|
|
Post by Maxperson on Aug 30, 2022 15:56:12 GMT
Um, she wanted to get rid of airplanes and get people to want to use trains instead. So first, the rail would have to be high speed. Normal speed is right out. Second, there would have to be dozens of tracks going in between every city in the country to compensate for number of flights being lost. Then you'd need to go in straight lines, which means leveling entire neighborhoods, going through wildlife preserves, farms, areas where animals are endangered, national parks, native american lands, mountains, etc. THEN, all that track needs to be made from ore that is mined, smelted, shaped, carried by truck and train, and laid by heavy machinery, all spewing increased amounts of pollution for decades as we build this stuff. But that's not all!! You have to build many more trucks and freight trains than we have to compensate for the increased usage, with all the raw materials mined, transported, etc. So yet more massive increases in pollution for decades. Then we get to her idea to bring every building in america to her green standard, which would be even an even more massive increase in pollution as we mine, manufacture and transport all that is needed for the hundreds of millions of buildings that need to be updated....................for more decades. And then there's the cost for all of that.  It was a stupidly insane idea. With the amount of increased pollution, she would have destroyed the earth to save it, and faster than we are doing now. It would require ingenuity, decades, and around $100T dollars to accomplish. The generational benefits would be staggering - not necessarily AOC's plan specifically, in all of its details, but something equally ambitious. What America lacks is the political will to make any kind of investment in its infrastructure, its human capital, and its children's future. It's the same reason your education system sucks and your healthcare system is borked. It would smother the earth in increased pollution at a time that we can't afford massively increased amounts of pollution. Her idea doesn't give a future. She's as crazy as a loon. MIT, though, they gave a great idea. Of course, that's what happens when smart people give an idea. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Aug 30, 2022 18:11:42 GMT
Um, she wanted to get rid of airplanes and get people to want to use trains instead. So first, the rail would have to be high speed. Normal speed is right out. Second, there would have to be dozens of tracks going in between every city in the country to compensate for number of flights being lost. Then you'd need to go in straight lines, which means leveling entire neighborhoods, going through wildlife preserves, farms, areas where animals are endangered, national parks, native american lands, mountains, etc. THEN, all that track needs to be made from ore that is mined, smelted, shaped, carried by truck and train, and laid by heavy machinery, all spewing increased amounts of pollution for decades as we build this stuff. But that's not all!! You have to build many more trucks and freight trains than we have to compensate for the increased usage, with all the raw materials mined, transported, etc. So yet more massive increases in pollution for decades. Then we get to her idea to bring every building in america to her green standard, which would be even an even more massive increase in pollution as we mine, manufacture and transport all that is needed for the hundreds of millions of buildings that need to be updated....................for more decades. And then there's the cost for all of that. It was a stupidly insane idea. With the amount of increased pollution, she would have destroyed the earth to save it, and faster than we are doing now. It would require ingenuity, decades, and around $100T dollars to accomplish. The generational benefits would be staggering - not necessarily AOC's plan specifically, in all of its details, but something equally ambitious. What America lacks is the political will to make any kind of investment in its infrastructure, its human capital, and its children's future. It's the same reason your education system sucks and your healthcare system is borked. Make China and India adhere to these standards and then maybe we'll talk. Until then, the US (one of the least polluting nations in the planet) should not transfer a single penny of our wealth to 3rd world shitholes who won't agree to be held to the same standard. That's all the"green new deal" - a wealth transfer. All of those solar panels and lithium batteries with their toxic production waste streams and HAZMAT disposal processes are more polluting than people realize. Rare earth minerals? Sure let's buy them off of countries using child slaves to mine them. The *energy* to charge all those electric cars? Fossil fuel-powered. It's a complete falsehood that "green energy" is clean. Want real progress? Change outdated building codes in the US to require concrete block construction where able instead of stick -built. The energy savings of having a building with thermal properties that promote an average temperature that only varies a few degrees despite the outside temperature are enormous. The other thing to no one talks about is the whole attempt to decarbonize because climate change. More CO2 = more happy plants = more O2 = more happy animals. More of both = eventually more fossil fuels. |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 30, 2022 21:09:00 GMT
3catcircus & Maxperson Instead of trying to derail the thread and grumble about AOC, why not instead address the issues of: 1) A GOP gubernatorial candidate saying that 14-year old rape victims find "healing" from having their babies 2) A woman in Louisiana being denied an abortion for her fetus which lacks a cranium 3) The 19-year old who had to wait for her fetus's heartbeat to stop before she was offered a life-saving termination 4) Louisiana's blackmail of New Orleans and withholding of flood relief funds You know, the actual moral and legal fallout which ensues when a bunch of white Christofascists force their fundie agendas without consideration of the human cost and in defiance of medical opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Aug 30, 2022 21:21:18 GMT
They're trying to change the subject because it's uncomfortable for them. Thusly, a form of "silence".
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Aug 30, 2022 21:35:27 GMT
They're trying to change the subject because it's uncomfortable for them. Thusly, a form of "silence". Perhaps you missed my post on the subject at 12:29 yesterday. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Aug 31, 2022 1:33:57 GMT
Nope, I didn't. But you're changing the subject again, rather than trying to you know, talk about things that make you uncomfortable.
Like the fact that these draconian bans are directly taking away the rights of women to control their own body and at the risk of their health so that people who should have absolutely zero say on the subject get power and control. But hey, you do you.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Aug 31, 2022 1:59:25 GMT
The crux of the matter is that the minor wrote that her guardian "was fine" with minor's decision; however, a written waiver from the guardian is required. Ah, so as expected the "news" article was faulty. Or else some of us don't come here that often, since sometimes weeks or a month go by without a post. I check back in when I remember this place exists. In my case Morrus added my VPN to the ban list for some reason (someone probably finally updated with the Mullvad VPN servers) so it makes it slightly inconvenient to get here as I either have to use Firefox (which I dislike) or remember to swing by before engaging the VPN when it gets turned off for whatever reason. So I've dropped off to checking in here once every two weeks or so. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Aug 31, 2022 3:07:38 GMT
The crux of the matter is that the minor wrote that her guardian "was fine" with minor's decision; however, a written waiver from the guardian is required. Ah, so as expected the "news" article was faulty. But the NBC News article [1] that libtard referenced did properly note that it was the case: Makar also noted that in her petition, which "she completed by hand," the teenager insisted "she is sufficiently mature to make the decision, saying she 'is not ready to have a baby,' she doesn’t have a job, she is 'still in school,' and the father is unable to assist her."
The "guardian is fine with what [she] wants to do" the teenager claimed, according to Makar.
The teenager's guardian and case worker were with her in court.
But "inexplicably," Makar wrote, the teenager "checked the box indicating she did not request an attorney, which is available by law for free under the statute." So the news article was not faulty. Evileeyore, did you not read the article, or did you just miss that part? The phrase "as suspected" in your response seems to indicate the former, rather than the latter.
On another note, I wonder if she accidentally or purposefully declined the request for an attorney. That action--regardless of intent--might have been what put her case in jeopardy. Counsel could have advised the petitioner that if her guardian did indeed give consent, it needed to be formally submitted in written form. If counsel had neglected to bring this to her attention, she might have still had the case decided in her favor based on neglectful representation. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Aug 31, 2022 5:16:06 GMT
Nope, I didn't. But you're changing the subject again, rather than trying to you know, talk about things that make you uncomfortable. Like the fact that these draconian bans are directly taking away the rights of women to control their own body and at the risk of their health so that people who should have absolutely zero say on the subject get power and control. But hey, you do you. ROFL Not me. That Libtard fellow is the one that continued this, but I don't expect you to understand where the fault lies. You get it wrong a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 31, 2022 5:38:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Aug 31, 2022 12:49:39 GMT
Nope, I didn't. But you're changing the subject again, rather than trying to you know, talk about things that make you uncomfortable. Like the fact that these draconian bans are directly taking away the rights of women to control their own body and at the risk of their health so that people who should have absolutely zero say on the subject get power and control. But hey, you do you. ROFL Not me. That Libtard fellow is the one that continued this, but I don't expect you to understand where the fault lies. You get it wrong a lot. Sorry Max, but I'm not sure what you mean. Mind clarifying this for me? Continued what? Where does the fault lie in your opinion?
Thanks!  |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Aug 31, 2022 20:00:19 GMT
ROFL Not me. That Libtard fellow is the one that continued this, but I don't expect you to understand where the fault lies. You get it wrong a lot. Sorry Max, but I'm not sure what you mean. Mind clarifying this for me? Continued what? Where does the fault lie in your opinion?
Thanks! She accused me of changing the subject to avoid talking about the topic, which I did not do. Libtard picked up the ball and started the argument, and I responded on the topic at the same time as my post, so clearly I wasn't changing the subject to avoid it. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Aug 31, 2022 23:05:02 GMT
Sorry Max, but I'm not sure what you mean. Mind clarifying this for me? Continued what? Where does the fault lie in your opinion?
Thanks! She accused me of changing the subject to avoid talking about the topic, which I did not do. Libtard picked up the ball and started the argument, and I responded on the topic at the same time as my post, so clearly I wasn't changing the subject to avoid it. Except that you went off on a tangent within the comment Libtard made that didn't really have anything to do with the subject at hand. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Sept 1, 2022 0:46:10 GMT
She accused me of changing the subject to avoid talking about the topic, which I did not do. Libtard picked up the ball and started the argument, and I responded on the topic at the same time as my post, so clearly I wasn't changing the subject to avoid it. Except that you went off on a tangent within the comment Libtard made that didn't really have anything to do with the subject at hand. Except it did directly relate to the post I responded to. "Example: One poster previously drew an equivalence between Marjorie Taylor Green and AOC, because in their mind a progressive liberal agenda and believing in Jewish space lasers are somehow equally crazy." If he didn't want that responded to, he shouldn't have included it. Especially since he deliberately twisted my reasons into something they are not. Fault still with Lib tard  |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Sept 1, 2022 0:49:37 GMT
I missed this post earlier. That's really bad. What they need to do is make every business subject to HIPAA. |
|
