someone needs a hug...

Lightbulbs will be ok... But they will only work if the wind is blowing...

So, you're a Greenie..??

Why do you hate the eagles..??

It's pretty obvious that anyone who supports wind power hates the eagles..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqejXs7XgsU&t=14s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY&t=11s&index=3&list=WL

Dr. Tim Ball, a climate scientist, says; "It was warmer than today for at least 95% of the last 10,000 years."

Has anyone of you actually read her proposal? Zero carbon emissions by 2035 and nuclear is a no go. That means scrapping all internal combustion engines (getting rid or your current cars, trucks, motorcycles, lawn mowers, etc.). Shutting down all power plants. Converting heating systems in every home and business that uses oil, propane or natural gas. No fireplaces, no grills, no campfires. We'd have to get rid of all current aircraft, including our fighter jets. I guess our warships could be converted back to wind powered and they could launch non exploding projectiles using rubber bands. We could have battery powered electric military vehicles and tanks, but no exploding shells and no weapons using gun powder. Oh, that means your guns would have to be surrendered too. No steel mills or foundries. I could go on and on and on with 1000s of more examples of just how insane this plan is, but I hope you've got my drift.

Another part of her plan is providing a living wage for all those who are un-able or UNWILLING to work. So, if you decide you don't feel like working, the government will supply you with a living wage. What incentive is there to work? Without workers, how would all the things in her "dream" plan be accomplished? Who will grown, raise and produce our food? Who will work in the new factories to produce the goods we buy?

Opps, I almost forgot. Her original plan proposed that we had to find ways to prevent cows and other livestock from farting. I'm not kidding. She has since removed that part from her website. There is also a mention of a healthy food requirement. I assume that means everyone is going Vegan.

AOC is an insane, mentally ill women child, who never grew up. She lives in a fantasy world of unicorns and rainbows. How can anyone with as much as half a functioning brain support this spoiled, entitled child, and her insane "dream" plan?

David

There have been times when this planet had no ice caps. The Artic and Antarctic regions where tropical rain forests. This has been proven by fossil records. Some scientists are predicting a coming ice age due to low sun spot activity. I'm sure that if that happens, the left will blame it on man made global warming.

One thing I find interesting is the increasing scientific consensus of the magnetic poles flipping. This has happened several times in the history of this planet with devastating effect. If this where to happen again, global warming will be the least of our worries.

David

I think she's F'd in da head...

^But she IS astoundingly stupid.

Like Charles Manson!

A quick search yielded the following



https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-green-deal-promises-economic-172719411.html

OK, I didn't remember it exactly correct, but she did say she wanted to provide economic security to those UNWILLING to work. What does that mean, if it doesn't mean the government is going to send you a check if you decide to sit home all day and watch TV?

David

didn't know she said that, but it IS true...almost obvious to anyone who has an understanding of historic economic plans that addressed serious major destructive conditions that had lasting benefits to the US and for the rest of the world...

to be honest, I haven't read her plan and I'm not supporting her plan...my position is that we are on the cusp of severe and threatening circumstances that could threaten the world...

we can evaluate, prioritize and address the most critical issues now, to our economic advantage and safety...

or we can ignore the issues until the devastation forces us to act, greatly increasing the costs...

Dave. Your quote is someone else's words... Not AOCs, and not from the bill. You're literally trusting that they are giving you an accurate assessment.

Kinda funny that you then tell Al he's using left talking points.

Read the bill. I did a quick scan of it... I pointed out the only words in the bill which I found which could be loosely interpreted to mean what you said... If you find other lines in the bill, I'll agree with you.but if you're just using someone else's "summary" ... Then you don't have as much information as I do. You can get that information easily. The bill is linked in an NPR article.

I don't know how the bill is intended. I'm not privy to AOCs staff meetings... And the cameras I hid in her bathroom don't have sound....

But it doesn't read as terrible to me. It doesn't read as feasible either... But that's not always the point.

If someone wrote a bill that had something like "eliminate all abortions in the US by the year 2035" I bet a lot of people here would be super excited. It's not feasible either... But you would look at it as a goal that if you missed by a little, at least you improved the current situation.

The bill doesn't appear to be particularly prescriptive... And has enough caveats in it that I doubt it would cripple any current activities. It reads as a mission statement. A broad strokes set of goals which can be referred to by other documents to indicate why we are trying to improve efficiency, reduce fossil fuels use...etc etc. Those aren't bad goals.

Hell... There's a number of lines referring to making sure all Americans have access to clean water. Seriously... Who the f-k thought in 2019 we would need to worry about making sure there was clean water?

This video is AOC related. I thought it was pretty good.

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposes the Problem of Dark Money in Politics | NowThis"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_gxiMTIudA

I'm just a bill. Yes, I'm only a bill. And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill....

I remember Trump talking about similar things in a few of his campaign speeches. People cheered when he said drain the swamp...

Wait, whoa... hold on.

AOC is going to pay me to sit in the mancave, drink beer and smoke cigars? I don't have to work?

Well, sh1t... she now has my vote.

The concept behind the bill is erroneous.
This was predicted back when algore fooled the masses with his hockey-stick graphs.

Americans are embarrassed by our wealth. Similar to white guilt.
Americans also like to claim they're pro-environment. It's for the children, remember?

Uncle Sam has tried to capitalize on this guilt, but failed miserably in the 1970's with their anti-pollution campaign. Sure, people became aware of the effects from our excess, but there was quite literally no money in it.

Enter algore and the bogus consensus.
Blame fossil fuel for hurricanes and the polar vortex.
Create a global carbon-credit scam.
Legislate and cripple big corporations while the gettin' is good.

I see an admirable goal but the myopic approach is dangerous.
Government goals become counterproductive when unobtainable.
Set realistic goals and leave all options on the table.
If we can reduce emissions by X percent we shouldn't care if it was through improved fossil fuel efficiencies versus unreliable renewables. The markets will drive the most effective methods, and government's role should be to encourage not to hinder.

If America were successful in eliminating all fossil fuel consumption in such a relatively short timeframe, what do you think would happen in the rest of the world?
With America not consuming, fuel prices would plummet. Third world countries with no regulations would consume exponentially higher quantities of the newly affordable dino-juice.

Yeah.
That sounds like a victory for mother nature.

The shortsightedness is staggering. Which might explain how readily Pelosi and her minions embraced it.

I haven’t really taken a good look at the “Green Dream” yet. Not enough for me to have a strong opinion.

I do like that AOC believes in third-parties and primarying incumbent politicians though. She also doesn’t accept PAC money, and speaks on these things openly in the press.

Those three things alone are enough for her to earn my respect. At least until she gives me a reason not to believe her.

Tail....
That's .. just.... Not smart.
Where did you get that? I don't believe you could have come up with that on your own.

You literally just said "if we don't keep the cost of fossil fuels up by using them in America, 3rd world countries will use them" as an excuse not to generally support some environmental initiative?

You want to apply externalities to fossil fuels, but completely ignore the fact that developing fossil fuel alternatives will also impact the use of these alternatives elsewhere.

It's like you're just looking for an excuse... Not like you actually want to solve a problem. That's fine. You don't need to want to solve a problem. I don't want to... It sounds like effort and it doesn't benefit me at all. But I at least don't pretend that I'd really like to solve a problem, but those solutions just aren't good enough.

And additionally, MACS... We already established that the AOC wages for people not willing to work thing is a stretch, mostly something fabricated by a synopsis David read. (He of course has not acknowledged that... Just decided to move on from it...)

I don't see it...
Maybe it's there and I missed it in my read thru.

I'll look through those articles to see what they reference.

So...this is pretty amazing.
I did a search for AOC and "unwilling" and got a LOT of articles with the exact same title as Opel put above.

I thought... Huh... If this many articles use that exact word "unable to or unwilling to work"... I must be wrong. I must have missed it on my first read through.

So I pulled up the bill again. And this time did a word search for "unwilling". No results. So I thought maybe the format wouldn't allow searches ... So I searched for "the"... Tons of results. Ok. Search is working. So I searched "work"... 3 references none of which are really relevant.

I searched security... And did find the section at the end which I already mentioned.

But this is kind of fascinating. All these articles with the exact same title, which is say... 98.2% wrong? And none of the authors bothered to check the f-king bill?