 years now. I have spent more time at sea than 10,000 randomly chosen landsmen. The oceans are not dying.


There is no need to jump to ad absurdum conclusions like they are going to ban your woodstove.

Why is that absurd? EPA already banned 80 percent of the woodstoves on the market five years ago. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/01/29/epas-wood-burning-stove-ban-has-chilling-consequences-for-many-rural-people/#2acd9b777ee0)

Green initiatives have outright banned all woodstoves and fireplaces in many areas.

So, let's be honest: what are you going to take away from me?


Giving solar and wind farms the same supports that we already give the oil industry, the oil depletion allowance, would be wise public policy. Heavily tax plastics so that only uses, medical, etc., for which there are no substitutes are feasible. Look at all the plastic packaging that winds up in the trash when you buy something as simple as a razor. Is that really necessary? And every bit of that winds up in landfill or the oceans. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, GRANDKIDS! YOUR SELFISH GRANDPARENTS WHO ACTED LIKE A 28-YEAR-OLD WOMAN FROM THE BRONX WAS EVIL PERSONIFIED WHEN SHE SUGGESTED CLEANING UP THE PLANET!

Do you know what has the greatest impact on population control, environmental stewardship and pollution reduction?

A healthy economy and wealth creation, fueled by abundant energy.

How about eliminating all subsidies and let market forces work out the best energy solutions?

[euphemia]

Does anyone know whether the energy required to produce solar panels and wind turbines is greater or less than the energy they produce over their lifetimes?

[acptulsa]

Why is that absurd? EPA already banned 80 percent of the woodstoves on the market five years ago. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/01/29/epas-wood-burning-stove-ban-has-chilling-consequences-for-many-rural-people/#2acd9b777ee0)

Because it happened? Because the OP didn't know it happened? Because the OP is brimming with outrage, but can summon no outrage at that?

Meanwhile, U.S. old growth forests (the very thing to absorb CO2and produce oxygen) are being cut down because Parliament (apparently believing London hasn't got enough smog) passed a silly 'renewable fuels' tax incentive. I don't see any outrage over that, either.

Instead she's berating us over being skeptical about a thousand page boondoggle that she, and we, and probably Cortez herself, aren't allowed to read.

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC1CGrVuGV8

[James_Madison_Lives]

Exactly.

A what?

A plan.

A plan that is centrally managed.

In other words...central planning.



I have spent my entire life making a living on the world's oceans. Over 35 years now. I have spent more time at sea than 10,000 randomly chosen landsmen. The oceans are not dying.



Why is that absurd? EPA already banned 80 percent of the woodstoves on the market five years ago. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/01/29/epas-wood-burning-stove-ban-has-chilling-consequences-for-many-rural-people/#2acd9b777ee0)

Green initiatives have outright banned all woodstoves and fireplaces in many areas.

So, let's be honest: what are you going to take away from me?



Do you know what has the greatest impact on population control, environmental stewardship and pollution reduction?

A healthy economy and wealth creation, fueled by abundant energy.

How about eliminating all subsidies and let market forces work out the best energy solutions?

Google for yourself:

- Collapsing fish stocks

- barrier reef health

- marine ecosystem health

Believe only the sources you trust. You just blew over 3 different links I gave on ocean pollution without addressing them, so you are not really interested in discussion, just hanging onto your point of view.

I have no time to educate someone who's thought pattern is 'everything was fine when I was there, so it must be fine now.' Anyone who doesn't know about the oceans has been living under a rock and I don't have time for people under rocks.

But here's a couple of starters, one from National Geographic, commie fake news to you no doubt.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/oceans-warming-global-environment-climate/

https://www.nmmba.gov.tw/En/News_Content.aspx?n=390543453F4A4942&s=88D396890EF1C4DD

[acptulsa]

Believe only the sources you trust. You just blew over 3 different links I gave on ocean pollution without addressing them, so you are not really interested in discussion, just hanging onto your point of view.

And you? How many salient points of discussion did you just breeze past?

Are you interested in anything besides maintaining a death grip on your point of view?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No, it really did build this country.





Yes, the railroads were all that.





Ah, okay; so we're talking about passenger AND industrial rail. I don't know much about the industrial side, but yes, I would assume that rail should be efficient. And then you also have trucks carrying goods to a merchant's door.

I don't doubt that passenger rail had its pluses. But I often don't buy these one dimensional arguments that government alone kills things. Yes, it can and does, but I think it's often multi-factoral. Sure, Ike advocated the highways, but people were also moving to the suburbs. Society became more mobile. The pace of life sped up and people wanted to get there faster. Route 66 just didn't cut it any more. Auto companies sophisticatingly marketed their products more in mags and burgeoning TV. The world really has become smaller with telecommunications and other stuff.

Individuals shape history, but it's also a whole conglomeration of things that move history. Sure, we sold a lot of our freedoms, but the other side of the coin is the force of history. And I don't kick myself for something I can do nothing about.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I used to commute into NYC for while on the North Jersey Coast route.

Parked my truck in Bay Head and rode in.


I believe I recommended a thread...




AF, I used to take the train from New Jersey into New York City for entertainment sometimes. That was the best way to go.

And I will check that thread, Tulsa. Looks interesting. Thanks.

[Anti Federalist]

Google for yourself:

- Collapsing fish stocks

- barrier reef health

- marine ecosystem health

Believe only the sources you trust. You just blew over 3 different links I gave on ocean pollution without addressing them, so you are not really interested in discussion, just hanging onto your point of view.

I have no time to educate someone who's thought pattern is 'everything was fine when I was there, so it must be fine now.' Anyone who doesn't know about the oceans has been living under a rock and I don't have time for people under rocks.

But here's a couple of starters, one from National Geographic, commie fake news to you no doubt.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/oceans-warming-global-environment-climate/

https://www.nmmba.gov.tw/En/News_Content.aspx?n=390543453F4A4942&s=88D396890EF1C4DD

My own personal experiences are meaningless and anecdotal to you, got it.

Fair enough...moving on.

OK, so I granted your point before.

I want to know what you're planning to take away from me to enact sweeping environmental reforms.

How much wealth?

How much progress?

How many lives?

The more honest of folks who think along your lines say 4-5 billion people need to be eliminated.

What say you?

More or less?

[Krugminator2]

It is funny to me that every single person who makes the environment a top issue is an anti-progress socialist. It is always strange that the Communist Party marches in the environmental rallies. It is almost as if environmentalism has nothing to do with the environment and is another redistribution scheme to make the US poorer and less free.

[acptulsa]

Funny ha ha or funny strange?

Yeah. I'm socialist because the environment. Let me scare you into going socialist by showing you a pic of Beijing.

In communist China.

[AngryCanadian]

You do realize Green Deal literary calls for people stop using plans and vehicles right?
AOC's Green Deal is a joke.

[Superfluous Man]

Google for yourself:

- Collapsing fish stocks


Rather than dumping litanies of topics and links that take you one minute to post and you expect us to spend an hour reading, and then somehow reply to in the scope of a forum post, let's take a topic at a time. In the ideal situation we might even see you argue the point using your own words with coherent meaningful sentences and not fluffy slogans that you assert not to be debatable.

Take this fish stocks line, for example.

Before I even check to see how factual the claim that world-wide fish stocks are depleting (but I note that the top hits of a Google search for "depleting fish stocks" will likely be one-sided), let's assume for the sake of argument that indeed they really are depleting.

This has happened before with animals being hunted by humans for food. Notably in North America, it happened with bison.

The solution to that situation that I would propose is the same one that saved the bison. Don't pass laws to stifle the consumption of them. Rather, allow people to profit from it. Those who profit from it will thus have an incentive to ensure that they keep enough around to mate and replace the population they kill and sell. If there is a depletion of fish stocks, then when we look at the root causes, we are bound to find that government interference is rife, and recognition of ownership of the fish and their habitats as the private property of those who mix their labor with the natural resources to produce consumable goods is lacking.

The same solution is what can save the elephants. Stop banning the sale of ivory. Instead, legalize it, and bring it out from the darkness of the black market, so that people can own elephants and harvest and sell their ivory openly, without having to kill of their livestock in secretive criminalized acts.

[kcchiefs6465]

Rather than dumping litanies of topics and links that take you one minute to post and you expect us to spend an hour reading, and then somehow reply to in the scope of a forum post, let's take a topic at a time. In the ideal situation we might even see you argue the point using your own words with coherent meaningful sentences and not fluffy slogans that you assert not to be debatable.

Take this fish stocks line, for example.

Before I even check to see how factual the claim that world-wide fish stocks are depleting (but I note that the top hits of a Google search for "depleting fish stocks" will likely be one-sided), let's assume for the sake of argument that indeed they really are depleting.

This has happened before with animals being hunted by humans for food. Notably in North America, it happened with bison.

The solution to that situation that I would propose is the same one that saved the bison. Don't pass laws to stifle the consumption of them. Rather, allow people to profit from it. Those who profit from it will thus have an incentive to ensure that they keep enough around to mate and replace the population they kill and sell. If there is a depletion of fish stocks, then when we look at the root causes, we are bound to find that government interference is rife, and recognition of ownership of the fish and their habitats as the private property of those who mix their labor with the natural resources to produce consumable goods is lacking.

The same solution is what can save the elephants. Stop banning the sale of ivory. Instead, legalize it, and bring it out from the darkness of the black market, so that people can own elephants and harvest and sell their ivory openly, without having to kill of their livestock in secretive criminalized acts.
Tragedy of the commons.

Privatize the corral reefs.

Let us also not forget that governments have been notorious in not only sanctioning pollution, but participating in it. Look at Diego Garcia for a quick example.

[James_Madison_Lives]

My own personal experiences are meaningless and anecdotal to you, got it.

Fair enough...moving on.

OK, so I granted your point before.

I want to know what you're planning to take away from me to enact sweeping environmental reforms.

How much wealth?

How much progress?

How many lives?

The more honest of folks who think along your lines say 4-5 billion people need to be eliminated.

What say you?

More or less?

So clean air isn't a form of wealth?

[acptulsa]

So clean air isn't a form of wealth?

So what are you going to do? Take air from Kansans and give it to New Yorkers? Is this yet another imaginative way for socialists to steal from the poor and give to the rich, while pretending they're Robin Hood?

How much diesel fuel will be burned shipping it?

Do you really not see the folly you're fighting for? Do you really have such an urban-centric view that you can't see the unintended consequences? Let's set aside the net for a minute, and ignore the wastage of power inherent in charging vehicles from non-superconducting wires from a power plant a hundred miles away, and the fact that electric vehicles tend to be more than fifty percent heavier than similarly-sized gas buggies.

Consider the farmer in Podunk, Nebraska. The farmer has to go to the store sometimes, right? Well, the store is eighty miles away. And if you have gotten federal laws passed making all cars electric, so your fellow city dwellers will stop "stealing your wealth" by belching exhaust under your urban nose, then the farmer in Podunk has to use a farm truck with a gross vehicle weight over 8500 pounds to go to the store, because you made it illegal for them to buy a car with a range of 160 miles. Is your federal fatwah still looking "eco-friendly" now?

Farfetched? Ridiculous? People already have to buy a light truck to travel in groups of six. A light truck which is topheavy, and therefore unsafe. Unintended consequences, right under your nose, which the MSM is no more telling you about than they told you about Ron Paul.

This isn't about Mother Earth. This is about control of the food chain. This is about people playing gotcha games with each other instead of cleaning out the corruption in Washington and finding sensible solutions for a nation which is 99 44/100% way too spread out for subways.

Are you interested in curbing corruption and seeking sensible solutions? Or do you just want to pick a side and play gotcha games?

[Anti Federalist]

So clean air isn't a form of wealth?

Let's assume it is and let's further assume that the air is not demonstrably cleaner in most all places than it was 50 years ago.

All the low hanging fruit has been picked...auto emissions are nothing but CO2 and water at this point, natural gas powered turbine generate more and more electricity, coal can be burned cleanly but nobody is even bothering with that anymore.

So, the only thing now is to reduce resource use.

How do you propose to do that, when most of that low hanging fruit has already been picked as well?

Again, the more honest of people that think like you come right out and say billions of us have to be eliminated.

They just differ on how to do it.

What say you?

[James_Madison_Lives]

Let's assume it is and let's further assume that the air is not demonstrably cleaner in most all places than it was 50 years ago.

All the low hanging fruit has been picked...auto emissions are nothing but CO2 and water at this point, natural gas powered turbine generate more and more electricity, coal can be burned cleanly but nobody is even bothering with that anymore.

So, the only thing now is to reduce resource use.

How do you propose to do that, when most of that low hanging fruit has already been picked as well?

Again, the more honest of people that think like you come right out and say billions of us have to be eliminated.

They just differ on how to do it.

What say you?

You are a pretty sick little puppy to jump from catalytic converters to genocide, but maybe that's why you spend your time on online forums rather than relating to real people. But to ignore your idiotic ad absurdum, what's wrong with better insulation of homes and buildings the loss of heat and air conditioning through which is second only to transportation, in fossil fuel costs? You are wrong. All the low hanging fruit has not been picked. Much work remains which will only be done thanks to people like AOC making lots of noise about it.

[Swordsmyth]

You are a pretty sick little puppy to jump from catalytic converters to genocide, but maybe that's why you spend your time on online forums rather than relating to real people. But to ignore your idiotic ad absurdum, what's wrong with better insulation of homes and buildings the loss of heat and air conditioning through which is second only to transportation, in fossil fuel costs? You are wrong. All the low hanging fruit has not been picked. Much work remains which will only be done thanks to people like AOC making lots of noise about it.
The economics of what you advocate will result in many deaths.

[James_Madison_Lives]

The economics of what you advocate will result in many deaths.

How so?

[Swordsmyth]

How so?
By misallocating resources and discouraging production.

[Anti Federalist]

You are a pretty sick little puppy to jump from catalytic converters to genocide, but maybe that's why you spend your time on online forums rather than relating to real people.

You're not a real person?

Damn it...arguing with bots again.


But to ignore your idiotic ad absurdum, what's wrong with better insulation of homes and buildings the loss of heat and air conditioning through which is second only to transportation, in fossil fuel costs? You are wrong. All the low hanging fruit has not been picked.

New homes are built so tight and so well insulated and so well sealed, that there are now issues cropping up regarding mold, particulates and other indoor pollution because so little air escapes.


Much work remains which will only be done thanks to people like AOC making lots of noise about it.

Pinning you Malthusians down is like trying to nail Jello to the wall:

What work, specifically?

She is government.

Government's work is to "govern".

To restrict, throttle, slow down and control.

So, what is she going to control, specifically?

Let's see what the founder of GreenPeace says about her plan:

1102018074016796673

[Swordsmyth]

New homes are built so tight and so well insulated and so well sealed, that there are now issues cropping up regarding mold, particulates and other indoor pollution because so little air escapes.
They have to have electric air pumps to exchange the air to keep from suffocating their owners, if the power goes out for very long people will have to open doors or windows to avoid dying.

[acptulsa]

What are a few unintended deaths when you're trying to save lives?

And who cares what a right-wing know-nothing dealer in ad absurdities like the head of Greenpeace says? Clearly the millions in the Bronx can walk to Iowa every morning for their bagels.

[nobody's_hero]

First off, I wouldn't live in a city as big as Beijing.

Secondly, . . . well I guess there isn't a second.

[acptulsa]

It amazes me that this thread gets moved higher in Google search rankings than the rest of the forum combined.

Want a successful website? Just plaster it over with references to AOC.

[nikcers]

- There can be debate over whether burning fossil fuels causes global warming. That's fine and though I think it does, I have no problem with someone who disagrees.

- There is NO debate over whether it causes pollution, and the more we burn, the more it causes.

Question to all the rabid-dog Ocasio-Cortez haters, and it can only be called that since the woman has barely taken office. She's young and she's pretty, and I think there is something else going on with either repressed sexual identity problems or impotent old men.

- Do we wait for the planet to become like Beijing or Tokyo, where people put a dollar into a street corner vending machine for a few breaths of fresh air? How many more pollutants do you want to breath?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12051354/Chinese-buy-up-bottles-of-fresh-air-from-Canada.html

https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03526/china-pollution_3526951b.jpg

Some people say over a million Chinese die per year from air pollution. Since they poison themselves manufacturing things to sell us it's a good deal. Plus it's sort of payback for all of the people who die from fentanyl.

[johnwk]

Should We Wait Until We Need Oxygen Masks Like Beijing Before Doing an AOC Green New Deal?



We? The United States has, since the 1980s, cut toxic emissions dramatically! When you and those who advocate the "green new deal", compel countries like China and India to cut their toxic emissions as the United States already has, then get back to us here in the United States and peddle your green new deal.

JWK

In every communist dictatorial oppressive country, like Cuba, the people are disarmed. Forewarned is forearmed.

[oyarde]

It is funny to me that every single person who makes the environment a top issue is an anti-progress socialist. It is always strange that the Communist Party marches in the environmental rallies. It is almost as if environmentalism has nothing to do with the environment and is another redistribution scheme to make the US poorer and less free.

Well that is because that is what it is .

[nikcers]

Well that is because that is what it is .

It's just a denial of evolution. People will just get stronger when asthmatics are removed from the gene pool.

[johnwk]

It is funny to me that every single person who makes the environment a top issue is an anti-progress socialist. It is always strange that the Communist Party marches in the environmental rallies. It is almost as if environmentalism has nothing to do with the environment and is another redistribution scheme to make the US poorer and less free.

Communist and socialist political leaders, in order to keep themselves in power, need a majority of the population to be poor and chained to "government cheese" which these type of leaders promise during every election. Why do you think the socialist members of Congress during FDR's Administration adopted the "Temporary Victory Tax" of 1943, which started the federal government confiscating the bread which poor working people earned by the sweat of their labor, and that very "temporary" legislation continues today?


JWK

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims to be an advocate of hard working people living in the Bronx. If that is so, why is she not advocating an end to the unconstitutional “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, which began federal confiscation of the bread which working people have earned by the sweat of their labor?

[nikcers]

Maybe I am a little biased because I can't breathe outside when it's the holidays and everyone is burning wood fires. I definitely see bow it was a government created problem though so I wouldn't advocate a government solution until the government starts to become accountable for government caused problems we should start taking away government solutions otherwise they have a opportunity to boondoggle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIOiGtO2UBA