CDZ Environment can be restored without pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

[1stRambo]

emilynghiem ask

I see what you're asking but conservation is an issue that is opposed by the same people who oppose climate science. The core issues are basically air, land and water pollution, and destruction of forests and ecosystems. The people who are opposed to climate science are inherently opposed to dealing with those things as well. Like I said, ask them about drilling in ANWR, plastic use, rain forest destruction, etc.

Dear TheOldSchool
What about approaches to conservation like Conservation International.
That's a conservative idea to OWN the land so it can be preserved.
The venture that celebrities like Harrison Ford were supporting
involved CEO's pooling resources together on a corporate level
to protect entire migration patterns across land for the sake of wildlife and ecosystems.

Sting started Rainforest International to help with African and South American rainforests
destroyed by logging roads disrupting the ecosystems and native village cultures.

Why aren't these SOLUTIONS getting the same publicity and funding as POLITICAL CONFLICTS.

That's what makes it look like a political conflict of interest, to get votes and capital deals to the politicians pushing their agenda.

Even the Green movements and organizations have complained of being sold out to political hijacking.

Why aren't the grassroots levels supported, where the people actually AGREE and can work together?
Why is that being sold as "impossible"? Just so politicians can take over and claim to be in charge?

Sure if private citizens want to own land to preserve it then great! But it's a tiny tiny fraction of land that's owned for the sake of preserving it. Those programs, btw, are started by liberals and made fun of by most conservatives.

If we took away government control of land and put it up for sale to the public then a handful of corporations would snatch it all up and use whatever means necessary to suck all the resources out of it that they could. Ecosystems be damned.

Why are you deifying corporations? These are made of people and affect people.
by communicating directly between people, these issues can be "broken down" addressed and resolved.

We need to humanize not demonize situations or it just escalates to war.
Have you ever seen how nonviolence training and mediation works?
True INCLUSION? This is how all the powerful movements have ever overcome injustice.
it wasn't by fear, it was by putting conflicts in perspective where they can be resolved rationally.
Fear is what makes politics and war. Peace and justice is about solving problems equally and inclusively.

I'm not demonizing corporations. Just pointing out common sense. Do you think BP cared about the Gulf oil spill beyond what investors and board members thought about it?

And yes corporations are just people. Go ask any average Joe if he'd accept a huge raise to go tear down a forest somewhere.

Well the way to get people to work together is to address them as people.

What I suggest for address large corporate interests is to address
(1) the parties and candidates they fund and hold them responsible for settling out the costs of damages
and cost to restore the environment (not just what Obama did by capping the damages for these big interests t6o get some kind of tax pay off to govt, or whatever deal was made behind closed doors)

(2) the states that register and license collective institutions to operate
and instill some checks and balances, such as ethics policies based on the same standards Govt is
supposed to be held to in order to protect individual rights and due process, like the Bill of Right,
Fourteenth Amendment, and Code of Ethics for Govt Service.

This can be worked out through the parties that should also be Checked under Constitutional principles.
If "all parties" agreed to enforce these, then citizens and corporations could all agree to follow equal standards.
By recognizing each other with respect as people equal under law. That's the only way I've seen people held accountable, by taking responsibility for our words and actions. if we don't do our part, we can't ask others to!

Yo, Wow Woman, you mentioned the wrong word? Constitution!!! Dem`s love to interpret the Constitution?

"GTP"

 

[1stRambo]

See emilynghiem? This is the kind of intellectual powerhouse we're dealing with.

1stRambo and I have found other issues we agree on.
That is full time work to pursue those key points, and we don't have any time to waste fighting.
Why can't this approach work for environmental issues and corporate responsibility?
Why can't Greens collaborate with Libertarians and check against corporate abuses of public funds to destroy environment and wildlife. isn't there enough to fix that we AGREE should be corrected.
Why not focus there instead of deflecting onto issues that go around in circles fighting and diverting resources?

I think the reason the fight exists at all is that there ISN'T enough to fix that we agree on. Especially because many conservatives believe that God gave us this world to do with as we please and there's nothing we can do to harm it that isn't already in God's plan.

Actually TheOldSchool there is a whole movement, religious coalitions
led by Christians who see this as a battle between God and Mammon or material greed.

Why aren't you giving any credit to these Christians?
Why is the Christian left allowed to be trampled in the media where only the Christian right gets any visibility?

You don't have to be part of this censorship.

National Religious Partnership for the Environment - Home
About Us Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life COEJL
Mission Statement of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life GreenFaith

When my website was started to help a Jewish activist lobbying to save Headwaters Redwood Forest,
she pushed for Corporate Responsibility as a unifying factor, and even the Jewish tradition that Trees are sacred.

The coalition in Houston unified both liberal and conservative groups that signed on.

I wrote an entire musical series on the connection with this green progressive movement
and the spiritual stewardship over Creation as a Gift from God.

WILDLIFE PRAYER (after Maddona's Like a Prayer)
God made Headwaters Grove - full of creatures great and small
He gave us Redwood Trees - 40 stories tall . . .
Then Maxxam bought the land - and tried to cut them all
The loggers came in droves - and made the Garden fall . . .

How many of these - endangered species
Live in the redwood trees - C'mon and count with me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs
Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

We have a choice, to follow God or Mammon
We have a choice, to hear the Voice Of Compassion
It's not God's will, to harm His own Creation
Why should our forest life be killed By corporations?

How many of these - endangered species Live in the redwood trees - c'mon and answer me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

After the Flood, God's creatures multiplied
He didn't let one species die He made a promise
It takes all kinds, to build an ecosystem,
Each color shade, each "Ray of Light" To fill the spectrum

O Father in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name:
Stop war and destruction, End this corporate game.
Deliver us from Mammon, World famine and greed.
Teach Love and Compassion. Save the redwood trees!

God made Headwaters Grove, full of creatures great and small
By reaching out with love, we can save - them - all

[bridge]
Life is a gift from God We must obey His Laws
To live in Harmony That is our destiny
Each creature needs a home A place to grow - and - thrive
The Earth cannot be owned By Grace alone The world survives.

Life is a gift From God above That only He can give
Live simply that The beauty of The world can simply live

God gave us Redwood Trees - Over 40 stories tall
Now Mother Nature needs - our help to save them all

Yo, WOW, that was good, but the last sentence was wrong? Mother Nature needs no help Dear!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 37992

Thanks 1stRambo. C'mon you know what it means.
We need to learn to wipe our own butts and quit fouling our own nests.

We can't expect Mother Nature to clean up millions of tons of dirty diapers dumped in landfills
and random patches of plastic shreds killing ocean life in suffocating layers.
Great Pacific garbage patch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Any mother would tell her kids, go clean up your room. Clean up your old messes and don't start new ones!!!

Yo, Emily? Who do you think Mother Nature is?

"GTP"

 

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem ask

Dear TheOldSchool
What about approaches to conservation like Conservation International.
That's a conservative idea to OWN the land so it can be preserved.
The venture that celebrities like Harrison Ford were supporting
involved CEO's pooling resources together on a corporate level
to protect entire migration patterns across land for the sake of wildlife and ecosystems.

Sting started Rainforest International to help with African and South American rainforests
destroyed by logging roads disrupting the ecosystems and native village cultures.

Why aren't these SOLUTIONS getting the same publicity and funding as POLITICAL CONFLICTS.

That's what makes it look like a political conflict of interest, to get votes and capital deals to the politicians pushing their agenda.

Even the Green movements and organizations have complained of being sold out to political hijacking.

Why aren't the grassroots levels supported, where the people actually AGREE and can work together?
Why is that being sold as "impossible"? Just so politicians can take over and claim to be in charge?

Sure if private citizens want to own land to preserve it then great! But it's a tiny tiny fraction of land that's owned for the sake of preserving it. Those programs, btw, are started by liberals and made fun of by most conservatives.

If we took away government control of land and put it up for sale to the public then a handful of corporations would snatch it all up and use whatever means necessary to suck all the resources out of it that they could. Ecosystems be damned.

Why are you deifying corporations? These are made of people and affect people.
by communicating directly between people, these issues can be "broken down" addressed and resolved.

We need to humanize not demonize situations or it just escalates to war.
Have you ever seen how nonviolence training and mediation works?
True INCLUSION? This is how all the powerful movements have ever overcome injustice.
it wasn't by fear, it was by putting conflicts in perspective where they can be resolved rationally.
Fear is what makes politics and war. Peace and justice is about solving problems equally and inclusively.

I'm not demonizing corporations. Just pointing out common sense. Do you think BP cared about the Gulf oil spill beyond what investors and board members thought about it?

And yes corporations are just people. Go ask any average Joe if he'd accept a huge raise to go tear down a forest somewhere.

Well the way to get people to work together is to address them as people.

What I suggest for address large corporate interests is to address
(1) the parties and candidates they fund and hold them responsible for settling out the costs of damages
and cost to restore the environment (not just what Obama did by capping the damages for these big interests t6o get some kind of tax pay off to govt, or whatever deal was made behind closed doors)

(2) the states that register and license collective institutions to operate
and instill some checks and balances, such as ethics policies based on the same standards Govt is
supposed to be held to in order to protect individual rights and due process, like the Bill of Right,
Fourteenth Amendment, and Code of Ethics for Govt Service.

This can be worked out through the parties that should also be Checked under Constitutional principles.
If "all parties" agreed to enforce these, then citizens and corporations could all agree to follow equal standards.
By recognizing each other with respect as people equal under law. That's the only way I've seen people held accountable, by taking responsibility for our words and actions. if we don't do our part, we can't ask others to!

Well that would be nice and all, but you do realize that what you're suggesting is a huge increase in government involvement which is what I thought you were against at the beginning of the thread?

The govt was already abused to spend billions of taxpayers money to destroy the environment.
the people can use the parties that were responsible for getting the officials elected
to RECLAIM those debts and damages, credit them back to taxpayers.

We can use schools, party networks to connect with the environment groups,
to train the students and departments over the next generations to clean up, restore and monitor
the return of these affected ecosystems and wildlife. it will like have to be through the universities to
manage the environmental science work.

Govt was already involved in how these corporate deals enabled destruction at taxpayer expense.
I'd use the party members, leaders and organizations that already invested in the research and history on all the damage, assess the costs and restoration programs.

I can see legal teams in every school taking on local issues, and working out the costs to repair these damages.
Start training and hiring lawyers to solve problems, getting paid on commission of what they collect,
and quit paying lawyers to hide what crooks do so there is no justice.

I'd use MAXXAM corporation as a test pilot case to see if this model can work.

Assess the 1.6 billion est. cost to taxpayers of the bailout of S&L bonds abused by Maxxam for hostile takeover of virgin Redwood forest wildlife and river ecosystems, and bank against the debt, counting the cost of restoration as the value of the land. similar to the Federal Reserve, Leverage capital and currency against this cost, and use that as a local "Fort Knox" to finance education and jobs in California restoring this forest and all related damages. Using that property and program as "collateral" on the currency circulated, which represents the total debt or value of the project, could fund jobs and education sustainably over as many generations as it takes to bring back the ecosystem to normal levels again.

here is the website for issuing local currency: Home
the different application I would use this same idea for is to issue notes against a pre-existing debt, hold the people responsible who actually incurred this damage, use the credit or currency to pay for university programs to supervise the restoration work over generations, and either the wrongdoers pay it back over time, or the citizens who buy out the notes to back them with real capital will "own shares" in the property and program.

So I already dedicated the Redwood Rock songs I wrote toward a future fundraising concert or contest
to raise the money for student interns to get a restoration program going. the students are the ones who are going to inherit either a huge mess or a path to solutions. so why not form groups to fix each problem, on a sustainable basis, where the work is done and passed on through environment education and training in schools.

 

[emilynghiem]

1stRambo and I have found other issues we agree on.
That is full time work to pursue those key points, and we don't have any time to waste fighting.
Why can't this approach work for environmental issues and corporate responsibility?
Why can't Greens collaborate with Libertarians and check against corporate abuses of public funds to destroy environment and wildlife. isn't there enough to fix that we AGREE should be corrected.
Why not focus there instead of deflecting onto issues that go around in circles fighting and diverting resources?

I think the reason the fight exists at all is that there ISN'T enough to fix that we agree on. Especially because many conservatives believe that God gave us this world to do with as we please and there's nothing we can do to harm it that isn't already in God's plan.

Actually TheOldSchool there is a whole movement, religious coalitions
led by Christians who see this as a battle between God and Mammon or material greed.

Why aren't you giving any credit to these Christians?
Why is the Christian left allowed to be trampled in the media where only the Christian right gets any visibility?

You don't have to be part of this censorship.

National Religious Partnership for the Environment - Home
About Us Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life COEJL
Mission Statement of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life GreenFaith

When my website was started to help a Jewish activist lobbying to save Headwaters Redwood Forest,
she pushed for Corporate Responsibility as a unifying factor, and even the Jewish tradition that Trees are sacred.

The coalition in Houston unified both liberal and conservative groups that signed on.

I wrote an entire musical series on the connection with this green progressive movement
and the spiritual stewardship over Creation as a Gift from God.

WILDLIFE PRAYER (after Maddona's Like a Prayer)
God made Headwaters Grove - full of creatures great and small
He gave us Redwood Trees - 40 stories tall . . .
Then Maxxam bought the land - and tried to cut them all
The loggers came in droves - and made the Garden fall . . .

How many of these - endangered species
Live in the redwood trees - C'mon and count with me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs
Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

We have a choice, to follow God or Mammon
We have a choice, to hear the Voice Of Compassion
It's not God's will, to harm His own Creation
Why should our forest life be killed By corporations?

How many of these - endangered species Live in the redwood trees - c'mon and answer me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

After the Flood, God's creatures multiplied
He didn't let one species die He made a promise
It takes all kinds, to build an ecosystem,
Each color shade, each "Ray of Light" To fill the spectrum

O Father in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name:
Stop war and destruction, End this corporate game.
Deliver us from Mammon, World famine and greed.
Teach Love and Compassion. Save the redwood trees!

God made Headwaters Grove, full of creatures great and small
By reaching out with love, we can save - them - all

[bridge]
Life is a gift from God We must obey His Laws
To live in Harmony That is our destiny
Each creature needs a home A place to grow - and - thrive
The Earth cannot be owned By Grace alone The world survives.

Life is a gift From God above That only He can give
Live simply that The beauty of The world can simply live

God gave us Redwood Trees - Over 40 stories tall
Now Mother Nature needs - our help to save them all

Yo, WOW, that was good, but the last sentence was wrong? Mother Nature needs no help Dear!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 37992

Thanks 1stRambo. C'mon you know what it means.
We need to learn to wipe our own butts and quit fouling our own nests.

We can't expect Mother Nature to clean up millions of tons of dirty diapers dumped in landfills
and random patches of plastic shreds killing ocean life in suffocating layers.
Great Pacific garbage patch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Any mother would tell her kids, go clean up your room. Clean up your old messes and don't start new ones!!!

Yo, Emily? Who do you think Mother Nature is?

"GTP"

Nature. Earth.
And if we create some artificial mess like nuclear waste
or tons of plastic swirling in the oceans, we need to use whatever means it takes to clean it up.

I'm sure technology can be developed.

But that's no excuse to keep dumping more plastic into landfills.

We need better ways of recycling or reusing plastic where it doesn't end up in shreds in the ocean.

And 1stRambo
once you destroy a species, even nature cannot bring that back.

If someone kills you or me, nature cannot make another you or me.
and neither with species.

What is wrong with being sustainable and mindful not to overdo it?
Why take chances and take things for granted when we could be more careful?

There's no reason to be careless and just assume it will take care of itself.
We can do a lot better with the resources we have, by working SMARTER and being more RESOURCEFUL.

If we do this on an individual level, and take natural responsibility not to make bigger messes
than we can clean up, then we don't create this "raging fear" that "govt needs to regulate X Y Z"

Why not clean up and reduce excess to begin with. Just don't go to extremes with anything!

 

[1stRambo]

emilynghiem ask
Sure if private citizens want to own land to preserve it then great! But it's a tiny tiny fraction of land that's owned for the sake of preserving it. Those programs, btw, are started by liberals and made fun of by most conservatives.

If we took away government control of land and put it up for sale to the public then a handful of corporations would snatch it all up and use whatever means necessary to suck all the resources out of it that they could. Ecosystems be damned.

Why are you deifying corporations? These are made of people and affect people.
by communicating directly between people, these issues can be "broken down" addressed and resolved.

We need to humanize not demonize situations or it just escalates to war.
Have you ever seen how nonviolence training and mediation works?
True INCLUSION? This is how all the powerful movements have ever overcome injustice.
it wasn't by fear, it was by putting conflicts in perspective where they can be resolved rationally.
Fear is what makes politics and war. Peace and justice is about solving problems equally and inclusively.

I'm not demonizing corporations. Just pointing out common sense. Do you think BP cared about the Gulf oil spill beyond what investors and board members thought about it?

And yes corporations are just people. Go ask any average Joe if he'd accept a huge raise to go tear down a forest somewhere.

Well the way to get people to work together is to address them as people.

What I suggest for address large corporate interests is to address
(1) the parties and candidates they fund and hold them responsible for settling out the costs of damages
and cost to restore the environment (not just what Obama did by capping the damages for these big interests t6o get some kind of tax pay off to govt, or whatever deal was made behind closed doors)

(2) the states that register and license collective institutions to operate
and instill some checks and balances, such as ethics policies based on the same standards Govt is
supposed to be held to in order to protect individual rights and due process, like the Bill of Right,
Fourteenth Amendment, and Code of Ethics for Govt Service.

This can be worked out through the parties that should also be Checked under Constitutional principles.
If "all parties" agreed to enforce these, then citizens and corporations could all agree to follow equal standards.
By recognizing each other with respect as people equal under law. That's the only way I've seen people held accountable, by taking responsibility for our words and actions. if we don't do our part, we can't ask others to!

Well that would be nice and all, but you do realize that what you're suggesting is a huge increase in government involvement which is what I thought you were against at the beginning of the thread?

The govt was already abused to spend billions of taxpayers money to destroy the environment.
the people can use the parties that were responsible for getting the officials elected
to RECLAIM those debts and damages, credit them back to taxpayers.

We can use schools, party networks to connect with the environment groups,
to train the students and departments over the next generations to clean up, restore and monitor
the return of these affected ecosystems and wildlife. it will like have to be through the universities to
manage the environmental science work.

Govt was already involved in how these corporate deals enabled destruction at taxpayer expense.
I'd use the party members, leaders and organizations that already invested in the research and history on all the damage, assess the costs and restoration programs.

I can see legal teams in every school taking on local issues, and working out the costs to repair these damages.
Start training and hiring lawyers to solve problems, getting paid on commission of what they collect,
and quit paying lawyers to hide what crooks do so there is no justice.

I'd use MAXXAM corporation as a test pilot case to see if this model can work.

Assess the 1.6 billion est. cost to taxpayers of the bailout of S&L bonds abused by Maxxam for hostile takeover of virgin Redwood forest wildlife and river ecosystems, and bank against the debt, counting the cost of restoration as the value of the land. similar to the Federal Reserve, Leverage capital and currency against this cost, and use that as a local "Fort Knox" to finance education and jobs in California restoring this forest and all related damages. Using that property and program as "collateral" on the currency circulated, which represents the total debt or value of the project, could fund jobs and education sustainably over as many generations as it takes to bring back the ecosystem to normal levels again.

here is the website for issuing local currency: Home
the different application I would use this same idea for is to issue notes against a pre-existing debt, hold the people responsible who actually incurred this damage, use the credit or currency to pay for university programs to supervise the restoration work over generations, and either the wrongdoers pay it back over time, or the citizens who buy out the notes to back them with real capital will "own shares" in the property and program.

So I already dedicated the Redwood Rock songs I wrote toward a future fundraising concert or contest
to raise the money for student interns to get a restoration program going. the students are the ones who are going to inherit either a huge mess or a path to solutions. so why not form groups to fix each problem, on a sustainable basis, where the work is done and passed on through environment education and training in schools.

Yo, Emily, Emily, Emily, love it, your dreams are wonderful!!! But? You need to look at the people you are butting heads with? They could careless about the environment? They just want money for more POWER! You remember the BP Oil Spill in the gulf? Well, BP paid Billions to appease everyone involved, more than enough I think! But no, they want more, they want to drain the resources of the company? That should tell you what you are up against!!!

"GTP"

 

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem ask

Dear TheOldSchool
What about approaches to conservation like Conservation International.
That's a conservative idea to OWN the land so it can be preserved.
The venture that celebrities like Harrison Ford were supporting
involved CEO's pooling resources together on a corporate level
to protect entire migration patterns across land for the sake of wildlife and ecosystems.

Sting started Rainforest International to help with African and South American rainforests
destroyed by logging roads disrupting the ecosystems and native village cultures.

Why aren't these SOLUTIONS getting the same publicity and funding as POLITICAL CONFLICTS.

That's what makes it look like a political conflict of interest, to get votes and capital deals to the politicians pushing their agenda.

Even the Green movements and organizations have complained of being sold out to political hijacking.

Why aren't the grassroots levels supported, where the people actually AGREE and can work together?
Why is that being sold as "impossible"? Just so politicians can take over and claim to be in charge?

Sure if private citizens want to own land to preserve it then great! But it's a tiny tiny fraction of land that's owned for the sake of preserving it. Those programs, btw, are started by liberals and made fun of by most conservatives.

If we took away government control of land and put it up for sale to the public then a handful of corporations would snatch it all up and use whatever means necessary to suck all the resources out of it that they could. Ecosystems be damned.

Why are you deifying corporations? These are made of people and affect people.
by communicating directly between people, these issues can be "broken down" addressed and resolved.

We need to humanize not demonize situations or it just escalates to war.
Have you ever seen how nonviolence training and mediation works?
True INCLUSION? This is how all the powerful movements have ever overcome injustice.
it wasn't by fear, it was by putting conflicts in perspective where they can be resolved rationally.
Fear is what makes politics and war. Peace and justice is about solving problems equally and inclusively.

I'm not demonizing corporations. Just pointing out common sense. Do you think BP cared about the Gulf oil spill beyond what investors and board members thought about it?

And yes corporations are just people. Go ask any average Joe if he'd accept a huge raise to go tear down a forest somewhere.

Well the way to get people to work together is to address them as people.

What I suggest for address large corporate interests is to address
(1) the parties and candidates they fund and hold them responsible for settling out the costs of damages
and cost to restore the environment (not just what Obama did by capping the damages for these big interests t6o get some kind of tax pay off to govt, or whatever deal was made behind closed doors)

(2) the states that register and license collective institutions to operate
and instill some checks and balances, such as ethics policies based on the same standards Govt is
supposed to be held to in order to protect individual rights and due process, like the Bill of Right,
Fourteenth Amendment, and Code of Ethics for Govt Service.

This can be worked out through the parties that should also be Checked under Constitutional principles.
If "all parties" agreed to enforce these, then citizens and corporations could all agree to follow equal standards.
By recognizing each other with respect as people equal under law. That's the only way I've seen people held accountable, by taking responsibility for our words and actions. if we don't do our part, we can't ask others to!

Yo, Wow Woman, you mentioned the wrong word? Constitution!!! Dem`s love to interpret the Constitution?

"GTP"
View attachment 37996

Hi 1stRambo we ALL need to have conferences, online or per precinct/district
and AGREE how we are going to interpret and abide by the Constitution.

I think I could foresee a voluntary level of law managed by citizens per state,
some sort of Constitutional ethics review commission that takes complaints of
political conflicts of interests or conflicting beliefs, and mediates to resolve them
so that public policy reflects and represents all people and groups in that state equally.

I am meeting with humanist and UU groups that are open to the idea of teaching conflict resolution
as a regular public outreach program. I even though of starting a Peace and Justice Tea Party
to call out the independent Greens progressives Libertarians and Constitutionalists to work in coalitions.

Everyone needs to come out and decide where we draw the lines with our beliefs
and where we believe govt should or should not enforce those creeds, and deal with the conflicts head on.

fighting in the media is for ninnies and bullies.

If we want to protect our interests we need to work directly together to decide how to do that.
Otherwise, if we remain in conflict and in fear of "other groups" then politicians keep exploiting
that fear and division, imposing their own political interests and finagling public perception to get money and votes. They have no interest in solving problems that can be used to get them into office.

We need to change the whole paradigm by resolving our issues directly, taking back power
and responsibility, and forming agreements so we can unite in giving orders to govt to follow, not the other way!

 

[1stRambo]

I think the reason the fight exists at all is that there ISN'T enough to fix that we agree on. Especially because many conservatives believe that God gave us this world to do with as we please and there's nothing we can do to harm it that isn't already in God's plan.

Actually TheOldSchool there is a whole movement, religious coalitions
led by Christians who see this as a battle between God and Mammon or material greed.

Why aren't you giving any credit to these Christians?
Why is the Christian left allowed to be trampled in the media where only the Christian right gets any visibility?

You don't have to be part of this censorship.

National Religious Partnership for the Environment - Home
About Us Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life COEJL
Mission Statement of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life GreenFaith

When my website was started to help a Jewish activist lobbying to save Headwaters Redwood Forest,
she pushed for Corporate Responsibility as a unifying factor, and even the Jewish tradition that Trees are sacred.

The coalition in Houston unified both liberal and conservative groups that signed on.

I wrote an entire musical series on the connection with this green progressive movement
and the spiritual stewardship over Creation as a Gift from God.

WILDLIFE PRAYER (after Maddona's Like a Prayer)
God made Headwaters Grove - full of creatures great and small
He gave us Redwood Trees - 40 stories tall . . .
Then Maxxam bought the land - and tried to cut them all
The loggers came in droves - and made the Garden fall . . .

How many of these - endangered species
Live in the redwood trees - C'mon and count with me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs
Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

We have a choice, to follow God or Mammon
We have a choice, to hear the Voice Of Compassion
It's not God's will, to harm His own Creation
Why should our forest life be killed By corporations?

How many of these - endangered species Live in the redwood trees - c'mon and answer me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

After the Flood, God's creatures multiplied
He didn't let one species die He made a promise
It takes all kinds, to build an ecosystem,
Each color shade, each "Ray of Light" To fill the spectrum

O Father in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name:
Stop war and destruction, End this corporate game.
Deliver us from Mammon, World famine and greed.
Teach Love and Compassion. Save the redwood trees!

God made Headwaters Grove, full of creatures great and small
By reaching out with love, we can save - them - all

[bridge]
Life is a gift from God We must obey His Laws
To live in Harmony That is our destiny
Each creature needs a home A place to grow - and - thrive
The Earth cannot be owned By Grace alone The world survives.

Life is a gift From God above That only He can give
Live simply that The beauty of The world can simply live

God gave us Redwood Trees - Over 40 stories tall
Now Mother Nature needs - our help to save them all

Yo, WOW, that was good, but the last sentence was wrong? Mother Nature needs no help Dear!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 37992

Thanks 1stRambo. C'mon you know what it means.
We need to learn to wipe our own butts and quit fouling our own nests.

We can't expect Mother Nature to clean up millions of tons of dirty diapers dumped in landfills
and random patches of plastic shreds killing ocean life in suffocating layers.
Great Pacific garbage patch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Any mother would tell her kids, go clean up your room. Clean up your old messes and don't start new ones!!!

Yo, Emily? Who do you think Mother Nature is?

"GTP"

Nature. Earth.
And if we create some artificial mess like nuclear waste
or tons of plastic swirling in the oceans, we need to use whatever means it takes to clean it up.

I'm sure technology can be developed.

But that's no excuse to keep dumping more plastic into landfills.

We need better ways of recycling or reusing plastic where it doesn't end up in shreds in the ocean.

And 1stRambo
once you destroy a species, even nature cannot bring that back.

If someone kills you or me, nature cannot make another you or me.
and neither with species.

What is wrong with being sustainable and mindful not to overdo it?
Why take chances and take things for granted when we could be more careful?

There's no reason to be careless and just assume it will take care of itself.
We can do a lot better with the resources we have, by working SMARTER and being more RESOURCEFUL.

If we do this on an individual level, and take natural responsibility not to make bigger messes
than we can clean up, then we don't create this "raging fear" that "govt needs to regulate X Y Z"

Why not clean up and reduce excess to begin with. Just don't go to extremes with anything!

Yo, Beautiful Dreamer is a good song dear! Look at my other post, your answer!

"GTP"

 

[emilynghiem]

Why are you deifying corporations? These are made of people and affect people.
by communicating directly between people, these issues can be "broken down" addressed and resolved.

We need to humanize not demonize situations or it just escalates to war.
Have you ever seen how nonviolence training and mediation works?
True INCLUSION? This is how all the powerful movements have ever overcome injustice.
it wasn't by fear, it was by putting conflicts in perspective where they can be resolved rationally.
Fear is what makes politics and war. Peace and justice is about solving problems equally and inclusively.

I'm not demonizing corporations. Just pointing out common sense. Do you think BP cared about the Gulf oil spill beyond what investors and board members thought about it?

And yes corporations are just people. Go ask any average Joe if he'd accept a huge raise to go tear down a forest somewhere.

Well the way to get people to work together is to address them as people.

What I suggest for address large corporate interests is to address
(1) the parties and candidates they fund and hold them responsible for settling out the costs of damages
and cost to restore the environment (not just what Obama did by capping the damages for these big interests t6o get some kind of tax pay off to govt, or whatever deal was made behind closed doors)

(2) the states that register and license collective institutions to operate
and instill some checks and balances, such as ethics policies based on the same standards Govt is
supposed to be held to in order to protect individual rights and due process, like the Bill of Right,
Fourteenth Amendment, and Code of Ethics for Govt Service.

This can be worked out through the parties that should also be Checked under Constitutional principles.
If "all parties" agreed to enforce these, then citizens and corporations could all agree to follow equal standards.
By recognizing each other with respect as people equal under law. That's the only way I've seen people held accountable, by taking responsibility for our words and actions. if we don't do our part, we can't ask others to!

Well that would be nice and all, but you do realize that what you're suggesting is a huge increase in government involvement which is what I thought you were against at the beginning of the thread?

The govt was already abused to spend billions of taxpayers money to destroy the environment.
the people can use the parties that were responsible for getting the officials elected
to RECLAIM those debts and damages, credit them back to taxpayers.

We can use schools, party networks to connect with the environment groups,
to train the students and departments over the next generations to clean up, restore and monitor
the return of these affected ecosystems and wildlife. it will like have to be through the universities to
manage the environmental science work.

Govt was already involved in how these corporate deals enabled destruction at taxpayer expense.
I'd use the party members, leaders and organizations that already invested in the research and history on all the damage, assess the costs and restoration programs.

I can see legal teams in every school taking on local issues, and working out the costs to repair these damages.
Start training and hiring lawyers to solve problems, getting paid on commission of what they collect,
and quit paying lawyers to hide what crooks do so there is no justice.

I'd use MAXXAM corporation as a test pilot case to see if this model can work.

Assess the 1.6 billion est. cost to taxpayers of the bailout of S&L bonds abused by Maxxam for hostile takeover of virgin Redwood forest wildlife and river ecosystems, and bank against the debt, counting the cost of restoration as the value of the land. similar to the Federal Reserve, Leverage capital and currency against this cost, and use that as a local "Fort Knox" to finance education and jobs in California restoring this forest and all related damages. Using that property and program as "collateral" on the currency circulated, which represents the total debt or value of the project, could fund jobs and education sustainably over as many generations as it takes to bring back the ecosystem to normal levels again.

here is the website for issuing local currency: Home
the different application I would use this same idea for is to issue notes against a pre-existing debt, hold the people responsible who actually incurred this damage, use the credit or currency to pay for university programs to supervise the restoration work over generations, and either the wrongdoers pay it back over time, or the citizens who buy out the notes to back them with real capital will "own shares" in the property and program.

So I already dedicated the Redwood Rock songs I wrote toward a future fundraising concert or contest
to raise the money for student interns to get a restoration program going. the students are the ones who are going to inherit either a huge mess or a path to solutions. so why not form groups to fix each problem, on a sustainable basis, where the work is done and passed on through environment education and training in schools.

Yo, Emily, Emily, Emily, love it, your dreams are wonderful!!! But? You need to look at the people you are butting heads with? They could careless about the environment? They just want money for more POWER! You remember the BP Oil Spill in the gulf? Well, BP paid Billions to appease everyone involved, more than enough I think! But no, they want more, they want to drain the resources of the company? That should tell you what you are up against!!!

"GTP"

Yes I know some of the legal teams just fighting over how BP and the mess has tied up funds.
It's not about the cleanup
and that's where the people affected are not represented.

Same with the Valdez spill where the damage is still going on.

the REAL environmental groups doing the work on the ground
need to be recognized and heard, not these fake political campaigns that don't change anything.

We need to out and expose the corrupt politics
and start lobbying and investing in the real thing.

I think if the left and right indie media and grassroots leaders got together on this Tea Party thing,
got radio, online and district conventions going, that could take it to the next level.

"the people united can never be divided"

 

[1stRambo]

emilynghiem ask
Sure if private citizens want to own land to preserve it then great! But it's a tiny tiny fraction of land that's owned for the sake of preserving it. Those programs, btw, are started by liberals and made fun of by most conservatives.

If we took away government control of land and put it up for sale to the public then a handful of corporations would snatch it all up and use whatever means necessary to suck all the resources out of it that they could. Ecosystems be damned.

Why are you deifying corporations? These are made of people and affect people.
by communicating directly between people, these issues can be "broken down" addressed and resolved.

We need to humanize not demonize situations or it just escalates to war.
Have you ever seen how nonviolence training and mediation works?
True INCLUSION? This is how all the powerful movements have ever overcome injustice.
it wasn't by fear, it was by putting conflicts in perspective where they can be resolved rationally.
Fear is what makes politics and war. Peace and justice is about solving problems equally and inclusively.

I'm not demonizing corporations. Just pointing out common sense. Do you think BP cared about the Gulf oil spill beyond what investors and board members thought about it?

And yes corporations are just people. Go ask any average Joe if he'd accept a huge raise to go tear down a forest somewhere.

Well the way to get people to work together is to address them as people.

What I suggest for address large corporate interests is to address
(1) the parties and candidates they fund and hold them responsible for settling out the costs of damages
and cost to restore the environment (not just what Obama did by capping the damages for these big interests t6o get some kind of tax pay off to govt, or whatever deal was made behind closed doors)

(2) the states that register and license collective institutions to operate
and instill some checks and balances, such as ethics policies based on the same standards Govt is
supposed to be held to in order to protect individual rights and due process, like the Bill of Right,
Fourteenth Amendment, and Code of Ethics for Govt Service.

This can be worked out through the parties that should also be Checked under Constitutional principles.
If "all parties" agreed to enforce these, then citizens and corporations could all agree to follow equal standards.
By recognizing each other with respect as people equal under law. That's the only way I've seen people held accountable, by taking responsibility for our words and actions. if we don't do our part, we can't ask others to!

Yo, Wow Woman, you mentioned the wrong word? Constitution!!! Dem`s love to interpret the Constitution?

"GTP"
View attachment 37996

Hi 1stRambo we ALL need to have conferences, online or per precinct/district
and AGREE how we are going to interpret and abide by the Constitution.

I think I could foresee a voluntary level of law managed by citizens per state,
some sort of Constitutional ethics review commission that takes complaints of
political conflicts of interests or conflicting beliefs, and mediates to resolve them
so that public policy reflects and represents all people and groups in that state equally.

I am meeting with humanist and UU groups that are open to the idea of teaching conflict resolution
as a regular public outreach program. I even though of starting a Peace and Justice Tea Party
to call out the independent Greens progressives Libertarians and Constitutionalists to work in coalitions.

Everyone needs to come out and decide where we draw the lines with our beliefs
and where we believe govt should or should not enforce those creeds, and deal with the conflicts head on.

fighting in the media is for ninnies and bullies.

If we want to protect our interests we need to work directly together to decide how to do that.
Otherwise, if we remain in conflict and in fear of "other groups" then politicians keep exploiting
that fear and division, imposing their own political interests and finagling public perception to get money and votes. They have no interest in solving problems that can be used to get them into office.

We need to change the whole paradigm by resolving our issues directly, taking back power
and responsibility, and forming agreements so we can unite in giving orders to govt to follow, not the other way!

Yo, you are one hot smoking woman!!! I enjoy your post most of all that are here!!! My advice? Take it, or leave it? You are to smart of a lady to be wasting your time here, you need to open up your range? You need to run for an office, don`t matter where you start, you will go up quickly to the top with your thoughts!!! Love It!!!

"GTP"

 

[emilynghiem]

Why are you deifying corporations? These are made of people and affect people.
by communicating directly between people, these issues can be "broken down" addressed and resolved.

We need to humanize not demonize situations or it just escalates to war.
Have you ever seen how nonviolence training and mediation works?
True INCLUSION? This is how all the powerful movements have ever overcome injustice.
it wasn't by fear, it was by putting conflicts in perspective where they can be resolved rationally.
Fear is what makes politics and war. Peace and justice is about solving problems equally and inclusively.

I'm not demonizing corporations. Just pointing out common sense. Do you think BP cared about the Gulf oil spill beyond what investors and board members thought about it?

And yes corporations are just people. Go ask any average Joe if he'd accept a huge raise to go tear down a forest somewhere.

Well the way to get people to work together is to address them as people.

What I suggest for address large corporate interests is to address
(1) the parties and candidates they fund and hold them responsible for settling out the costs of damages
and cost to restore the environment (not just what Obama did by capping the damages for these big interests t6o get some kind of tax pay off to govt, or whatever deal was made behind closed doors)

(2) the states that register and license collective institutions to operate
and instill some checks and balances, such as ethics policies based on the same standards Govt is
supposed to be held to in order to protect individual rights and due process, like the Bill of Right,
Fourteenth Amendment, and Code of Ethics for Govt Service.

This can be worked out through the parties that should also be Checked under Constitutional principles.
If "all parties" agreed to enforce these, then citizens and corporations could all agree to follow equal standards.
By recognizing each other with respect as people equal under law. That's the only way I've seen people held accountable, by taking responsibility for our words and actions. if we don't do our part, we can't ask others to!

Yo, Wow Woman, you mentioned the wrong word? Constitution!!! Dem`s love to interpret the Constitution?

"GTP"
View attachment 37996

Hi 1stRambo we ALL need to have conferences, online or per precinct/district
and AGREE how we are going to interpret and abide by the Constitution.

I think I could foresee a voluntary level of law managed by citizens per state,
some sort of Constitutional ethics review commission that takes complaints of
political conflicts of interests or conflicting beliefs, and mediates to resolve them
so that public policy reflects and represents all people and groups in that state equally.

I am meeting with humanist and UU groups that are open to the idea of teaching conflict resolution
as a regular public outreach program. I even though of starting a Peace and Justice Tea Party
to call out the independent Greens progressives Libertarians and Constitutionalists to work in coalitions.

Everyone needs to come out and decide where we draw the lines with our beliefs
and where we believe govt should or should not enforce those creeds, and deal with the conflicts head on.

fighting in the media is for ninnies and bullies.

If we want to protect our interests we need to work directly together to decide how to do that.
Otherwise, if we remain in conflict and in fear of "other groups" then politicians keep exploiting
that fear and division, imposing their own political interests and finagling public perception to get money and votes. They have no interest in solving problems that can be used to get them into office.

We need to change the whole paradigm by resolving our issues directly, taking back power
and responsibility, and forming agreements so we can unite in giving orders to govt to follow, not the other way!

Yo, you are one hot smoking woman!!! I enjoy your post most of all that are here!!! My advice? Take it, or leave it? You are to smart of a lady to be wasting your time here, you need to open up your range? You need to run for an office, don`t matter where you start, you will go up quickly to the top with your thoughts!!! Love It!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 37999

I'll probably start that Ethics commission and propose to add mediation/conflict resolution
into the Justice Dept, to address conflicts of political beliefs.

That will keep me plenty busy as a volunteer, just working with existing officials on existing problems
already eating up time and money on the public books.

If I can coordinate that, I will probably create a position for myself.
right now, this kind of innovation is needed on so many levels, the ideas would have to be
replicated through party networks, online and radio which is outside of govt.
unite the people and parties first, the govt policies and positions will follow.

Thanks 1stRambo for your words of encouragement and confidence.

Houston is very conservative and diverse,
so uniting the liberals and conservatives here on common principles has been a common theme anyway. If we can work it out in Houston, the same coalition work can help other cities and states, and then that can influence national and federal levels.

We have issues in Houston bigtime, but this could be worked out. We may be on our last straw.
It's either do or die at this point, it's gotten so bad what the city has done to override laws.

The same solutions it would take to fix that locally are along the same ideas for fixing what's wrong with federal govt acting unconstitutionally. Same mess, but we have an opportunity to create a local model and then propose that globally for other groups to start holding govt directly accountable for Constitutional standards and ethics.

If you are in CA, the major changes will likely be led by CA NY TX FL AZ that can push things into the media.
If we can even get left and right groups on the same page in key states, we can call for Constitutional conferences online or by radio to share solutions with other groups in other states. As long as it is enforcing Constitutional principles in a unifying way it will build. And no divisive politics can stop it if we clean that out first.

 

[1stRambo]

I'm not demonizing corporations. Just pointing out common sense. Do you think BP cared about the Gulf oil spill beyond what investors and board members thought about it?

And yes corporations are just people. Go ask any average Joe if he'd accept a huge raise to go tear down a forest somewhere.

Well the way to get people to work together is to address them as people.

What I suggest for address large corporate interests is to address
(1) the parties and candidates they fund and hold them responsible for settling out the costs of damages
and cost to restore the environment (not just what Obama did by capping the damages for these big interests t6o get some kind of tax pay off to govt, or whatever deal was made behind closed doors)

(2) the states that register and license collective institutions to operate
and instill some checks and balances, such as ethics policies based on the same standards Govt is
supposed to be held to in order to protect individual rights and due process, like the Bill of Right,
Fourteenth Amendment, and Code of Ethics for Govt Service.

This can be worked out through the parties that should also be Checked under Constitutional principles.
If "all parties" agreed to enforce these, then citizens and corporations could all agree to follow equal standards.
By recognizing each other with respect as people equal under law. That's the only way I've seen people held accountable, by taking responsibility for our words and actions. if we don't do our part, we can't ask others to!

Yo, Wow Woman, you mentioned the wrong word? Constitution!!! Dem`s love to interpret the Constitution?

"GTP"
View attachment 37996

Hi 1stRambo we ALL need to have conferences, online or per precinct/district
and AGREE how we are going to interpret and abide by the Constitution.

I think I could foresee a voluntary level of law managed by citizens per state,
some sort of Constitutional ethics review commission that takes complaints of
political conflicts of interests or conflicting beliefs, and mediates to resolve them
so that public policy reflects and represents all people and groups in that state equally.

I am meeting with humanist and UU groups that are open to the idea of teaching conflict resolution
as a regular public outreach program. I even though of starting a Peace and Justice Tea Party
to call out the independent Greens progressives Libertarians and Constitutionalists to work in coalitions.

Everyone needs to come out and decide where we draw the lines with our beliefs
and where we believe govt should or should not enforce those creeds, and deal with the conflicts head on.

fighting in the media is for ninnies and bullies.

If we want to protect our interests we need to work directly together to decide how to do that.
Otherwise, if we remain in conflict and in fear of "other groups" then politicians keep exploiting
that fear and division, imposing their own political interests and finagling public perception to get money and votes. They have no interest in solving problems that can be used to get them into office.

We need to change the whole paradigm by resolving our issues directly, taking back power
and responsibility, and forming agreements so we can unite in giving orders to govt to follow, not the other way!

Yo, you are one hot smoking woman!!! I enjoy your post most of all that are here!!! My advice? Take it, or leave it? You are to smart of a lady to be wasting your time here, you need to open up your range? You need to run for an office, don`t matter where you start, you will go up quickly to the top with your thoughts!!! Love It!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 37999

I'll probably start that Ethics commission and propose to add mediation/conflict resolution
into the Justice Dept, to address conflicts of political beliefs.

That will keep me plenty busy as a volunteer, just working with existing officials on existing problems
already eating up time and money on the public books.

If I can coordinate that, I will probably create a position for myself.
right now, this kind of innovation is needed on so many levels, the ideas would have to be
replicated through party networks, online and radio which is outside of govt.
unite the people and parties first, the govt policies and positions will follow.

Thanks 1stRambo for your words of encouragement and confidence.

Houston is very conservative and diverse,
so uniting the liberals and conservatives here on common principles has been a common theme anyway. If we can work it out in Houston, the same coalition work can help other cities and states, and then that can influence national and federal levels.

We have issues in Houston bigtime, but this could be worked out. We may be on our last straw.
It's either do or die at this point, it's gotten so bad what the city has done to override laws.

The same solutions it would take to fix that locally are along the same ideas for fixing what's wrong with federal govt acting unconstitutionally. Same mess, but we have an opportunity to create a local model and then propose that globally for other groups to start holding govt directly accountable for Constitutional standards and ethics.

If you are in CA, the major changes will likely be led by CA NY TX FL AZ that can push things into the media.
If we can even get left and right groups on the same page in key states, we can call for Constitutional conferences online or by radio to share solutions with other groups in other states. As long as it is enforcing Constitutional principles in a unifying way it will build. And no divisive politics can stop it if we clean that out first.

Yo, Love Texas, "You Go Girl" Love your enthusiasm! Your boyfriend is a lucky man, and if he doesn`t know it, tell him I said it!!! Really happy for you, Good Luck! Oh, by the way, you do sound like a Tea Party everyday person, who craves the same things you discuss, just do it!!!

"GTP"

 

[Impenitent]

I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]

"[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]".
Interesting that you, independent of the right wing, would come up with the same taking point used to dismiss proponents of AGW.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]

"[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]".
Interesting that you, independent of the right wing, would come up with the same taking point used to dismiss proponents of AGW.

NO, Impenitent you don't get it.
it is not dismissing Global Warming to say it isn't necessary to argue about!
You can make the SAME points and arguments without DEPENDING on that.

The same with God. What Christians have pointed out, including me, is
that Atheists and other nontheists can talk about LIFE TRUTH collective good will and humanity,
all the same things that God stands for and not argue about WHEN did life begin or what is God
and is God a person or all creation or is God collective truth, etc. We don't have to agree on each
and every thing God stands for, and we can STILL make the same points and agree on CONCEPTS
and Principles.

Impenitent as much as I love you
I may have to pull you into the Bullring on this point, and related points
1. Agreeing NOT to argue or depend on Global Warming is NOT the same as rejecting it!!!!

2. similar to NOT arguing "does life begin at conception" does NOT mean promoting abortion.
The same issues to prevent abortion can be resolved WITHOUT "depending on the
argument or belief that life begins at conception"
So this is similar to agreeing to prochoice is not denying life or advocating abortion

If you are TIRED of people mistaking prochoice as "proabortion"
then don't make the leap here that not agreeing on Global Warming
means letting corporations run amok and destroy the environment.
Can you explain why that issue can't just be addressed directly without arguing over GW?

3. similar to agreeing not to DEPEND on proving or agreeing God exists
is NOT the same as rejecting the important meanings and concepts behind God
4. similar to NOT wanting certain gun regulations by govt is NOT the same
as wanting Gun violence, crime, crazy shooting and other abuses of guns
5. similar to wanting freedom of choice without the ACA mandates
is NOT the same as wanting people to die without health coverage
6. similar to wanting unrestricted voting rights is NOT the same as wanting voter fraud unchecked
7. similar to not wanting the death penalty is NOT the same as wanting criminals enabled and running free

Impenitent the reason this concept is SO important,
if we can understand it in ONE case, then we can look at all the others
where people get divided politically because they think by having free choice or liberty
that means that group wants to abuse it (and in the case of God or Global Warming,
asking NOT to depend on that argument is NOT the same as rejecting the critical points;
it is saying it DOESN'T have to DEPEND on proving a whole added level of arguments
that is DISTRACTING from the key principles by DIVERTING and DIVIDING over something UNNECESSARY)

THAT is a whole other thread, and I think it is important enough to address separately

Now Impenitent to stick to THIS THREAD
can you explain what in Global Warming, what arguments, points or principles
cannot be made by focusing on ending pollution, waste, abuses, destruction IN THEMSELVES.

If you cannot answer this question, do you see that YOU were deflecting?

 

[Nosmo King]

It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?

No, not really. It's like saying you're fine with sprinkler systems in all buildings, but you don't want to legislate the storage of gasoline inside them.

Once we reduce the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere, a lot of other environmental problems can be easily solved.

But that does not preclude reduction of waste and hazardous or toxic emissions from farms and factories.

 

[Impenitent]

I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]

"[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]".
Interesting that you, independent of the right wing, would come up with the same taking point used to dismiss proponents of AGW.

NO, Impenitent you don't get it.
it is not dismissing Global Warming to say it isn't necessary to argue about!
You can make the SAME points and arguments without DEPENDING on that.

The same with God. What Christians have pointed out, including me, is
that Atheists and other nontheists can talk about LIFE TRUTH collective good will and humanity,
all the same things that God stands for and not argue about WHEN did life begin or what is God
and is God a person or all creation or is God collective truth, etc. We don't have to agree on each
and every thing God stands for, and we can STILL make the same points and agree on CONCEPTS
and Principles.

Impenitent as much as I love you
I may have to pull you into the Bullring on this point, and related points
1. Agreeing NOT to argue or depend on Global Warming is NOT the same as rejecting it!!!!

2. similar to NOT arguing "does life begin at conception" does NOT mean promoting abortion.
The same issues to prevent abortion can be resolved WITHOUT "depending on the
argument or belief that life begins at conception"
So this is similar to agreeing to prochoice is not denying life or advocating abortion

If you are TIRED of people mistaking prochoice as "proabortion"
then don't make the leap here that not agreeing on Global Warming
means letting corporations run amok and destroy the environment.
Can you explain why that issue can't just be addressed directly without arguing over GW?

3. similar to agreeing not to DEPEND on proving or agreeing God exists
is NOT the same as rejecting the important meanings and concepts behind God
4. similar to NOT wanting certain gun regulations by govt is NOT the same
as wanting Gun violence, crime, crazy shooting and other abuses of guns
5. similar to wanting freedom of choice without the ACA mandates
is NOT the same as wanting people to die without health coverage
6. similar to wanting unrestricted voting rights is NOT the same as wanting voter fraud unchecked
7. similar to not wanting the death penalty is NOT the same as wanting criminals enabled and running free

Impenitent the reason this concept is SO important,
if we can understand it in ONE case, then we can look at all the others
where people get divided politically because they think by having free choice or liberty
that means that group wants to abuse it (and in the case of God or Global Warming,
asking NOT to depend on that argument is NOT the same as rejecting the critical points;
it is saying it DOESN'T have to DEPEND on proving a whole added level of arguments
that is DISTRACTING from the key principles by DIVERTING and DIVIDING over something UNNECESSARY)

THAT is a whole other thread, and I think it is important enough to address separately

Now Impenitent to stick to THIS THREAD
can you explain what in Global Warming, what arguments, points or principles
cannot be made by focusing on ending pollution, waste, abuses, destruction IN THEMSELVES.

If you cannot answer this question, do you see that YOU were deflecting?

I merely asked for clarification on the quoted portion, before I begin debating.

Yet I'm met with a maze of red herrings to wade thru, and it seems you have no answer.

I know that the right wing calls AGW a cult and a religion. Aren't you doing the same thing here?

 

[emilynghiem]

It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?

No, not really. It's like saying you're fine with sprinkler systems in all buildings, but you don't want to legislate the storage of gasoline inside them.

Once we reduce the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere, a lot of other environmental problems can be easily solved.

But that does not preclude reduction of waste and hazardous or toxic emissions from farms and factories.

Hi Nosmo King
Why can't reduction of carbons be argued in terms of reducing pollution and imbalance/destruction of natural air quality in GENERAL?

Why can't reduction of waste, hazardous, toxic or UNNATURAL emissions be addressed per se?

As unnatural and not sustainable?

Where does this "absolutely depend" on arguments about Global Warming?

Thanks for being the only person attempting to address the issue.

Can you please explain why it isn't enough to agree that it is unnatural, unsustainable, harmful and unhealthy to release unnatural substances in collective quantities when this can be REDUCED and/or eliminated so it is as close to natural as possible.

Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]

"[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]".
Interesting that you, independent of the right wing, would come up with the same taking point used to dismiss proponents of AGW.

NO, Impenitent you don't get it.
it is not dismissing Global Warming to say it isn't necessary to argue about!
You can make the SAME points and arguments without DEPENDING on that.

The same with God. What Christians have pointed out, including me, is
that Atheists and other nontheists can talk about LIFE TRUTH collective good will and humanity,
all the same things that God stands for and not argue about WHEN did life begin or what is God
and is God a person or all creation or is God collective truth, etc. We don't have to agree on each
and every thing God stands for, and we can STILL make the same points and agree on CONCEPTS
and Principles.

Impenitent as much as I love you
I may have to pull you into the Bullring on this point, and related points
1. Agreeing NOT to argue or depend on Global Warming is NOT the same as rejecting it!!!!

2. similar to NOT arguing "does life begin at conception" does NOT mean promoting abortion.
The same issues to prevent abortion can be resolved WITHOUT "depending on the
argument or belief that life begins at conception"
So this is similar to agreeing to prochoice is not denying life or advocating abortion

If you are TIRED of people mistaking prochoice as "proabortion"
then don't make the leap here that not agreeing on Global Warming
means letting corporations run amok and destroy the environment.
Can you explain why that issue can't just be addressed directly without arguing over GW?

3. similar to agreeing not to DEPEND on proving or agreeing God exists
is NOT the same as rejecting the important meanings and concepts behind God
4. similar to NOT wanting certain gun regulations by govt is NOT the same
as wanting Gun violence, crime, crazy shooting and other abuses of guns
5. similar to wanting freedom of choice without the ACA mandates
is NOT the same as wanting people to die without health coverage
6. similar to wanting unrestricted voting rights is NOT the same as wanting voter fraud unchecked
7. similar to not wanting the death penalty is NOT the same as wanting criminals enabled and running free

Impenitent the reason this concept is SO important,
if we can understand it in ONE case, then we can look at all the others
where people get divided politically because they think by having free choice or liberty
that means that group wants to abuse it (and in the case of God or Global Warming,
asking NOT to depend on that argument is NOT the same as rejecting the critical points;
it is saying it DOESN'T have to DEPEND on proving a whole added level of arguments
that is DISTRACTING from the key principles by DIVERTING and DIVIDING over something UNNECESSARY)

THAT is a whole other thread, and I think it is important enough to address separately

Now Impenitent to stick to THIS THREAD
can you explain what in Global Warming, what arguments, points or principles
cannot be made by focusing on ending pollution, waste, abuses, destruction IN THEMSELVES.

If you cannot answer this question, do you see that YOU were deflecting?

I merely asked for clarification on the quoted portion, before I begin debating.

Yet I'm met with a maze of red herrings to wade thru, and it seems you have no answer.

I know that the right wing calls AGW a cult and a religion. Aren't you doing the same thing here?

1. I leave it to each person to believe what they want or don't believe about AGW. I believe this issue will get resolved AFTERWARDS and is not the starting point.

2. My whole point is to AVOID tangling up in debate over #1.

I'm saying if all the same environment problems can be addressed DIRECTLY, by discussing alterative solutions to reduce or eliminate pollution, waste, hazards, emissions, unnatural or imbalanced conditions, etc.
then we don't have to worry at all about #1.

People may well keep thinking the other side is paranoid, nazi, delusional, cults, etc. about either GW or anti GW -- and we can STILL agree that X Y Z need to be resolved REGARDLESS who believes what about GW or anti-GW. We can STILL agree to work toward keeping the production process as sustainable and natural as possible by reducing waste.

We can even localize food production to reduce trucking and transportation if all regions are self-sustaining and can feed, house and provide health care and education within each community and do exchanges by internet to reduce physical transportation back and forth.

In the process of working out sustainable solutions we AGREE on, the issues on #1 about whose beliefs are what, will resolve themselves.

That issue in #1 doesn't need to be come an "added condition or conflict" putting pressure on the need to communicate on answers to environmental and production/corporation issues.
As we get past #1 we can actually work together collaboratively to formulate agreed solutions as in #2.

 

[JoeMoma]

It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?

No, not really. It's like saying you're fine with sprinkler systems in all buildings, but you don't want to legislate the storage of gasoline inside them.

Once we reduce the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere, a lot of other environmental problems can be easily solved.

But that does not preclude reduction of waste and hazardous or toxic emissions from farms and factories.

Hi Nosmo King
Why can't reduction of carbons be argued in terms of reducing pollution and imbalance/destruction of natural air quality in GENERAL?

Why can't reduction of waste, hazardous, toxic or UNNATURAL emissions be addressed per se?

As unnatural and not sustainable?

Where does this "absolutely depend" on arguments about Global Warming?

Thanks for being the only person attempting to address the issue.

Can you please explain why it isn't enough to agree that it is unnatural, unsustainable, harmful and unhealthy to release unnatural substances in collective quantities when this can be REDUCED and/or eliminated so it is as close to natural as possible.

Thanks!

Because CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?

No, not really. It's like saying you're fine with sprinkler systems in all buildings, but you don't want to legislate the storage of gasoline inside them.

Once we reduce the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere, a lot of other environmental problems can be easily solved.

But that does not preclude reduction of waste and hazardous or toxic emissions from farms and factories.

Hi Nosmo King
Why can't reduction of carbons be argued in terms of reducing pollution and imbalance/destruction of natural air quality in GENERAL?

Why can't reduction of waste, hazardous, toxic or UNNATURAL emissions be addressed per se?

As unnatural and not sustainable?

Where does this "absolutely depend" on arguments about Global Warming?

Thanks for being the only person attempting to address the issue.

Can you please explain why it isn't enough to agree that it is unnatural, unsustainable, harmful and unhealthy to release unnatural substances in collective quantities when this can be REDUCED and/or eliminated so it is as close to natural as possible.

Thanks!

Because CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food.

Hi JoeMoma But we all know the normal amounts of elements without any unnatural production going on.
Why can't this be agreed to reduce so it is closer to normal rates of exchange?

That doesn't require ME to believe anything about Global Warming to see that it is
"more natural" to reduce "excess collective emissions"
rather than have a bunch of global corporate plants pumping this out
at a higher rate than humans and living things naturally expel. Duh.

But thanks to you for at least trying to explain WHY it makes a difference.
I just don't think that point is "absolutely necessary" to believe or prove
in order to AGREE to reduce not only CO2 but other emissions that
are "not normally emitted/produced on that collective scale worldwide"

Thanks!

 

[Nosmo King]

It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?

No, not really. It's like saying you're fine with sprinkler systems in all buildings, but you don't want to legislate the storage of gasoline inside them.

Once we reduce the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere, a lot of other environmental problems can be easily solved.

But that does not preclude reduction of waste and hazardous or toxic emissions from farms and factories.

Hi Nosmo King
Why can't reduction of carbons be argued in terms of reducing pollution and imbalance/destruction of natural air quality in GENERAL?

Why can't reduction of waste, hazardous, toxic or UNNATURAL emissions be addressed per se?

As unnatural and not sustainable?

Where does this "absolutely depend" on arguments about Global Warming?

Thanks for being the only person attempting to address the issue.

Can you please explain why it isn't enough to agree that it is unnatural, unsustainable, harmful and unhealthy to release unnatural substances in collective quantities when this can be REDUCED and/or eliminated so it is as close to natural as possible.

Thanks!

Because there are folks who will listen to energy companies and not scientists. Those folks, who remain suspicious of science will contend that carbon, in and of itself, is natural. They will talk about cow farts and volcanoes and other sources of greenhouse gases and exclaim "Look! The Liberals want to take over our very way of life!"

Well, that is a political response, not a scientific one. Those science skeptics will find some e-mails or some conference on Global Warming and pick apart scientific findings with no real scientific knowledge just to bolster the position told to them by pundits who are in the employ of energy companies.

In other words, once a position has been staked out in the political arena, any and all science will not move them to knowledge due to their intrinsic fear of science..