Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How much will it take for you to shut the fuck up and never post here again Mis Raz'r Jib? That was fun.

One of the few things you posted I agree with.  It is however the only (legal) entity that has the power to send people with guns to bend you to it's will.

Posted Images

28 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's a non-binding statement of goals. With caveats. Sorry man, I don't see why this single resolution got so much play in the rightwing echo chamber here or elsewhere. It got far more from everyone else than AOC.

The issue is that AOC uses externally addressed talk where all that comes from Trump is me,me,me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No, they really can't.  You may be able to reduce processing contamination, but, the acquisition of the raw material ( petroleum ) cannot. 

Pulling the "you can almost put it in your tank" from Newfoundland vs. dilbit is an entirely different game in terms of pollution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

nah, the issue is the issues. her work, and moreso distortions of it, is pretext to rally the rightys. no one's pushing them to say stupid crap like "Co2 emissions are great for humanity". It's a political choice to believe, and push, that bullshit. One could argue that more emissions are worth the trade off - that's a difference in values. But to push the industry bullshit line? that's just Trumpian extreme right wing politics. Like everything else they step over the supportable opposition position to the unsupportable extreme where they just yammer on trying to turn their lies into truth by repetition. And they succeed amongst the faithful.

Lotsa that going around...  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No, they really can't.  You may be able to reduce processing contamination, but, the acquisition of the raw material ( petroleum ) cannot. 

Sure you can, the regulations force the production offshore to countries that sign every agreement that is not binding on them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usIXDp2eUrI

Here is our girl saying we have 12 years to cut our emissions 50%, and the internet records everything.  

Emissions will rise steadily through 2050 no matter what the US does.  When nothing bad happens, will that convince the superstitious?

If you don't buy this climate catastrophe bullshit, you are just like those who opposed black Americans and African Americans from voting.  

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

- ""Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions — including expanding electric car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to "a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary"   ( bolding is mine ) - I suspect that she intended that to mean continental travel, but, the idea that you could eliminate air travel?  IIRC ( and if you've got the original cite - please, post the text) she also specified an unrealistic timeline for the implementation of this particular tenet.  

Given the affordability, convenience, speed, and comprehensive service, air travel is damned near "necessary" if you are traveling more than a few hours from home.  

Saturday morning, my wife, daughter, and I fly from BWI to Raleigh-Durham for college visits.  Flight time is 75 minutes, cost is $69 each (one way).  Sure, we could drive.  But, my time is money and flying is damned near "necessary".

Expanding the rail system and incorporating high-speed could lessen the need to take to the air.

"Stops becoming necessary" does not mean "eliminate".

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

I'm guessing that Jizz kid doesn't keep bees, or have a citrus grove, or other fruit trees that depend on pollinators to produce.... Squash, cucumbers, melons, pumpkins, etc. all rely on bees or butterflies to make fruits. About the only crops I can think of off hand that is wind pollinated are corn, wheat, and other grains..... and DNC voters

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Given the affordability, convenience, speed, and comprehensive service, air travel is damned near "necessary" if you are traveling more than a few hours from home.  

Saturday morning, my wife, daughter, and I fly from BWI to Raleigh-Durham for college visits.  Flight time is 75 minutes, cost is $69 each (one way).  Sure, we could drive.  But, my time is money and flying is damned near "necessary".

Expanding the rail system and incorporating high-speed could lessen the need to take to the air.

"Stops becoming necessary" does not mean "eliminate".

If you use the phrase "until it stops becoming necessary" to describe something that will never stop becoming necessary, then you are a moron.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

If you use the phrase "until it stops becoming necessary" to describe something that will never stop becoming necessary, then you are a moron.

Oh, FFS. 

Obtuse doesn't even begin to describe you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Oh, FFS. 

Obtuse doesn't even begin to describe you.

 

I love these guys like Chessie and the rest who can't parse the intent of a straightforward bit of political rhetoric and then demand clarifying footnotes to every phrase or they will insist on mis-interpreting it.   They are as bad as the dogmatic Stalinists who demanded purity of thought and gave 5 hour speeches so that no mis-interpretation was possible.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

They are as bad as the dogmatic Stalinists who demanded purity of thought and gave 5 hour speeches so that no mis-interpretation was possible.  

Did the Stalinists have the internet?

'Cause these people do, and they speechify much longer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Did the Stalinists have the internet?

'Cause these people do, and they speechify much longer.

 

They had the KGB, which could gather and act on anti-stalinisms at the speed of thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

They had the KGB, which could gather and act on anti-stalinisms at the speed of thought.

The speed of thought..... Wow....

 What's the speed of stupid?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, justsomeguy! said:

Oh, FFS. 

Obtuse doesn't even begin to describe you.

 

The very best thing about this whole climate clown debate is, as the girl wonder stated in her face stuffing video, the internet never forgets.  This will all be memorialized forever.  There is exactly zero chance that we are going to reduce our CO2 emissions 50% in 12 years.  In fact, barring a severe recession, they will steadily increase past 2050.  The Earth will become even greener, agricultural output will still be increasing, human environmental deaths decreasing, poverty virtually eliminated, and you will still be a clown.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Same as the speed of dark.

.......Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.................!.

That would explain my mother-in-law......

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

Excellent.  Keep writing this shit down fior posterity.  

Confidence in how correct you are while the overwhelming consensus is you are wrong.

Please don't ever think you are mistaken.

It is much more fun to discuss with an individual who knows it all.

Tell us about black holes. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hasher said:

Confidence in how correct you are while the overwhelming consensus is you are wrong.

So you believe we can cut CO2 emissions 50% in 12 years, as your leader AOC says?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Given the affordability, convenience, speed, and comprehensive service, air travel is damned near "necessary" if you are traveling more than a few hours from home.  

Saturday morning, my wife, daughter, and I fly from BWI to Raleigh-Durham for college visits.  Flight time is 75 minutes, cost is $69 each (one way).  Sure, we could drive.  But, my time is money and flying is damned near "necessary".

Expanding the rail system and incorporating high-speed could lessen the need to take to the air.

"Stops becoming necessary" does not mean "eliminate".

Flight time is 75 minutes. How long does it take to get to the parkinglot at BWI, then wait for an hour in line to get on the plane, then sit on the tarmac while waiting for deicing/ground stop for WX or other traffic, then deplane, get to the rental car desk, catch a shuttle to the rental place, get yourself into a car and drive 10 miles to the college?

 I'm guessing longer than if you drove your family car at off peak traffic hours. And the cost of the rental car and parking?

 $69 is great, but that doesn't include airport taxes, or other "fees"....

 Yes, not driving through DC is great, but you can always find a way around.... I know.... I've done it many times. The few  times that I thought  I'd chance it and take the beltway, I've regretted it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So you believe we can cut CO2 emissions 50% in 12 years, as your leader AOC says?

 

"Your leader"? She's been in office less than 5 months.

 Get a grip.:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hasher said:

Confidence in how correct you are while the overwhelming consensus is you are wrong.

Please don't ever think you are mistaken.

It is much more fun to discuss with an individual who knows it all.

Tell us about black holes. 

Silly climate clown.  The consensus has already been proven wrong.  All of the facts that I have cited are not controversial.  The world is getting better for both the planet and humans.  Virtually nothing is getting worse.  Maybe NASA can try adjusting the data a few more times to keep the alarm going, but the whole house of climate clown cards is falling down.  No one but the super religious are buying it anymore.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow............ The stupid is strong tonight....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So you believe we can cut CO2 emissions 50% in 12 years, as your leader AOC says?

 

We can, but we wont.  There will be an extension of agriculture to the northern states at the expense of the southern states, but overall, the food situation within the US will not change significantly.  Fossil fuel will still be pushed in a marketing sense that will overpower the pull of alternate energy.  An "I'm all right, Jack" sense will pervade and the response to external pressures from those affected such as southern peasants will be met with force.  Bigger and better walls.  There may be some significant conflicts in this time. The US will continue on its course of isolation and its economy will stagnate, but at a high level, as a result.  But there is hope.  In another generation, these old white men will all be dead and given the present birth rate, the diminishing number of their sons and daughters will have less and less power.  It is at that point that a much changed world will start adapting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Laker said:

We can, but we wont.  There will be an extension of agriculture to the northern states at the expense of the southern states, but overall, the food situation within the US will not change significantly.  Fossil fuel will still be pushed in a marketing sense that will overpower the pull of alternate energy.  An "I'm all right, Jack" sense will pervade and the response to external pressures from those affected such as southern peasants will be met with force.  Bigger and better walls.  There may be some significant conflicts in this time. The US will continue on its course of isolation and its economy will stagnate, but at a high level, as a result.  But there is hope.  In another generation, these old white men will all be dead and given the present birth rate, the diminishing number of their sons and daughters will have less and less power.  It is at that point that a much changed world will start adapting.  

I didn't realize what a racist, sexist ageist you were.

If you want to make it about race, the brunt of the emissions are going to come from other races that want to have good lives like ours.  Good for them.   A few countries might wreck their economies, like Germany, by getting rid of all of their coal and nuclear power plants, but they will prove to be laughing stocks of the world as everything about the planet continues to improve.  

Global emissions aren't even going to stabilize until 2050, even under the "pledges" scenario.  But who here thinks countries will stick to their pledges?

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/04/Greenhouse-gas-emission-scenarios-01.png

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

I didn't realize what a racist, sexist ageist you were.

If you want to make it about race, the brunt of the emissions are going to come from other races that want to have good lives like ours.  Good for them.   A few countries might wreck their economies, like Germany, by getting rid of all of their coal and nuclear power plants, but they will prove to be laughing stocks of the world as everything about the planet continues to improve.  

Global emissions aren't even going to stabilize until 2050, even under the "pledges" scenario.  But who here thinks countries will stick to their pledges?

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/04/Greenhouse-gas-emission-scenarios-01.png

You still can't overcome the fact that the next generation will be less and less white and the attitudes that go with it will change.  On top of the declining birth rate, the sperm count of western culture men is declining at a great rate.   Weber's Protestant Economy is a cultural process.  It is not an inherent law.  Economies will change. This may be the bigger driver of change in a shorter time than climate change.  Twenty years ago the Canadians had a referendum concerning the separation of Quebec.  In the 1950s francophones were 33% of the Canadian population.  At the time of the referendum, it had declined to 20%, but many of the francophones were immigrants.  Francophones are now 18% of the Canadian population and half are immigrants.  There is now no serious issue of separation. The US will see a change as immigrants replace white and black populations.  Interestingly the  indigenous population seems to be rebounding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laker said:

You still can't overcome the fact that the next generation will be less and less white and the attitudes that go with it will change.  On top of the declining birth rate, the sperm count of western culture men is declining at a great rate.   Weber's Protestant Economy is a cultural process.  It is not an inherent law.  Economies will change. This may be the bigger driver of change in a shorter time than climate change.  Twenty years ago the Canadians had a referendum concerning the separation of Quebec.  In the 1950s francophones were 33% of the Canadian population.  At the time of the referendum, it had declined to 20%, but many of the francophones were immigrants.  Francophones are now 18% of the Canadian population and half are immigrants.  There is now no serious issue of separation. The US will see a change as immigrants replace white and black populations.  Interestingly the  indigenous population seems to be rebounding.

You can't overcome the fact that all races want to be lifted out of poverty.  That requires energy.  And that energy is coming from fossil fuel.  It is not because of "marketing" but rather efficiency.  it is the Asian people that are leading the world in CO2 emissions, and good for them.  They deserve to flourish just like we are flourishing.  

That being said, if you want to eat food grown with electric tractors, more power to you.  Just don't stand in the way of the rest of the world actually eating and flourishing.  Meanwhile, the benefits of the CO2 emissions outweigh the costs.  That will continue to be seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jzk said:

You can't overcome the fact that all races want to be lifted out of poverty.  That requires energy.  And that energy is coming from fossil fuel.  It is not because of "marketing" but rather efficiency.  it is the Asian people that are leading the world in CO2 emissions, and good for them.  They deserve to flourish just like we are flourishing.  

That being said, if you want to eat food grown with electric tractors, more power to you.  Just don't stand in the way of the rest of the world actually eating and flourishing.  Meanwhile, the benefits of the CO2 emissions outweigh the costs.  That will continue to be seen.

It must be wonderful to live inside your head...Always entertaining. 

I had a cousin who had a similar condition, her frequently intriguing but disturbing fantasies were finally controlled by meds after she realized that it was less interesting to live in the real world, but better.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

It must be wonderful to live inside your head...Always entertaining. 

I had a cousin who had a similar condition, her frequently intriguing but disturbing fantasies were finally controlled by meds after she realized that it was less interesting to live in the real world, but better.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Flight time is 75 minutes. How long does it take to get to the parkinglot at BWI, then wait for an hour in line to get on the plane, then sit on the tarmac while waiting for deicing/ground stop for WX or other traffic, then deplane, get to the rental car desk, catch a shuttle to the rental place, get yourself into a car and drive 10 miles to the college?

 I'm guessing longer than if you drove your family car at off peak traffic hours. And the cost of the rental car and parking?

 $69 is great, but that doesn't include airport taxes, or other "fees"....

 Yes, not driving through DC is great, but you can always find a way around.... I know.... I've done it many times. The few  times that I thought  I'd chance it and take the beltway, I've regretted it.

It's 11:18 PM, so that probably counts as "off peak", right?  It's roughly 328 miles from my house to Raleigh.  Google maps places us at about 5 hour drive time.  The Uber gets us at 6 AM and we will be in the rental car before 10.  Avoiding 95 in NOVA is worth a King's Ransom.

 

My point is the affordability and convenience of air travel makes it damned hard to beat, unless you've got loads of time to sit behind the wheel.

As such, it is essentially "necessary".  No one is saying air travel will, or should, be eliminated.

Screen Shot 2019-04-11 at 11.18.30 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

It's 11:18 PM, so that probably counts as "off peak", right?  It's roughly 328 miles from my house to Raleigh.  Google maps places us at about 5 hour drive time.  The Uber gets us at 6 AM and we will be in the rental car before 10.  Avoiding 95 in NOVA is worth a King's Ransom.

 

My point is the affordability and convenience of air travel makes it damned hard to beat, unless you've got loads of time to sit behind the wheel.

As such, it is essentially "necessary".  No one is saying air travel will, or should, be eliminated.

Screen Shot 2019-04-11 at 11.18.30 PM.png

The train from Seattle to Portland, even with low-tech Amtrak, is far superior to flying.    

180 miles.   1/2 hour slower door to door, if everything goes right, but 3 times the comfort and less than half the cost.  I don't know any business travelers who don't take the train.   High speed rail would take all of that air route's business in a minute.  NY to DC the same thing.  Rail is the way to go.

At 320 miles, your trip is likely tilted toward flying.  If you had rail service, I bet it would come out on top.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Left Shift said:

At 320 miles, your trip is likely tilted toward flying.  If you had rail service, I bet it would come out on top.

Making air travel less (or even un-) necessary. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:
7 hours ago, Left Shift said:

At 320 miles, your trip is likely tilted toward flying.  If you had rail service, I bet it would come out on top.

 Making air travel less (or even un-) necessary.

Almost like was proposed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

It's 11:18 PM, so that probably counts as "off peak", right?  It's roughly 328 miles from my house to Raleigh.  Google maps places us at about 5 hour drive time.  The Uber gets us at 6 AM and we will be in the rental car before 10.  Avoiding 95 in NOVA is worth a King's Ransom.

 

My point is the affordability and convenience of air travel makes it damned hard to beat, unless you've got loads of time to sit behind the wheel.

As such, it is essentially "necessary".  No one is saying air travel will, or should, be eliminated.

Screen Shot 2019-04-11 at 11.18.30 PM.png

If there's a good way around DC, I have not been able to find it. Last few trips I've just gotten on 495 and put on some relaxing music.

I-95 from Baltimore down to Fredericksburg is usually congested and often slow. A train would be an awesome alternative.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, justsomeguy! said:

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here.

Let's face it.  Time for you to pick another crisis.  

Inequality?  That, I admit, is a good one.  It is much easier to deceive the public with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jzk said:

Global air travel.  I wonder when flying will stop being necessary.  

Graph-of-global-air-travel-passenger-kilometres-historic-1936-2016.png

Either you are being intentionally obtuse or you are one stupid man.

The words in the actually document are here -

(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and

(iii) high-speed rail;

I have bolded the relevant portion.

Here is a link to the actual document.  Where in that document does it indicate the intention is to eliminate air travel?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Either you are being intentionally obtuse or you are one stupid man.

The words in the actually document are here -

(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

 

You are the one that is not getting it.  It is currently technologically feasible to replace all natural gas heating in the US with electric.  But we are not going to do it.  Further, the poor and the middle class can't afford it.  And there is only so much you can get from the rich, so you better pick your crisis well.  You can't have it both ways.  You want the rich to pay for your health care or your high speed train system?

And why should we spend all of this money that we can't afford?  It has turned out that CO2 emissions are actually benefiting the planet. 

So add increased air travel to the predictions of now through 2050.  Greener Earth.  Less poverty.  Less environmental deaths.  More food.  The case for CO2 and fossil fuel simply could not get any better.  No one here has been able to refute any of it.

That doesn't mean you can't ride the train and eat food produced from electric tractors.  Just don't be taking energy choices away from the rest of us.  It is just not going to happen.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Left Shift said:

I love these guys like Chessie and the rest who can't parse the intent of a straightforward bit of political rhetoric and then demand clarifying footnotes to every phrase or they will insist on mis-interpreting it.   They are as bad as the dogmatic Stalinists who demanded purity of thought and gave 5 hour speeches so that no mis-interpretation was possible.  

 *insist on misinterpreting*?  Really?  It's pretty plain to me that many of the things Mz AOC proffered in the GND are impractical, costly, and have damn little chance to create the positive impact that she offers as support for the initiative *IF* they could be even implemented.  That's not  misinterpretation, that's a direct response in opposition to the proposal.  

Some of you seem to be so personally enthralled with her that you take any opposition to her ideas as a personal affront.  While I can agree with some of the things she says she wants to achieve with the GND?   That doesn't mean that I have to agree that how she proposes to get there is viable.  But - y'all will continue to messenger attack rather than discuss the ideas - it's just what ya do when you've got nothin' else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Who is?

I find most of the opposition to "her ideas" is opposition to strawmen. i.e. "making air travel less necessary" becomes "eliminating air travel".

Then perhaps more careful wording is imperative?  Y'all that like what you think she intends are willing to afford a great deal more leeway in interpretation than are those of us who consider much of what she wants to do to be misguided.    Kinda the nature of political disagreement, isn't it?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

It's 11:18 PM, so that probably counts as "off peak", right?  It's roughly 328 miles from my house to Raleigh.  Google maps places us at about 5 hour drive time.  The Uber gets us at 6 AM and we will be in the rental car before 10.  Avoiding 95 in NOVA is worth a King's Ransom.

 

My point is the affordability and convenience of air travel makes it damned hard to beat, unless you've got loads of time to sit behind the wheel.

As such, it is essentially "necessary".  No one is saying air travel will, or should, be eliminated.

Screen Shot 2019-04-11 at 11.18.30 PM.png

My apologies. I thought that you lived farther west, I must be thinking of someone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

You are the one that is not getting it.  It is currently technologically feasible to replace all natural gas heating in the US with electric.  But we are not going to do it.  Further, the poor and the middle class can't afford it.  And there is only so much you can get from the rich, so you better pick your crisis well.  You can't have it both ways.  You want the rich to pay for your health care or your high speed train system?

And why should we spend all of this money that we can't afford?  It has turned out that CO2 emissions are actually benefiting the planet. 

So add increased air travel to the predictions of now through 2050.  Greener Earth.  Less poverty.  Less environmental deaths.  More food.  The case for CO2 and fossil fuel simply could not get any better.  No one here has been able to refute any of it.

That doesn't mean you can't ride the train and eat food produced from electric tractors.  Just don't be taking energy choices away from the rest of us.  It is just not going to happen.

 

I am inclined to think you are just stupid. 

Where to start?

I post about transportation energy and you respond with home heating.  By the way, how are you generating the electricity with which you are heating those homes?  Natural gas?  Coal?  Um, yeah.

Then, you promote we continue, even increasing, our CO2 emissions.  You may just be a troll.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Given the affordability, convenience, speed, and comprehensive service, air travel is damned near "necessary" if you are traveling more than a few hours from home.  

Saturday morning, my wife, daughter, and I fly from BWI to Raleigh-Durham for college visits.  Flight time is 75 minutes, cost is $69 each (one way).  Sure, we could drive.  But, my time is money and flying is damned near "necessary".

Expanding the rail system and incorporating high-speed could lessen the need to take to the air.

"Stops becoming necessary" does not mean "eliminate".

How's the train gonna go across the pond?   Don't misunderstand - I *like* trains!  When I'm going from home to NYC?  I'll usually park at the Reston Metro stop, and take the metro to Union Station and then take Amtrak to Penn Station.  It's easier, cheaper and more fun than driving and paying for parking.   On a work trip to Africa a few years ago, we had to make a stop in Stuttgart to do some stuff before heading south.  Flight was Paris - Jedda - Addis - Djibouti.   We looked around, and the TGV from Stuttgart to Gare du Nord would put us at CDG an hour and a half faster and $200 cheaper.  We hit an indicated 197MPH ( as indicated on my blackberry GPS ) and the ride was smoother and quieter than my car.   

The point?  I *like* trains - and I think that focusing on improving our rail infrastructure would be a beneficial thing.  I don't think that reduction or elimination of air travel is a worthwhile objective, and shouldn't be part of the consideration.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Reducing fossil fuel consumption is misguided? It's coming man look at Aramco's reserves (down further than people thought)  look at how much cash was invested in Shale Oil plays in the US and what a money loser that industry is.

Not at all, and if she'd articulate her ideas as "here are a few things we should look at to contribute to that reduction"?  We'd be having a different conversation.  

What is misguided in her description of the GND?  "updating every building in the country in 10 years" certainly is.   Providing a guaranteed income for those who don't want to work certainly is.  Establishing pie in the sky objectives that have no basis in reality certainly is.  Addressing meat consumption as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions certainly is.   


Edited to add: BTW - how'd your illegal friends like their supper? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How's the train gonna go across the pond?   Don't misunderstand - I *like* trains!  When I'm going from home to NYC?  I'll usually park at the Reston Metro stop, and take the metro to Union Station and then take Amtrak to Penn Station.  It's easier, cheaper and more fun than driving and paying for parking.   On a work trip to Africa a few years ago, we had to make a stop in Stuttgart to do some stuff before heading south.  Flight was Paris - Jedda - Addis - Djibouti.   We looked around, and the TGV from Stuttgart to Gare du Nord would put us at CDG an hour and a half faster and $200 cheaper.  We hit an indicated 197MPH ( as indicated on my blackberry GPS ) and the ride was smoother and quieter than my car.   

The point?  I *like* trains - and I think that focusing on improving our rail infrastructure would be a beneficial thing.  I don't think that reduction or elimination of air travel is a worthwhile objective, and shouldn't be part of the consideration.  

It appears you are still stuck on the misunderstanding of air travel being eliminated is what is being proposed.

That is just not so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

It appears you are still stuck on the misunderstanding of air travel being eliminated is what is being proposed.

That is just not so.

Not stuck on anything - that was in the wording she used, and that's the point.   If you look at my initial comment on the matter - you can see what I thought she meant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I am inclined to think you are just stupid. 

Where to start?

I post about transportation energy and you respond with home heating.  By the way, how are you generating the electricity with which you are heating those homes?  Natural gas?  Coal?  Um, yeah.

Then, you promote we continue, even increasing, our CO2 emissions.  You may just be a troll.

Is this a real post?  If you want to eliminate fossil fuel, you are going to have to heat homes with something besides fossil fuel.  What are the choices?

We will take this step by step, so it is easier for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Who is? How many righties bump this thread with their daily "OMG AOC said something that might be construed as less than perfect" vs. lefties bumping this thread and saying "her written proposed laws are the best ever".

I find most of the opposition to "her ideas" is opposition to strawmen. i.e. "making air travel less necessary" becomes "eliminating air travel".

You are just misinformed.  Did you read her fact sheet press release:

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Green-New-Deal-FAQ-Fact-Sheet-Feb-7-2019.pdf

"We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero."

You know, the "draft" press release that her staffer, who was having a bad day, released early?  The one that they have not yet corrected?

She is an embarrassment.  But she has pizzazz and charm.  And she is cute.  So at least there is that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

Is this a real post?  If you want to eliminate fossil fuel, you are going to have to heat homes with something besides fossil fuel.  What are the choices?

We will take this step by step, so it is easier for you.

I was talking about transportation.  Like everyone else was.

You started talking about heating homes.

Why not inject every other use of energy to derail the conversation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

From your quote, it appears she means that she realizes that we can't.

We can't fully get rid of airplanes in 10 years.  

Why is she talking about fulling getting rid of something she never intends to fully get rid of?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I was talking about transportation.  Like everyone else was.

You started talking about heating homes.

Why not inject every other use of energy to derail the conversation?

Yeah, we should inject every other use of energy in the AOC thread given that she has proposed transforming every other use of energy as well.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:
2 hours ago, jzk said:

So when the girl wonder says "fully get rid" of airplanes, what does she mean by that?

From your quote, it appears she means that she realizes that we can't.

Of course she knows, and we know, that getting rid of airplanes is folly. 

We know this because we can read the actual document and it says nothing of the sort.

If this were a Republican saying outlandish stuff, the Faithful would be in here telling us it is "hyperbole" of an "embellishment" or an "exaggeration" or a "rhetorical flourish".

I challenge anyone to find the part of this in which it calls for us to "get rid of airplanes".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Of course she knows, and we know, that getting rid of airplanes is folly. 

We know this because we can read the actual document and it says nothing of the sort.

If this were a Republican saying outlandish stuff, the Faithful would be in here telling us it is "hyperbole" of an "embellishment" or an "exaggeration" or a "rhetorical flourish".

I challenge anyone to find the part of this in which it calls for us to "get rid of airplanes".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

Hard to believe you post such stupid nonsense.  I already quoted it from her press release:

"We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero."

It is the press release from her office.  Discussing exactly what she wants to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that her clearly stated goal, "exactly what she wants to do" is to "get [carbon emissions] to net-zero" and that she recognizes that it won't be possible to "get rid of" airplanes or farting cows.

At least, that's the impression I get when I read her own words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

It seems to me that her clearly stated goal, "exactly what she wants to do" is to "get [carbon emissions] to net-zero" and that she recognizes that it won't be possible to "get rid of" airplanes or farting cows.

At least, that's the impression I get when I read her own words.

Is that because you don't speak English?   

"we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast"

What did she mean by "that fast?"  Did she mean that she wants to fully get rid of airplanes, but isn't sure that she can do it in ten years?  When she says she "ins't sure," doesn't that imply that she thinks there is a chance?  And that chance is more probable than not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what she meant by "that fast". Do you? No, you don't. You can interpret and spin and ridicule, but you don't know.

Perhaps that would be a good agenda item for Congress to address during discussion of the GND.

What you DO know from your quote is that her goal is to get carbon emissions to net-zero in a decade. Beyond that, she sets some possible goals. I'd have to go outside of your quote, but I believe the stated intent of the GND was to generate discussion on the issue.

(As a quick aside, if you're going to insult someone and question whether they speak English, you should really proofread your posts for things like "ins't sure". Typos like that really make you look bad. Someone might attack you for that. Just sayin'.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

I don't know what she meant by "that fast". Do you? No, you don't. You can interpret and spin and ridicule, but you don't know.

Perhaps that would be a good agenda item for Congress to address during discussion of the GND.

What you DO know from your quote is that her goal is to get carbon emissions to net-zero in a decade. Beyond that, she sets some possible goals. I'd have to go outside of your quote, but I believe the stated intent of the GND was to generate discussion on the issue.

(As a quick aside, if you're going to insult someone and question whether they speak English, you should really proofread your posts for things like "ins't sure". Typos like that really make you look bad. Someone might attack you for that. Just sayin'.)

You don't really believe that.  You are just tap dancing.  She wants to fully get rid of airplanes in 10 years, but she is not sure she can fully do it in that time period.  She is not SURE she can.  She thinks she might be able to, but she is simply not SURE. 

What is so hard to understand?  Read the plain English.  

It was a stupid thing for her to say, and you should just call her on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

It appears you are still stuck on the misunderstanding of air travel being eliminated is what is being proposed.

That is just not so.

Gotta love someone who tells us not to mis-understanding and, at the same time, insists on mis-understanding what he's reading.  

The trolls here and in Congress are diving deep into the reductio ad absurdum form of argument.  Never a good place to start a dialogue.  But then, they don't want a dialogue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Left Shift said:

Gotta love someone who tells us not to mis-understanding and, at the same time, insists on mis-understanding what he's reading.  

The trolls here and in Congress are diving deep into the reductio ad absurdum form of argument.  Never a good place to start a dialogue.  But then, they don't want a dialogue. 

There is no other way to read "we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast."  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

You don't really believe that.  You are just tap dancing.  She wants to fully get rid of airplanes in 10 years, but she is not sure she can fully do it in that time period.  She is not SURE she can.  She thinks she might be able to, but she is simply not SURE. 

What is so hard to understand?  Read the plain English.  

It was a stupid thing for her to say, and you should just call her on it.

You don't really believe that.  You are just tap dancing.  

Since she didn't say it, it wasn't a stupid thing for her to say.  That's a tautology, dude.  Move along.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Left Shift said:

You don't really believe that.  You are just tap dancing.  

Since she didn't say it, it wasn't a stupid thing for her to say.  That's a tautology, dude.  Move along.

No one is moving along.  Your girl said it.  It was stupid.  You should call her on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, even other people have called AOC on the bullshit in her press release, and we all know what she said.  She didn't try to say that the press release doesn't say what it says, she said her staffer was having a bad day and released a rough draft early.  Where is the final draft?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jzk said:

No one is moving along.  Your girl said it.  It was stupid.  You should call her on it.

What she said was stupid.

Is that wording part of the actual document?

Or, is it an example of exaggeration/embellishment/hyperbole?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

What she said was stupid.

Is that wording part of the actual document?

Or, is it an example of exaggeration/embellishment/hyperbole?

It is the actual document from her press release.  I linked to it for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Of course she knows, and we know, that getting rid of airplanes is folly. 

We know this because we can read the actual document and it says nothing of the sort.

If this were a Republican saying outlandish stuff, the Faithful would be in here telling us it is "hyperbole" of an "embellishment" or an "exaggeration" or a "rhetorical flourish".

I challenge anyone to find the part of this in which it calls for us to "get rid of airplanes".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Link to actual document, provided (yet again) by Bus Driver. The actual text of the resolution

(I rather prefer primary sources over things like press releases, whether released prematurely or not, or media coverage, or inane arguments from internet trolls. But that's just the way I was educated. Damn liberal colleges with their "help them learn how to think" approach, rather than the more acceptable "teach them what to think".)

So, jzk, do you have some objection to considering discussion about the proposed goal of net-zero carbon emissions within a decade? I think everyone (including AOC, if we are to believe her press release) accepts that cow farts and airplanes will still be around in a decade. Can we get past that and on to a more productive discussion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

What she said was stupid.

Is that wording part of the actual document?

Or, is it an example of exaggeration/embellishment/hyperbole?

She is not stupid...she does not express herself very well due to her naivete and  ignorance....they'll bring her ignorance up to speed. The DNC is Allowing her and the 2 others to run their mouths and do the dirty heavy lifting setting the bar for the future...creating the new normal narrative...kind of like a "rabbit" in a distance race....she has clearly stated her vision for the future

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

How about the actual Congressional Resolution I linked?

Is it really your position that if Donald Trump tweeted something or released a document expressing a platform position on something, we could all just dismiss it as not being true on the basis that he hasn't introduced it as legislation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Link to actual document, provided (yet again) by Bus Driver. The actual text of the resolution

(I rather prefer primary sources over things like press releases, whether released prematurely or not, or media coverage, or inane arguments from internet trolls. But that's just the way I was educated. Damn liberal colleges with their "help them learn how to think" approach, rather than the more acceptable "teach them what to think".)

So, jzk, do you have some objection to considering discussion about the proposed goal of net-zero carbon emissions within a decade? I think everyone (including AOC, if we are to believe her press release) accepts that cow farts and airplanes will still be around in a decade. Can we get past that and on to a more productive discussion?

This is the AOC thread.  

But, I do certainly object to the government transforming our economy into a net zero CO2 emission economy in the next decade.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

donald trump can't introduce legislation moron.

you've got to be the dumbest, stubbornest fucking ~50' boat owner I've ever encountered, if you aren't just a social media zombie.

He can as long as it is through a member of the House of Representatives, such as the annual federal budget.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the thing.  Not only do I think it is stupid to reduce emissions to zero in 10 years, so do all of the countries on the planet.  That is why they aren't going to do much of any reducing, let alone 100% through 2050.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

Here is the thing.  Not only do I think it is stupid to reduce emissions to zero in 10 years, so do all of the countries on the planet.  That is why they aren't going to do much of any reducing, let alone 100% through 2050.

LOL.....the big polluters are not going to change there way....China,India and many many of smaller  shithole countries

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

so he can't is what you are saying.

the "annual federal budget" Trumps admin submits is just an idea of what he wants; Congress decides what funds to allocate. This is all on youtube bright boy.

Which he submits to Congress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

This is the AOC thread.  

But, I do certainly object to the government transforming our economy into a net zero CO2 emission economy in the next decade.  

That wasn't my question. No it's my turn to ask: Do you understand English? Because you seem to have an unnatural affinity for adding words and changing the meaning of things that are actually said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

So, jzk, do you have some objection to considering discussion about the proposed goal of net-zero carbon emissions within a decade? 

Do I have objection to considering discussion about the proposed goal?  By whom?  I don't object to you considering discussion about it.  I do object to actually doing it though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

Do I have objection to considering discussion about the proposed goal?  By whom?  I don't object to you considering discussion about it.  I do object to actually doing it though.

Oh! I see what you did there. You're so smart and tricky. I wish I could be like . . . well, not you.

So the take away from this is that you are narrow minded and not open to discussion. You are set in your ways and prefer to stay in your safe place.

Clearly, any adult discussion won't include you.

Thanks!

(And in case I haven't greeted you properly: Fuck Off, Newb!)

Ciao!

Link to post
Share on other sites