Dems want Laws changed after Rittenhouse shootings. Are vigilantes the answer? (Poll)

[DBA]

This of course, has nothing to do with the supply chain problems, which have a lot more to do with the fact that Trump's trade war disrupted international supply chains, along with our failure to update our ports and infrastructure.

Um, wrong again. Supply chain issues are FIRMLY rooted in a labor shortage that affects the manufacture and transportation of materials. You are simply incorrect here.

Uh, most OPEC oil isn't refined in OPEC countries. It's shipped in Crude form to the countries that use it and refined there.

Biden is playing both sides of the fence here appeasing US Climate change nuts by limiting US oil production but begging OPEC to produce more from countries that do not have as stringent emission requirements as the US, thus producing more global greenhouse emissions. It is comical really.

Yes, eliminating fossil fuels IS the goal. They are destroying the planet. But the oil companies and the Koch brother tell you bullshit about Global Warming not being true (even as we watch glaciers melt and coral reefs die) and dammit, you aren't giving up your SUV.

Uh huh. I have an old National Geographic from the 70's that claimed it was cooling and then another from the 90's that said it was warming. Now it is an "existential threat" and we are all going to be under water any day now. The climate is cyclical with VERY long cycles. You are a useful idiot. They count of folks like you. I hope you love your Prius.

 

[kyzr]

Uh huh. I have an old National Geographic from the 70's that claimed it was cooling and then another from the 90's that said it was warming. Now it is an "existential threat" and we are all going to be under water any day now. The climate is cyclical with VERY long cycles. You are a useful idiot. They count of folks like you. I hope you love your Prius.

I also remember the "ozone hole" at the south pole that was going to kill us all.
We eliminated CFC production, and saved the planet.
Anyway, the next big thing will be a "mini-Ice Age". All part of the normal climate cycle:

Forget Global Warming, The Sun Says An Ice Age Is Coming | Principia Scientific Intl.

Astrophysicist Joseph Postma shows that the global warming models only work if the earth is flat.

principia-scientific.com

Forget Warming, Here Comes Cooling: Scientists Announce Little Ice Age In Coming Decades

Scientists studying the intensity of solar activity have declared that the earth is heading towards a very cold climate phase, akin to the Little Ice Age of the 17th century, or worse. In a newly published paper in Astrophysics and Space Science, scientists have analyzed historic solar activity a

cornwallalliance.org

The Coming Ice Age, by Betty Friedan

A true scientific detective story

harpers.org

Are We on the Brink of a ‘New Little Ice Age?’ - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily apparent in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica.

www.whoi.edu

 

[JoeB131]

How to destroy the Earth @ Things Of Interest

Hey, buddy, when you get to rule your own planet in the Celestial Heaven (yes, this is the crazy stuff Mormons actually believe) I hope you manage your world better than you want to manage this one. Otherwise your billions of spirit children are going to be pretty miserable.

Technically, no, we can't blow up the Earth.
We can render it inhospitable to human life, however.

 

[JoeB131]

Um, wrong again. Supply chain issues are FIRMLY rooted in a labor shortage that affects the manufacture and transportation of materials. You are simply incorrect here.

Again, this is my professional area. The biggest problem right now is not a labor shortage. It's that there are ships stacked up in the ports that we can't unload because the facilities are insufficient to do so. Part of the problem is that Target and Amazon are taking priority over manufacturing companies which need components. Most of the things we are short on aren't manufactured here, they are manufactured overseas.

Now, yes, there are places where the labor shortage really is bad. Retail and service, definitely. You know , the jobs that don't pay a living wage, much less a wage worth dying over. The parent that used to make his kid get a job at McDonalds isn't.

Biden is playing both sides of the fence here appeasing US Climate change nuts by limiting US oil production but begging OPEC to produce more from countries that do not have as stringent emission requirements as the US, thus producing more global greenhouse emissions. It is comical really.

Again, the methods used in the US to extract oil are more environmentally damaging than the methods used by OPEC countries. Fracking for instance, requires the use of billions of tons of water to be forced underground to drive the pertroleum up. The Tar Sands oil they want to bring more of through the unneeded pipelines Biden cancelled are far dirtier than the crude brought over from the Middle East.

Uh huh. I have an old National Geographic from the 70's that claimed it was cooling and then another from the 90's that said it was warming. Now it is an "existential threat" and we are all going to be under water any day now. The climate is cyclical with VERY long cycles. You are a useful idiot. They count of folks like you. I hope you love your Prius.

Uh, "Global Cooling" in the 1970's was a fringe view, mostly promoted in pop culture.

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists...

journals.ametsoc.org

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

 

[JoeB131]

I also remember the "ozone hole" at the south pole that was going to kill us all.
We eliminated CFC production, and saved the planet.

Exactly....

The Scientists went to Reagan and other world leaders and pointed out a problem. If we continued to use CFC, the Ozone layer would continue to think out, exposing humans to deadly radiation. Because Reagan wasn't a crazy nut like Trump is or a religious fanatic like Bush, he actually LISTENED to the Scientists and signed the Montreal Accord to eliminate CFC production.

That gave the Ozone layer time to repair. (Ozone is created when sunlight hits Oxygen (O2) molecules and turns them into Ozone (O3).

Now, this was an easy fix. They had alternatives to the two main uses for CFC's - refrigerants like Freon and propellent in aerosol cans.

Replacing Fossil Fuels is a bigger ask. It means coming up with more fuel efficient vehicles. It means eliminating coal fired power plants. It means doing some things the left won't like, such as using more nuclear power. It's not an impossible task, though.

The question is, can we get past the interests like the oil companies that don't want to lose their profits?

 

[kyzr]

Replacing Fossil Fuels is a bigger ask. It means coming up with more fuel efficient vehicles. It means eliminating coal fired power plants. It means doing some things the left won't like, such as using more nuclear power. It's not an impossible task, though.

The question is, can we get past the interests like the oil companies that don't want to lose their profits?

The answer to your question is...yes. We can get past the oil interests, but it will take time and effort. As you say, replacing fossil powerplants with nuclear or renewables will take time. It takes about 10-years from order placement to a new powerplant coming online. BUT the US is only 15% of the "global warming" problem. China and India are the real culprits. Good luck getting them greener. There is no "low hanging fruit" these are all tough problems to address.

 

[DBA]

Again, this is my professional area. The biggest problem right now is not a labor shortage. It's that there are ships stacked up in the ports that we can't unload because the facilities are insufficient to do so.

The underlying issue to all of it is the labor shortage of people to unload the ships, truck drivers, railroad workers and fewer pilots for small products to transport the supply. The capacity issues are a result of the labor shortage as goods are not being moved quickly enough and causing congestion. You are very misinformed as usual.

Again, the methods used in the US to extract oil are more environmentally damaging than the methods used by OPEC countries. Fracking for instance, requires the use of billions of tons of water to be forced underground to drive the pertroleum up. The Tar Sands oil they want to bring more of through the unneeded pipelines Biden cancelled are far dirtier than the crude brought over from the Middle East.

Wrong yet again. Fracking naysayers are all about money and supporting the "green" cause. You have bought into it, as usual.

Fracking has less impact on groundwater than traditional oil and gas production

https://www.cfact.org/2013/10/07/fracking-is-climate-friendly-environmentally-safe-and-economically-stimulating/

 

[JoeB131]

The answer to your question is...yes. We can get past the oil interests, but it will take time and effort. As you say, replacing fossil powerplants with nuclear or renewables will take time. It takes about 10-years from order placement to a new powerplant coming online. BUT the US is only 15% of the "global warming" problem. China and India are the real culprits. Good luck getting them greener. There is no "low hanging fruit" these are all tough problems to address.

So your argument is that since China won't do the right thing (or can't right now at their current level of development), we shouldn't either. Let's all just quietly wait to die, lest we be slightly bothered in trying to save ourselves.


Yes, we are 15% of the world's problem, but we are only 4% of the world's population. China is 25% of the population and about 10% of the problem.

The point is, if we develop the technologies, other people will follow.

 

[JoeB131]

The underlying issue to all of it is the labor shortage of people to unload the ships, truck drivers, railroad workers and fewer pilots for small products to transport the supply. The capacity issues are a result of the labor shortage as goods are not being moved quickly enough and causing congestion. You are very misinformed as usual.

So how is that Biden's fault again? We've been dealing with a shrinking workforce for years, guy... as people retire and get out. If anyone made this worse, it was Trump and his anti-immigration policies...

You really think there's a pilot out there who thinks, "Naw, man, I'm getting an extra $300.00 a week in unemployment, I'm good!"

This is just another Trump mess Biden is going to fix, and then you'll move on to screaming about men in dresses or some such bullshit.

Wrong yet again. Fracking naysayers are all about money and supporting the "green" cause. You have bought into it, as usual.

How much did the oil companies pay for these studies.

The truth about fracking and the environment

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is revolutionizing oil and gas drilling across the country. However, without rigorous safety regulations, it can poison groundwater, pollute surface water, impair wild landscapes, and threaten wildlife.

www.wilderness.org

Unfortunately, this process can go wrong, and if the oil or gas wells are not built sturdily enough, they can leak and contaminate groundwater. “Flowback” water can contaminate streams and water supplies. The rush into fracking has not kept pace with important environmental safeguards. For example, toxic fracking fluids, including known cancer-causing chemicals like benzene and toluene, are exempt from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. And the federal government doesn’t require that companies disclose what is in the fracking fluid – letting millions of gallons of toxic fluid into the ground on each drilling site without anyone but the drilling companies knowing what is in it.

 

[DBA]

This is just another Trump mess Biden is going to fix, and then you'll move on to screaming about men in dresses or some such bullshit.

Biden can’t fix anything. He is incompetent. His handlers don’t want to fix anything anyway, they want to destroy the US as we know it. He is oblivoius and along for the ride as are you and many other Democrats. Russia and China are thrilled with Uncle Joe.

How much did the oil companies pay for these studies.

How much did the green lobby pay for this one? Funny that you think that oil companies will skew numbers too their liking to save their butts, which I agree can happen, and yet those destinted to make a fortune on green energy don’t do the same. It is ALL about money on both sides which is why you can’t believe everything you hear or read. Numbers are altereed to fit certain agenda’s and those numbers are used by scientists to research. GIGO

 

[JoeB131]

Biden can’t fix anything. He is incompetent. His handlers don’t want to fix anything anyway, they want to destroy the US as we know it. He is oblivoius and along for the ride as are you and many other Democrats. Russia and China are thrilled with Uncle Joe.

Frankly, I just posted my best year ever in terms of money earned. I'm thrilled with the job Biden is doing.

Only in weird Republican world can we have 4.2% unemployment and the lowest number of new job claims in the last 52 years, and you guys can claim things are "awful" somehow.

How much did the green lobby pay for this one? Funny that you think that oil companies will skew numbers too their liking to save their butts, which I agree can happen, and yet those destinted to make a fortune on green energy don’t do the same. It is ALL about money on both sides which is why you can’t believe everything you hear or read. Numbers are altereed to fit certain agenda’s and those numbers are used by scientists to research. GIGO

Except no one is really making a fortune on green energy. And most of the people advocating AGW are academics who aren't in it for the money.

I do agree the biggest problem with the Green side of the argument is their tendency to exagerate, but telling people that in 100 years, we are going to have some serious problems doesn't get their immediate attention. But denying we have a problem because someone is making a shitload of money on it, and we don't want to make any alterations to our lifestyle is much, much worse.

So I will use the tactic Christians often use. "What if you're wrong". You should pray to Jesus even if you are wrong because you have nothing to lose if there is no God, and everything to gain if there is.

Okay, if I'm wrong. Well, will still have cleaner air, we will still cut off the ready supply of money to the bad actors in the world, and we will have alternatives to fossil fuels, which are going to eventually run out at some point.

If you're wrong. Everyone dies. Maybe not now, maybe in 100 years, but the famines, droughts, extremes in weather will make the planet inhospitable to humans and result in a mass extinctions.

 

[kyzr]

So your argument is that since China won't do the right thing (or can't right now at their current level of development), we shouldn't either. Let's all just quietly wait to die, lest we be slightly bothered in trying to save ourselves.
Yes, we are 15% of the world's problem, but we are only 4% of the world's population. China is 25% of the population and about 10% of the problem.
The point is, if we develop the technologies, other people will follow.

1. China is rolling in cash, and they are building coal powerplants, so whatever tiny but expensive improvement the US makes will be cancelled by China.
2. China is 30% of the world's problem, not 10%, stop lying.

CO2 Emissions by Country - Worldometer

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions by Country in the world with Global share of CO2 greenhouse emissions by country

www.worldometers.info

3. What "technologies"? Nuclear power? Did that, and the greenies cancelled them. Many of us use oil or gas to heat our homes in the winter. Moving goods cross country in big rigs won't be changing any time soon. There are no easy fixes to reduce CO2 emissions, most are just wasting money. If "green whining" makes you feel good, fine, but real solutions that actually move the CO2 needle may require new approaches.

 

[DBA]

Frankly, I just posted my best year ever in terms of money earned. I'm thrilled with the job Biden is doing.

Only in weird Republican world can we have 4.2% unemployment and the lowest number of new job claims in the last 52 years, and you guys can claim things are "awful" somehow.

You mean like you were doing during the Trump presidency pre-COVID?

So I will use the tactic Christians often use. "What if you're wrong". You should pray to Jesus even if you are wrong because you have nothing to lose if there is no God, and everything to gain if there is.

Okay, if I'm wrong. Well, will still have cleaner air, we will still cut off the ready supply of money to the bad actors in the world, and we will have alternatives to fossil fuels, which are going to eventually run out at some point.

If you're wrong. Everyone dies. Maybe not now, maybe in 100 years, but the famines, droughts, extremes in weather will make the planet inhospitable to humans and result in a mass extinctions.

Interesting that you bring up religion. Just as you are firm in your belief that global warming will take us all out, I am just as firm in by believe in Jesus Christ. You just to err on the side of caution when it comes to supposed science, which changes with the wind, but not when it comes to your soul. To each his own I guess.

BTW, going green isn’t free. We are doing nothing but wasting money if other countries aren’t buying into it. We are just putting our country behind the eight ball economically. This is why counties like China will not truly be on board until it becomes economically feasible to do so. We are jumping the gun and trying to move to fast, which is a recipe for economic disaster.

 

[JoeB131]

1. China is rolling in cash, and they are building coal powerplants, so whatever tiny but expensive improvement the US makes will be cancelled by China.

Actually, the Chinese are investing in green energy.

China Is Bankrolling Green Energy Projects Around the World

China boosts geopolitical clout over oil producers as renewable demand soars

time.com

China’s plan to cut coal and boost green growth

Innovations in energy-storage technology are a mainstay of the nation’s bid to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.

www.nature.com

3. What "technologies"? Nuclear power? Did that, and the greenies cancelled them. Many of us use oil or gas to heat our homes in the winter. Moving goods cross country in big rigs won't be changing any time soon. There are no easy fixes to reduce CO2 emissions, most are just wasting money. If "green whining" makes you feel good, fine, but real solutions that actually move the CO2 needle may require new approaches.

Sure there are... Big Rigs are only a small part of the CO2 problem. The main source is private automobiles, and we could reduce that by a lot by trading in those gas-guzzling SUV's for fuel efficient vehicles.

 

[DBA]

Actually, the Chinese are investing in green energy.

They are investing so they can make money on both ends. They aren’t dumb, naive or gullible enough to go green when it is not feasible. They aren’t worried about being under the water every decade because they don’t fall for the scare tactics used in the West or Europe.

 

[JoeB131]

You mean like you were doing during the Trump presidency pre-COVID?

Well, let's look at that.

My biggest gains were in 2015 and 2016. That's when my income really increased. My income kind of went down a bit in 2017 and then kind of platuaed after that... but then really took a hit when TRUMP PLAGUE hit. But I knew that Trump was going to fuck things up, because Republicans always, always do. So I spent most of the last four years paying down my debt, putting away savings and preparing for the recession.

Which put me in a great position when things bounced back this year. Seriously, I've never been in a better economic position than I am now.

Interesting that you bring up religion. Just as you are firm in your belief that global warming will take us all out, I am just as firm in by believe in Jesus Christ. You just to err on the side of caution when it comes to supposed science, which changes with the wind, but not when it comes to your soul. To each his own I guess.

The difference between science and religion is that science is subject to change with new Data. I believe that Global Warming will take us all out because it can be scientifically demonstrated and proven.

On the other hand, there's no real evidence Jesus even existed, much less that he rose from the dead and God was his baby-daddy.

The problem with picking one religion over another is that we have no way of knowing which one is right or if ANY of them are. I mean, what if I get to the afterlife, I find out the Shinto followers were right, and Amaterasu wants to have a word with me about picking the wrong God? that would kind of suck. Or I can just be a decent person, or try to be, and let it all sort itself out.

Now, on the topic of Global Warming, I can be a selfish asshole and say, "So what? By the time that the bad stuff happens with AGW, I'll probably be dead by then." I'm going to be 60 next year. I've already lived longer than either of my parents did. Fuck those future generations. I don't have kids, not my problem.

But unlike your average conservative, I actually care about what happens to other people.

BTW, going green isn’t free. We are doing nothing but wasting money if other countries aren’t buying into it. We are just putting our country behind the eight ball economically. This is why counties like China will not truly be on board until it becomes economically feasible to do so. We are jumping the gun and trying to move to fast, which is a recipe for economic disaster.

So we should kill the planet because we aren't the ones going first. Completely forgetting that if we get to these new technologies first, it would put us at an economic advantage.

 

[DBA]

The difference between science and religion is that science is subject to change with new Data. I believe that Global Warming will take us all out because it can be scientifically demonstrated and proven.

On the other hand, there's no real evidence Jesus even existed, much less that he rose from the dead and God was his baby-daddy.

The problem with picking one religion over another is that we have no way of knowing which one is right or if ANY of them are. I mean, what if I get to the afterlife, I find out the Shinto followers were right, and Amaterasu wants to have a word with me about picking the wrong God? that would kind of suck. Or I can just be a decent person, or try to be, and let it all sort itself out.

Now, on the topic of Global Warming, I can be a selfish asshole and say, "So what? By the time that the bad stuff happens with AGW, I'll probably be dead by then." I'm going to be 60 next year. I've already lived longer than either of my parents did. Fuck those future generations. I don't have kids, not my problem.

But unlike your average conservative, I actually care about what happens to other people.



So we should kill the planet because we aren't the ones going first. Completely forgetting that if we get to these new technologies first, it would put us at an economic advantage.

There is no evidence that we can stop Climate Change. It is cyclical. You guys are chasing your tails. There have been several periods throughout history of both warming and cooling. We didn’t have anything to do with it.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no evidence that we can stop Climate Change. It is cyclical. You guys are chasing your tails. There have been several periods throughout history of both warming and cooling. We didn’t have anything to do with it.

There's plenty of evidence we can. Reduce CO2 emissions, and the natural processes of the Earth will do the rest.

Yes, there have been periods of cooling and warming, but NEVER THIS FAST>

 

[DBA]

There's plenty of evidence we can. Reduce CO2 emissions, and the natural processes of the Earth will do the rest.

Yes, there have been periods of cooling and warming, but NEVER THIS FAST>

View attachment 574441

Um, not not NEVER. In the last 2000-5000 years, maybe. Even if humans have caused the waming in the last 100 years or so, how do we know the earth will heal itself? Seems purely speculative seeing as how we don’t have other periods in the last 5000 years with which to compare. How old do you think the earth is? We have an infinitesimally small set of data that we are use to determine the cycles. How do we know if this 100 year increase isn’t part of a larger cycle pre-dating the information we have available? Yeah, a ton of speculation with very little data is at play here.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Um, not not NEVER. In the last 2000-5000 years, maybe. Even if humans have caused the waming in the last 100 years or so, how do we know the earth will heal itself? Seems purely speculative seeing as how we don’t have other periods in the last 5000 years with which to compare. How old do you think the earth is? We have an infinitesimally small set of data that we are use to determine the cycles. How do we know if this 100 year increase isn’t part of a larger cycle pre-dating the information we have available? Yeah, a ton of speculation with very little data is at play here.

“You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.”​

​

—Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park—​