Shad
Veteran Member
Yup. And the FAQ which is what Moore is talking about. AOC has no really plans just a silly outline.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, has lost his marbles?
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
Yup. And the FAQ which is what Moore is talking about. AOC has no really plans just a silly outline.
Not really. Do you want to offer any, though?
The Resolution suggests goals. It does NOT pretend to lay out solutions. It's like when JFK proposed that we go to the moon by the end of the decade. He didn't give NASA plans, he established a goal.
That said, what about the GND's goals do you find silly?
Shad
Veteran Member
Sure which is one of the reason Moore is blasting AOC.
Healthcare
Free university
Living wage jobs for all
Work on every building in the nation
Failure of fast-speed trains
2030 date
Housing
Power demands without Nuclear power
Reliance on the UN alarmists which have been wrong for 40 years.
Oppression babble
Manufacturing babble
More farming subsides
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
I agree with your assessment of the situation. I fought to get solar panels on our town hall at the very least. But the less concerned cited the "costs" as something more important than the environment. A sentiment made by many who do not see any problem with climate change. I do see a lot of children activists who get it. So I hope they will be more successful at making the needed changes. And there are real issues with all of the renewables thus far thought up. Huge hydro dams in Quebec may be altering the fresh water flows into the gulf and possibly creating dead zones. The science is in its infancy on that one. And giant windmills have their issues interupting migration patterns if the placement is not carefully studied. And other issues so I'm not sure what the best approach is. We will obviously have to use fossils for the foreseeable future. There just may not be any solutions. We wouldn't be the first mass extinction this planet has witnessed.
And of course we have the issue of a ballooning population worldwide.
Yet despite their sense of urgency, AOC & followers don't mention it in their goals.
So are they blind to this?
Or do they ignore it because it's more about politics, ie, getting
easy support for massive new programs & tax increases?
Last edited:
I numbered your points for ease of discussion.
1 - Agree to disagree. Under our current "system" it's common for hard-working, middle class families - who have insurance - to go bankrupt if a family member gets a serious medical condition. This is hardly a foundation for a strong nation.
2 - I see this as shifting the Overton window. In other words, I see this as a proposal that deliberately swings too far in order to offset a broken university system.
3 - Having millions of working people living below the poverty line is a massive drain on our economy. What I will say however is that I don't advocate free handouts in general. My general stance is that if someone needs money, we should hand them a shovel and assign them to a road crew, and pay them for a good day's work. This approach worked very well in the days of the CCC.
4 - Again, shifting the Overton window
5 - I didn't see trains mentioned in the GND?
6 - Predicting the future is always enormously complex. But given the stakes, we ought to err on the side of considering this to be an emergency.
7 - Homelessness is another huge drain on our economy.
8 - ALL of our R&D ought to be going to renewables and/or nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission is not a viable, long-term energy source.
9 - Again, error on the side of viewing climate change as an emergency.
10 - I might agree with you on this point.
11 - The GND's stance on manufacturing doesn't seem like babble to me, can you say more?
12 - The GND's stance on farming seems long overdue. We have been draining our country's aquifers much, much faster than nature replenishes them, and we have been losing topsoil far faster than we can restore it. Neither of these approaches is sustainable.
1 - Agree to disagree. Under our current "system" it's common for hard-working, middle class families - who have insurance - to go bankrupt if a family member gets a serious medical condition. This is hardly a foundation for a strong nation.
2 - I see this as shifting the Overton window. In other words, I see this as a proposal that deliberately swings too far in order to offset a broken university system.
3 - Having millions of working people living below the poverty line is a massive drain on our economy. What I will say however is that I don't advocate free handouts in general. My general stance is that if someone needs money, we should hand them a shovel and assign them to a road crew, and pay them for a good day's work. This approach worked very well in the days of the CCC.
4 - Again, shifting the Overton window
5 - I didn't see trains mentioned in the GND?
6 - Predicting the future is always enormously complex. But given the stakes, we ought to err on the side of considering this to be an emergency.
7 - Homelessness is another huge drain on our economy.
8 - ALL of our R&D ought to be going to renewables and/or nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission is not a viable, long-term energy source.
9 - Again, error on the side of viewing climate change as an emergency.
10 - I might agree with you on this point.
11 - The GND's stance on manufacturing doesn't seem like babble to me, can you say more?
12 - The GND's stance on farming seems long overdue. We have been draining our country's aquifers much, much faster than nature replenishes them, and we have been losing topsoil far faster than we can restore it. Neither of these approaches is sustainable.
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
Yes, the obvious elephant in the room. But who is going to go as far as pushing that agenda? They would fear not looking politically correct or socially concerned. Birth rates in the west maybe declining but certainly not in other countries. What in the world is going to stop that or convince people it is a problem?
I think it's as you say also, that some of the programs are not well thought out or made through emotion instead of intellect and thoughts of the future.
Shad
Veteran Member
The US become a strong nation without it decades ago. It was not part of the foundation yet America is the only superpower and largest economy
Government broke the system with guaranteed loans. Government can fix the system by removing those loans.
I am against forced labour.
And a lack of law which will force any/all property owners to renovate
High speed rail is mentioned under resolved section 8
Which is why I am against such alarmist claims as it cause people to give more power to government when government has been one of the problems behind the whole issue itself
So would housing them
Yes it is. It is more viable than any green energy source we have.
Except UN predictions have been wrong since the 70s. So go for models that have been wrong again and again.
As the plan has nothing of substance it is just babble. The same type of babble Trump made about manufacturing.
More subsides for a failing industry is not the answer. The rest of your point lacks any substance.
We weren't as corrupt back then.
I would agree that the college loan program is a part of the problem, but removing those loans would not be sufficient.
No one is suggesting forced labor. What's being suggested is that if you need money, a job can be provided.
Again, the GND does not claim to provide a detailed roadmap, only goals.
Indeed it is, missed that. But the context is "as much as is technologically feasible".
Utah has demonstrated that housing the homeless is cheaper than leaving them homeless.
Fission creates endlessly deadly waste that we don't know how to deal with. If you disagree, why don't you go take a nice hike and have a picnic downwind of Chernobyl, and let us know how that goes.
And yet, the world's glaciers are melting faster than predicted, and the math is pretty straightforward about how sea levels will rise once Antarctica and Greenland's glaciers melt. To say that we shouldn't worry because our predictive models haven't been perfect so far, seems to be to have our heads in the sand.
Again, it's not a plan, it's a set of goals.
How would you propose to make our farming more sustainable? Are you somehow suggesting that we can abandon farming?
As for my points lacking any substance, I have to suspect that you've done absolutely nothing to research the use of our aquifers and topsoil. I'm not going to google this for you, but you should get your facts straight.
Shad
Veteran Member
What? Before the civil war around 1/6 of the US population were slaves.....
It would lower the cost of school as unlimited funding wouldn't exist. Loans would be on actual risk assessment.
Jobs do not pop into existence from thin air. Creating busy work is a waste of money.
Which is why it is a joke.
It isn't technology it is geography.
Citation
There are clean reactors designs already. France uses a massive amount of nuclear power yet has had no accident. Try not to compared a failing reactor in a failing state with bread lines to a modern reactor maintained by a competent nation and company. All you have done is parrot nuclear alarmism without an set of data by a name. Impressive.
You made an assumption of what I was talking about. UN alarmist reports have been wrong on the "red line" over and over. In 2007 the UN was claiming we were doomed by 2012 so according to that model the GND is pointless.
Again a reason why it is a joke
Stop growing cheap cash crops which can not compete in the global market. End subsides to small farms that have been failing since the 1930s so those can finally die freeing up property for successful farms. Switch to products like livestock which still has a high market value compared to failing cash crops.
The small farmstead system no longer works.
Substance as in a plan. Goals do not mean anything unless there is a plan. Any fool can make a goal on a piece of paper.
I already know about soil and water issues. A lot of is due to states which are arid using water to create farmland. Another issue is that states have large cities which are also in arid environment but have large populations like LV. Abandoning LV would go a long way to helping the water situation.
This is yet another LMGTFY moment. Healthcare costs having been rising steadily for decades, and again it's proving not to be sustainable.
I'm willing to look this up if your claim is sincere. As it stands, it seems unintuitive.
One obvious source of jobs is to restore our infrastructure. That's a more important project than a new generation of jet fighters and tanks that the generals tell us we don't need.
Not true. Three mile island was an incredibly close call. We currently ship nuclear waste across the country on trains. The odds of never having an accident are vanishingly small. This is just statistics.
So we disagree on how to error in reacting to the predictive models concerning climate change.
I don't think this is about large farms vs. small farms. It's about farming practices. And by the way, livestock is a huge part of why aquifers and topsoil are being depleted.
Shad
Veteran Member
A lot of things are not sustainable due to costs such as social programs.
Look up guaranteed loans from the Fed. There are no requirements regarding study path.
That is nothing new as every POTUS orders infrastructure work. Those jobs are temporary
Actually the Abrams has been outclassed and due for a replacement anyways. The US military budget is not as large as you think.
Which was a panel failure. More so it stayed in operation for years after.
We no longer need to as there are new designs which do not require dangerous fuel which have a zero chance of meltdown as it is impossible with the fuel source.
I am talking about specific alarmist models that have been wrong over and over.
Yes it is.
That too but not exclusive.
No the farmers that have livestock in arid areas are.
Shad
Veteran Member
Of courser you do. You have little grasp of any of the concepts involved thus just parrots what you are told.
How can I debate when you say little and know less? Such as the nuclear reactor points? You are using tone as an escape as you are out of your scope.
FYI that is a tone I use when I want to hammer home you are clueless. Not the tone I used in previous posts. I was being blunt and to the point.
This only adds to my earlier suspicion. The fact that you've stooped to ad hominems is quite telling. IF you had good arguments such crass behavior would not be necessary.
Shad
Veteran Member
No. As I pointed out there is a difference between me providing blunt information such as nuclear reactors with my reaction to the excuse you made up to bow out.
Look up the term you are using. I never said your idea was wrong because you are stupid or whatever. Try again.
I had good arguments which you couldn't counter so you blame my tone as an excuse. After all who pointed out clean nuclear reactors? Not you....
Your arguments could be countered by anyone with access to a search engine. But you put so little effort into them that's it's just not worth the effort to correct you.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Modern reactors aren't going to be like Chernobyl's. The dangers aren't what they were.
I've seen few credible attempts at even imagining a steady source of post-carbon energy without new reactors. If the choice is between nuclear and greater than 2 degrees of warming I reckon we should go with nuclear.