A Brave New Analogy for AOC's Green New Deal

When FDR and Congress put together the New Deal they were not dealing with untested and unproven technologies. Roads, dams, hydroelectricity, cars, trains, sewers and other infrastructure projects had been built for decades and had used proven technology that did what it was supposed to. It was more a case of a super-charged Keynesian orgy of government spending and government planning but using sound engineering.

In other words, there was a sensible part of the New Deal, the technology, and a riskier part: the dramatic increase of government across all activities in America. A benefit: putting people to work and generating economic activity. And a cost: more government debt, more taxes, and more government regulations.

With AOC's Green New Deal, we have the worst of both worlds: enormous technological risk and enormous government intervention. And neither is a bug. Placing innovation, as well as the way daily life is lived in America and by extension around the world, firmly within the government's grasp are the features of her plan and those who support it.

The political effect is being most deeply felt within the Democratic Party of course. Already Speaker Pelosi has played down, that is to say all but explicitly and condescendingly dismissed, the Green New Deal while independent candidate Howard Schultz has laid into the plan's absurd assumptions. Here's party-pooper Schultz:

I read that by 2030 they're suggesting that every building in America becomes clean energy, conforms to clean energy, just to put that in perspective, because it's not realistic, that would mean that between 2,000 and 3,000 buildings a day would have to be reconstructed to conform to what they're saying," Schultz said. "So let's be sensible about what we're suggesting.

Yes, Schultz stands little chance of being successful, and yes any conservative is cheering his candidacy as a way to perot the Dems, but he's being rather reasonable here. Just doing a few back-of-the-envelope calculations results in the ridiculousness of the Green New Deal being apparent. In other words, behind a cosmically grandiose scheme there is not even any rudimentary planning. Schultz goes on to say:

I don't understand how you're going to give a job for everybody, how you're going to give free college to everybody, how you're going to create clean energy throughout the country in every building of the land," he said. "I think it's immoral to suggest that we can tally up $20, $30, $40, $50 trillion of debt to solve a problem that could be solved in a different way.

Apparently, Schultz is already hinting that if he sees that his campaign will ensure Trump's victory he may consider ending it, so he does understand reality having been a very successful entrepreneur.

While pointing fingers and denying, AOC and her supporters - including Cornell law professor Robert Hockett's smirking truth-bending on camera - will next admit that maybe some of their numbers don't add up but they have placed the concept of a New Green Deal firmly at center stage where it can now be debated.

Well yes. And you all are losing big time.

Because AOC's New Green Deal does not really follow FDR's example of the original New Deal. Nope. The more accurate analogy - as well as horrifying except for the fact that the GND will never get off the ground just like California's now-shuttered high-speed train project - is Kampuchea in the 70's and the forced collectivization of property, including banks many of which were physically destroyed, and the collectivization of agriculture of course. Here's the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on the process which began in 1976:

At the time of Phnom Penh's fall, the Cambodian economy was at a virtual standstill due to the devastation of the civil war and the bombing. The Khmer Rouge intensified the paralysis with a series of ideologically based edicts: They shut down banks, sometimes physically destroying them. They abolished the national currency and free markets. They confiscated private property.

"If we can have rice, we can have everything."

--Pol Pot, speaking in 1978

In 1976, they issued their first "Four-Year Plan," which stressed collectivization of property and expansion in the cultivation of rice.

The goal was to achieve an average yield of three tons of rice per hectare (about 2.5 acres) throughout the country--far more than had ever been produced before--and to effectively create another entire rice harvest each year.

To accomplish this, all labor was harnessed in service of the state. Achieving the goal was likened to a military campaign. Cambodians must "strike, crush, and win absolutely the production goal of three tons per hectare," the Khmer Rouge declared.

Much of the task fell to "new people," who were transported around the country like cattle, then sent to the fields to cultivate from dawn to dusk. Others were given primitive tools and told to dig canals and erect dams. Lacking the skills and strength for this punishing work, they often fell victim to exhaustion and disease. Meager food rations compounded their suffering. Their work was often for nothing, because the design of the water systems was hopelessly flawed.

By the time it was over, around 1.5 million people had died because of government-induced famine in Kampuchea.

I fear AOC is far more dangerous than her ridiculous Green New Deal suggests she is. Because she is a radical, and while she is far from a crazed genocidal communist tyrant like Pol Pot, she shares more than we realize in terms of their vision of state planning and control. AOC is media-savvy and has a large following and will someday (perhaps soon) eclipse an aged bureaucrat like Nancy Pelosi. Let's hope she can be moderated before then, or at least contained by the checks and balances of republican government in America.

If not, we're in for some interesting times as the Chinese would say, having lived through some themselves, a few of their own making.

Posted by Keeley at February 14, 2019 4:03 PM
Comments
Comment #438052

I’ll admit that I have only read opinions and editorials around the Green Deal. However, I think that it is valuable for our representatives to lay down markers identifying the challenges that our country faces and proposing solutions to those challenges. This creates an environment ripe for debate, compromise, politicking, horse-trading, and ultimately the imperfect sausage-making of imperfect solutions. I have read that Mitch McConnell is considering putting this document of principles (I don’t believe it is actually in the form of legislation, but rather a legislative roadmap) on the floor of the Senate in an attempt to get Democrats to give an up or down vote to it. While that is certainly his prerogative, rather than an attempt to score political points, I would love to see an actual debate on whether the challenges presented are universal priorities (e.g., confronting global climate change, addressing inequality, decreasing the count of the uninsured, etc..). And if there is agreement around any of those priorities, a subsequent debate on the best ways to address them. While I am a democrat and a liberal, I agree that some of the Green Deal proposals seem impractical or politically unfeasible, or perhaps a bridge too far. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t debate whether there are solutions, be they government programs, market-based solutions, public/private partnerships, or whether the problems are not important enough or appropriate for the federal government to address.

I also believe that saying that Medicare-for-all will lead to a Socialist Authoritarian Society is just as disingenuous as saying that increased border security will lead to a far-right Fascist society.

Posted by: Stalking Horse at February 14, 2019 4:31 PM
Comment #438054

Thanks to Stalking Horse for his/her opinion. I too am looking forward to the debates among Democrats seeking the presidential party nomination.

By the time those debates begin, it will be interesting to see if any NGD proponents are left in the running.

Should Biden and/or Hillary take a run at the nomination; do you expect them to endorse the NGD?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 14, 2019 5:00 PM
Comment #438056

AOC is dangerous? WTF? Seriously, I think lithium may be the solution to the author’s problem.

It’s 45 degrees in Chicago in February. The Arctic, Canada, Greenland, Siberia, and the Antarctic are melting at a much faster rate than anticipated, and methane is rising from land and bodies of water that were formerly under permafrost, speeding up the warming.

The biggest problem for most people on the planet is going to be the “wet bulb” temperature, making going outdoors at all a hazardous journey in many areas which produce food for billions.

Miami is trying to raise itself above sea level. Vancouver has declared a climate emergency. Cape Town experienced a severe drought.

Younger people want to have a planet to live on, while someone like McConnell can always live somewhere on his wife’s billions. McConnell is dangerous, a threat to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the future in which he will be rotting in his grave while AOC will be alive and working towards actually helping people.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 14, 2019 6:11 PM
Comment #438057

Spent a week in Maui last week. Re-visited Molokini Crater for snorkeling, first time to that site since the 1980’s. The evidence for Global Warming was stark. It was literally right in front of my face.

The reefs are undergoing coral bleaching. The reefs are dying. When I last saw it over three decades ago, the colors of the reef were fantastically vivid. Now it looks drab. And it is not just the popular reefs, like Molokini. Other HI islands & reefs are experiencing it too. The ocean is warming, and coral have narrow range of temperatures in which they thrive.

The specifics of a NGD may not be there, but once again, AOC and others are right. This is what we need to do. Unfortunately, it might be too late for the reefs. We waited too long. We might- we probably- will lose a large part of ocean life. Too much heat, too much energy, has already been absorbed by the oceans. In addition, the oceans are becoming measurably more acidic as they absorb CO2.

I have always wondered why high speed rail is not used for transportation, especially shipping goods. When it comes to rail, other industrialized countries are far ahead of us.

Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2019 7:47 PM
Comment #438058

Private business will be the ones to solve these problems, not the federal government. Even the state governments are not able to accomplish the goals the Democratics propose.

I’m all for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but I resist the idea the federal government should propose some elaborate scheme and cram it down the throats of each and every one of us.

The federal government had nothing to do with making the automobile a common item. The federal government didn’t create the healthcare system. The federal government didn’t create the refrigerator or washing machine and place one in every home. Private enterprise will accomplish what Democratics think government should do. As they say, “Necessity is the mother of invention.”. If there’s truly a need, a supply is not far behind.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 14, 2019 8:50 PM
Comment #438071

How will the privates sector organize to address this environmental challenge? Isn’t this a classic “tragedy of the commons”? What individual business will identify this global problem with global contributors and see a profit-making opportunity in either changing their own behavior or trying to influence others? I can imagine the profit motive convincing businesses to alleviate the symptoms (develpong more inland property, transporting water to drought areas, creating more extreme weather-proof construction, etc…). But doesn’t it take federal governments to lead the “moonshots”, create the basic science, create the new infrastructure, and influence the other countries of the world to follow suit? I just don’t see Facebook oe Google doing that. Nor do I see some loose conglomeration of small businesses getting into that market. Nothing beyond easing the worst symptoms.

Posted by: Stalking Horse at February 15, 2019 6:59 AM
Comment #438075

Weary - I guess I’m asking you to paint the picture for me of how the private sector gets activated to solve this problem. Maybe it is a failure of my own imagination, but without governments around the world as “customers” of the technology, products, or services that would kick industry into high gear to work rapidly to solve this growing problem, I just don’t see it. I agree that the private sector has a vital role to play, but there is simply no profit motive in the open market for investing billions of dollars in solutions (whether it be carbon sequestration, low or zero carbon energy, nuclear, etc…) while gas and oil (among other contributors to global climate change)remain plentiful and relatively inexpensive. A carbon tax could be effective, but that requires the federal government to act. Regulations, tax incentives, even efforts at marketing and raising public awareness all require federal intervention. What am I missing?

Posted by: Stalking Horse at February 15, 2019 9:24 AM
Comment #438077

Many years ago I took my car into the shop to address a misfire. The guy felt around and got belted by a spark plug wire that was defective. He replaced it and the problem was cured instantly. He had the car on an analyzer and he told me, “Don’t try to kill yourself with this car. All you would be doing is wasting gas.”.

This was decades ago.

My question is, “Where’s the emergency?”. What, in our environment, is so desperately wrong that we have to tear the entire country down and rebuild it in 10 years as this GND proposes?

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 15, 2019 10:19 AM
Comment #438078

NASA went to the moon and back. They had a goal and they achieved it.

What did Obama charge NASA with doing? He wants NASA to make Muslims feel good about themselves.

What does that have to do with space and aeronautics?

This is what happens when politicians have too much money. They lose focus. They grant themselves privileges instead of being frugal. They waste time and money trying to be all and do all. When you consider the role the federal government has been assigned to in the constitution we can see how far the federal government has stepped outside it’s bounds. It’s not the federal government’s job to tell an individual how much electricity they can use and when they can use it. Supply and demand is an economic law. It’s not the federal government’s job to create or mandate a demand.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 15, 2019 10:36 AM
Comment #438079

Can you imagine the infrastructure the government would have to implement to determine if a person is using an excessive amount of energy to heat and cool his house?

What type of punishment would have to be mandated to those who exceed the recommended usage? Who would set these parameters? Who would be charged with enforcing them? How would they be enforced? Imagine the graft and corruption that would be involved! What purpose would it serve when you consider the achievements the U.S. has already made.

There’s an underlying motive behind this GND. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Just as the current border spending bill dominating the political landscape has extraneous mandates in it that have nothing to do with spending, so would this GND. When would enough be enough, Stalking Horse?


Posted by: Weary Willie at February 15, 2019 10:53 AM
Comment #438080

Toro makes snowblowers. Does Toro sell snowblowers in Florida?

If the federal government made snowblowers wouldn’t they have to offer snowblowers to people in Florida? Floridians are paying the taxes to build them. Shouldn’t Floridians have snowblowers available to them?

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 15, 2019 10:59 AM
Comment #438089

Weary - I’m not sure that our debate will get very far. There is a broad scientific consensus that many of the vast environmental changes that are happening rapidly now are the result of human influenced greenhouse gas emissions. There are reasonable scientific models suggesting how much worse conditions will get in the relatively near future. I suppose I have more faith in the scientific community than you do that their hearts and minds are generally in the right place. As I stated earlier, if we can’t agree on the urgency or priority of an issue, then we will never agree on the right solution.

For example, I suppose that we both agree that the United States faces potential military threats from potential adversaries around the world. So we can both agree that it is important for the US to have a strong military. We can disagree about exactly what that ought to look like, where to station troops, how much to focus on international military bases versus domestic, and a host of other questions. But we can have a constructive debate. If someone else said that having any national military is a colossal waste of money and that it is federal government overreach and state militias are all we need, and there is no such thing as a military threat anyway, then I doubt that any subsequent discussion would be productive.

I feel like that is where we are at. Your position is that there is no urgent problem to resolve, so there is no reason for our society to engage in an organized coordinated response. I believe otherwise. I’m interested in debating the proper response, as I hope most reasonable people ought to be. But that would not be our discussion.

Posted by: Stalking Horse at February 15, 2019 11:57 AM
Comment #438090

You’re willing to discus the issue as long as the discussion agrees with your position?

Why are the people who disagree with MMGW ignored? Why are their opinions being stifled? There have been suggestions that GW deniers should be jailed! What kind of debate is that?

Why aren’t the advances in pollution controls being heralded as a positive move instead of being ignored or not enough? Shouldn’t we be sitting pretty, on the sidelines, until the rest of the world catches up to our current, superior position? We already have clean air and clean water when you compare it to other countries. Why isn’t that heralded as an achievement?

I don’t see the urgency you do, Stalking Horse. Your unwillingness to even discuss it because I don’t see your point makes mine for me.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 15, 2019 12:29 PM
Comment #438091

As far as the scientific community goes depends on what side of the political fence it is on or which party is in control of the purse at the time. I googled graphs of climate change a few years ago and it showed that the earth has had warm periods and cold periods all through recorded history. Now as far as AOC goes the twit blew it for her district, 25000 jobs shot in the A$$ because she hates rich people tax revenues that could have helped her district now gone. Her and Warren celebrating Amazon cancelling plans to build in N. Y. both are IDIOTS and the people that elected the twits and others like them deserve the repercussions of their decisions.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 15, 2019 12:30 PM
Comment #438093

Fair enough. I’ll try to address your points. I agree with you that reaching out to the Muslim world ought not be one of NASA’s top priorities. It was a nice gesture, as NASA is a beacon of inspiration to the entire world, but misguided as a “top priority”. I don’t see how that translates into “Climate science is flawed and society shouldn’t be doing something about it.”

I can imagine a productive discussion about the limits of how far the federal government should be permitted to reach into the private energy consumption of individuals. I’d propose “not at all”. There are much more efficient ways of impacting energy use.

What type of punishment should be mandated on individuals? I think your suggestion of using the criminal justice system to go after individual carbon footprints is a terrible idea. I’d oppose that.

Does Toro sell snowblowers in Florida? No.
If the federal government made snowblowers, shouldn’t they have to give them to people in Florida? No.
Floridians are paying taxes to build them, so shouldn’t they have access to them? No. I pay taxes to support farm subsidies, national parks, food stamps, and all sorts of things that I think are good for society but that I may never access.

Advances in pollution control, energy efficiency, electric cars, etc.. are awesome. They absolutely should be heralded, and US industry should be celebrated (and in many cases the federal incentives that helped encourage their development) for their advances.

Okay. I’ve answered all of your points. Have I convinced you that climate change is a serious challenge that we are laying on the laps of our own children and grandchildren? Are you ready to enter a dialogue on how much involvement the federal government should have in helping to combat it? Or what other organization or force is out there capable of mobilizing and coordinating the necessary efforts? My point is not to ignore you. It is to recognize that we are so far apart on the underlying assumptions and facts, that there is no room left for discussion. I can’t debate you on the science of climate change. Just as in medicine, physics, engineering, etc.. I rely largely on the guidance of scientists and reputable scientific bodies to inform my understanding. I don’t rely on the guidance of politicians, pundits, or friendly neighbors.

Posted by: Stalking Horse at February 15, 2019 12:49 PM
Comment #438095

What, in our environment, is so desperately wrong that we have to tear the entire country down and rebuild it in 10 years as this GND proposes?
Posted by: Weary Willie at February 15, 2019 10:19 AM

I agree with you Weary. Contrary to what some believe, the science on MMGW is not settled. Reputable scientist now believe we are on the cusp of another ice age.

Stalking Horse wants answers to address probabilities; not certainties. The proper approach to addressing government involvement in MMGW is through the ballot box. It is the taxpayer citizens who will pay for any proposed solutions. It is they who should make the determination of necessity.

Some will say that MMGW is too complicated for the average citizen voter to understand. I say nonsense. Average citizens sit on juries that resolve extremely complicated issues every day. If politicians can not employ language that voters can understand, then they don’t deserve to have their proposals approved.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 15, 2019 2:47 PM
Comment #438103

I never said climate change was not a challenge. My disagreement with the current mindset is the belief that a modern society is causing climate change. We’ve gone from crystal clear streams to streams that catch fire and back to clear streams again. We recognized a problem and solved it. Acid rain is another example of a problem recognized and solved. Did I have anything to do with either? No, other than to Give a Hoot, and not pollute. No one passed a law that said I must give a hoot. No one held a gun to my head and told me to pay someone to give a hoot for me. I simply changed my mind about what I do with my garbage.

Would you consider, as a reasonable request of the public, focusing on preventive measures to combat the effects of Natural Global Warming (NGW)? Solutions to combat NGW would work in both scenarios. Do you know, my city government passed a law that said there can be no underground buildings. All buildings must have one story above ground. Why would someone pass a law like that?

We can’t agree there is a problem, so we can’t agree on efforts to combat it. You are working on an assumption there is definitely a problem. I don’t hold that view. Even if I did we still wouldn’t know what the solution would be. I can’t fight a problem I can’t recognize. I said can’t, not don’t. You believe there is a problem, but you can’t define it. You can’t fight a problem you can’t define.

If you are unable, as I am also, to understand the scientific presentations, how can you tell if you’re being lied to or not? Most jurors use their own personal experiences, beliefs, and circumstances to reach a verdict. If they see something that they believe to be wrong, even if it’s legal, they will render a verdict against it. No one will be forced to believe in MMGW the way you, or scientists and politicians devoted to the issue, do. Unless you read and understand the scientific papers and scientific theories, you are relying on the guidance of politicians, pundits, and neighbors.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+much+money+is+the+federal+government+spending+on+global+warming&t=ffab&ia=web

The federal government is spending this money to convince us MMGW is a problem. Not a dime toward a solution, because they’re still trying to convince us there’s a problem!

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 15, 2019 7:36 PM
Comment #438104

What does Mueller and MMGW enthusiasts have in common?

Ha!

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 15, 2019 7:41 PM
Comment #438204
Weary Willie wrote: What does Mueller and MMGW enthusiasts have in common?
Hot air?
Posted by: d.a.n at February 17, 2019 6:14 PM
Comment #438205

RE: Man-Made Global Warming (MMGW):

IF the world is serious about reducing the causes of global warming, then they have to get serious about over-population. China and India (with 2.7 Billion people) are not going to pay for more expensive energy sources, when they have cheaper options (coal, oil, natural gas).

Look at Global Temperature History this chart (based on measurable chemical differences preserved in natural archives such as ice, rocks and fossils).
For the last 1 Million years, temperatures on Earth have been near the coldest (and slightly increasing only a few degrees Fahrenheit above 53.6 F).
For 65% of the last 2 billion years, temperatures have been MUCH hotter (18 F hotter).
Temperatures (on average) have risen slightly (with some cold spells along the way) over the last 1.8 Million years.
Also, as the Sun ages, it will get hotter and larger, until the Sun is eventually 80+ times larger.

There are numerous factors that make it difficult to predict future temperatures, but one thing is fairly certain … doubling the human population in 40-to-50 years is not going to help anything.

  • The world population in 1922 was 2.0 billion people (doubled in 118 years; increasing on average by about 23,000 per day).
  • The world population in 1959 was 3.0 billion people (increased by 1.0 billion in 37 years; increasing on average by about 74,000 per day).
  • The world population in 2006 was 6.68 billion people (more than doubled in only 47 years; increasing by 211,000 people per day!).
  • The world population in 2018 was 7.71 billion people (increased by 1.0 Billion in only 12 years; increasing by 235,000 people per day!).
  • The world population by 2045 could be 15+ billion (only 26 years from now).
  • The rate has also been increasing exponentially, so each interval for the world population to double is shorter and shorter.
The real threat is not only global warming; it is human over-population, and it is quickly increasing by over 235,000 per day (over 85.8 Million per year).

So, why is hardly anyone talking about over-population?

Humans may prove to be very much like a virus, which grows and grows, until it finally destroys its host, and/or itself?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 17, 2019 6:16 PM
Comment #438206

Wars and disease have controlled rapid population increases during much of recorded history. We are getting better at avoiding war and reducing disease.

Should the planet become populated to the point of starvation, wars and disease will once again wreck havoc on the number of humans.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2019 6:54 PM
Comment #438207
Royal Flush wrote: Should the planet become populated to the point of starvation, wars and disease will once again wreck havoc on the number of humans.
That’s what worries me.
I’ll be gone, but my children and grand-children will have to deal with it.
Looking at this graph, the only time the human population ever decreased much, it was during the Black Death Plague that spread across Europe in the years 1346-1353.
Why do nations want to grow and grow and grow their populations?
Over-population is one of the worst dangers facing humans, and over-population will also have an increasingly worse impact on the environment.
What’s wrong with simple sustainability?
Posted by: d.a.n at February 17, 2019 7:19 PM
Comment #438213

Space travel and migrating to other planets would help reduce the problem of overcrowding on Earth.

A colony on the moon would be extrordinarily beneficial to future space travel. The amount of inertia needed to lift off from the moon would be so much less that greater payloads, manufactured on the moon from resources acquired on the moon, would provide a much greater chance of going to other planets and stars.

We just have to militarize space. Everything else will follow the military where ever it goes.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 17, 2019 8:12 PM
Comment #438219

The only planet even remotely suitable for habitation first is Mars.
Travel to and back from Mars may be several decades away, and living on Mars will probably be a VERY long time from now, due to many issues for which there is no technology, and no probability of acquiring the necessary technology anytime before the world population doubles again from over 7.7 Billion today to 15+ Billion in 26+ years (which will probably result in serious problems as described above by Royal Flush). Or the population could potentially double again in 50 years to 30 Billion (though, the environment and life on Earth would probably be severely impacted if the world population exceeds 15 Billion). Simply Ask China and India how it’s working out for them today with 2.7 Billion people (35% of the world population).

The major technological issues are:

  • (01) lack of gravity that causes severe bone loss, and space sickness; and space legs; weaker muscles; loss of muscle;
  • (02) mental stress; unknown issues due to isolation;
  • (03) vision problems, and possible permanent vision loss;
  • (04) coughs, colds, etc. in a confined space;
  • (05) solar radiation that requires massive amounts of matrials or water for shielding (on space ship, and housing on Mars); solar flares;
  • (06) medical emergencies;
  • (07) micro and/or small meteors;
  • (08) traveling to Mars, and returning from Mars is one thing, but living on Mars is another whole story; it requires storage and/or generation of oxygen; essentially, there is no oxygen on Mars (less than 0.4% ; compared top 21% on Earth); it requires a shelter against radiation, because Mars has an insufficient magnetic field to shield from solar radiation; it requires storage and/or generation of water; the Mars axis is not stable and Mars wobbles wildly;
  • (09) enough food for a long journey; may require some sort of hibernation; may require ways to grow food;
  • (10) sufficient amounts of fuel and methods for acceleration and decelaration (at least 34 Million miles at closest approach); depending on speed, it would probably take 150-300 days to reach Mars; it depends on the amount of fuel available; at the speeds of Apollo to the Moon, it would take about 860 days to reach Mars at the closest approach;
  • (11) a Moon base and/or Earth-orbit satelites may be needed for staging voyages to Mars;
  • (12) terraforming Mars is currently not remotely close to feasible, but there are some theories.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 17, 2019 11:45 PM
Comment #438226

This is an interesting discussion. To bring it back to the controversy of the Green New Deal, I need to reflect back on these observations. Royal believes that disease and war will correct for an unbalanced future (unsustainable overpopulation). That may be true, but isn’t it worth trying to agree as sociaties around the world to stave that off? Even if if it requires some compromise of libertarian freedom? Or would you PREFER disease and war?

In regard to the immense technical challenges of space colonization, I am not sure a few hobbyist billionaires building rockets will do the trick. I don’t see a private sector investing in all the basic research to make this happen. I agree with Weary’s assertion that major federal investment is the only likely path forward. Military, NASA, NIH, DOE, etc… would need a concerted and coordinated effort, with the political support of the American people to do something truly amazing, sacrificing for today in order to preserve a sustainable future for our children/grandchildren. Sound familiar?

Posted by: Stalking Horse at February 18, 2019 7:00 AM
Comment #438233

I doubt anyone would “PREFER” disease and war.
However, it appears to be the most likely outcome, since humans do not seem capable of population control, and since the human population (growing today by 235,000 per day) will double again in only 26 years (from 7.7 Billion to 15+ Billion), and could quadruple in 50 years (from 15 Billion to 30 Billion), at current rates.
Hopefully, it doesn’t lead to human extinction, but with growing nuclear weapons proliferation, and the recent use of chemical weapons, and the research in several countries of biological weapons, it is highly possible (most likely probable).

When a growing number (millions or billions) of people are starving to death or dying of thirst, they will try to steal from others.
There will be more and more focus on border security for more and more nations.
There will be increasingly stricter access to resources (i.e. welfare in the form of food stamps, free housing, free healthcare, etc.).
Already, today, illegal immigration into the U.S. is already costing $0.726 BILLION per day ($265 BILLION per year), giving rise to calls for increased border security.
Not only in the U.S., but in other countries also.
The future will most likely make Soylent Green look like paradise.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2019 11:27 AM
Comment #438235
Why do nations want to grow and grow and grow their populations?

Capitalism demands it. An ever larger growing market is required for capitalism. But as individuals/couples in first world countries we tend to have smaller families the more we are educated and the more money we make. Second and third world countries tend to have larger families. When it comes to religion some religions interpret the bible to say go forth and multiply and don’t stop multiplying. Others tell us any type of birth control is wrong. Yeah it may have made sense 2k years ago but shouldn’t the divine have made that clear in it’s writings?

China and India (with 2.7 Billion people) are not going to pay for more expensive energy sources, when they have cheaper options (coal, oil, natural gas).

China disagrees with you D..

So does India.


It is time we drop these conservative myths guys. The world is moving ahead and dealing with over-population and MMGW. Only the far right and other dictators like Putin aren’t.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 18, 2019 12:00 PM
Comment #438236

Ignore the China link above this is the right one.

https://futurism.com/china-new-world-leader-renewable-energy/

Posted by: j2t2 at February 18, 2019 12:02 PM
Comment #438245
j2t2 wrote: China disagrees with you D.. So does India.
Wrong (again)!
You seem desparate, or eager to simply argue for the sake of arguing:
  • (1) China is the world’s largest consumer of coal, with 70% of the energy consumed in China being obtained from coal.
  • (2) India is the world’s 2nd largest producer of coal, with 692.4 million tons produced yearly.
j2t2, those are nice plans for the future in China and India.
However, today, the smog is so bad in Bejing and other cities in China, that you can barely see your hand in front of your face, and India is the 2nd biggest consumer of coal in the world, and has a long, long ways to go toward greener energy sources.

Guess you didn’t see this about China and India planning on increasing their coal use in 2018, eh?

Then take a gander at this gloomy map of the world and coal plants since year 2000:

www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/6/17427030/coal-plants-map-china-india-us-eu

Those future plans for China and India are nice, but that is not the reality today, since China and India are the 2 largest users of coal today. And as their populations (of 2.7 Billion) grow (already 8.23 times the population of 328 Million in the U.S.), their usage of coal is likely to continue to increase (not decrease).

j2t2 wrote: It is time we drop these conservative myths guys. The world is moving ahead and dealing with over-population and MMGW. Only the far right and other dictators like Putin aren’t.
j2t2 proves (again) how desparate he is to be right about something, and how detached j2t2 is from reality.
That’s what happens when a person views everything through the lenses of hatred of anyone who disagrees with them.

Regardless, thanks again for being the gift that keeps on giving. Keep up the good work (i.e. site2data.com/j2t2_wrote_1.html)!

Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2019 3:25 PM
Comment #438259

Stalking Horse asks; “Or would you PREFER disease and war?”

Patrick Henry will speak for me Horse. “Give me Liberty or give me death”.

I would rather be dead than live under a system of tyranny that controls every aspect of my life.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 18, 2019 5:45 PM
Comment #438261

“The world is moving ahead and dealing with over-population and MMGW.”

It would be a pleasant experience if, just once, j2t2 actually thought about something before writing about it.

Does j2t2 suppose that eliminating the use of fossil fuel will cause more food to be produced?

It we eliminated the use of fossil fuel worldwide within the next ten years; billions of people would perish from hunger, disease, or war.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 18, 2019 5:52 PM
Comment #438269
You seem desparate, or eager to simply argue for the sake of arguing:

And you seem unable to comprehend what I responded to D. What you said was “China and India (with 2.7 Billion people) are not going to pay for more expensive energy sources, when they have cheaper options (coal, oil, natural gas).” I disagreed because China and India are in fact pursuing large scale renewable energy sources. Of course they have a ways to go but to use this as an excuse to keep the US from doing the same thing is inexcusable.

j2t2 proves (again) how desparate he is to be right about something, and how detached j2t2 is from reality. That’s what happens when a person views everything through the lenses of hatred of anyone who disagrees with them.

Thee only thing proven by your response is your projecting yet again D.. To the point you change the argument in a vain attempt to discredit me. To think conservatives haven’t used these same myths you perpetrate to disavow the need for the US to actively pursue renewable energy sources is laughable. I suggest it is hatred on your part seeings how you guys project so much so often.

It would be a pleasant experience if, just once, j2t2 actually thought about something before writing about it.

It would also be a pleasant experience if you knew what you were talking about for a change Royal but wish in one hand…..

Does j2t2 suppose that eliminating the use of fossil fuel will cause more food to be produced?

Eventually yes Royal. Today No. It depends on how much we innovate and how much we change. The certain thing is conservatives are the problem as they refuse to even acknowledge the problem. Time for them to face reality instead of accusing others of being detached from reality.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 18, 2019 7:13 PM
Comment #438272
j2t2 wrote: Of course they have a ways to go but to use this as an excuse to keep the US from doing the same thing is inexcusable.
No one here ever wrote any excuses or expressed any disdain for the U.S. to ignore solar power, wind power, tidal power, and other cleaner technologies. Therefore, your comment (as usual) is nonsense, and fueled (again) by your hatred of anyone who disagrees with you, except in this case, it is in your imagination only, since no one here is favoring dirty energy over cleaner energy.
j2t2 wrote: The certain thing is conservatives are the problem as they refuse to even acknowledge the problem.
Nonsense. It’s only “certain” in your own mind (imagined in this case, and rooted in your deep hatred for those that disagree with you), and choosing to focus on solar panels in China and India, while ignoring the increased use of coal in China and India. As a result, you are apparently unable to focus on, and/or acknowledge the far more serious issues, such as over-population that could lead to more use of cheaper-dirty fuels.
What impact do you think double the population to 15+ Billion (or more) in 26 years (or less) will have on the environment, arable land, oceans, lakes, air, other resources, and the use of cheaper, dirty fuels (e.g. coal)? Instead of trying to comprehend the bigger issue of over-population, you childishly searched for some way, no matter how flimsy, to find some way to disagree; to try to make it seem like China and India were suddenly going green, while wrongly assuming others here are opposed to cleaner fuels.

But you, nor most (if not all) Democrats and “Green-New-Deal” nut-cases ever mentioned the elephant in the room: human over-population (which is currently growing by 235,000 per day = 85.8 Million per year = 10 times the size of N.Y. City).

j2t2 wrote: Time for them to face reality instead of accusing others of being detached from reality.
Nonsense. You are blinded by hate, and your socialist/leftist extremist beliefs, as demonstrated H E R E in this growing list of your numerous hate-filled comments.

However, thanks again for being the gift that keeps on giving. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2019 9:36 PM
Comment #438293
No one here ever wrote any excuses or expressed any disdain for the U.S. to ignore solar power, wind power, tidal power, and other cleaner technologies.

Such short term memory D.. Of course you guys have, remember Solyndra, you just haven’t dome it recently. Is there no level that you won’t stoop to? But hey ask your conservative friends who wanted every pipeline built, every well dug and are so happy about going after the oil in Venezuela instead of speaking for them.

Instead of your strawmen, red herrings,and attack the messenger deflections and diversions look around you, all you guys here on WB claim MMGW is a conspiracy to ruin the country and alternative energy is for others before you lie and deflect.

BTW long before you thought it was cool I was debating about population growth with John/Jack and others here on WB. Conservatives said we beat it with modern agriculture and I was wrong. You guys on the other hand were against any measures, planned parenthood ring a bell, to counter the rapid rise of the population. It’s not about hate it’s about late, as in you are late to the table D., so late you think you are here first.

Lets be clear though, using population growth as a means to deny MMGW is wrong. While we are at it reflect on your repetition as an illusion that causes you to accept lies, you are the problem D. and you seem to have infected most Trumpsters here on WB.

Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth- FDR.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 19, 2019 11:45 AM
Comment #438294
j2t2 lies again: Lets be clear though, using population growth as a means to deny MMGW is wrong.
j2t2 is so desparate, that j2t2 tells lies (again and again), since I never wrote anything that uses over-population to deny MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming) exists.
There is no doubt that a portion of global warming is due to the activities of 7.7 Billion humans, and that is why over-population is extremely relevant to MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming).
j2t2 is so blinded by hate that j2t2 draws false conclusions (repeatedly).

Obviously, your deep rooted hate for anyone who disagrees with your socialist/leftist extremism compels you to tell lies, such as the lie above (and as demonstrated H E R E by your numerous comments full of vitriol, lies, and hate).

However, thanks again for being the gift that keeps on giving. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2019 12:15 PM
Comment #438295
j2t2 wrote: You guys on the other hand were against any measures, planned parenthood ring a bell, to counter the rapid rise of the population.
HHMmmm … is j2t2 recommending abortion as a form of birth control?

And, while the law permits abortion, should tax payers be funding it?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2019 12:21 PM
Comment #438297
Capitalism demands it. An ever larger growing market is required for capitalism.

This is wrong. It is fiat currency and debt that demands an ever growing economy.

But as individuals/couples in first world countries we tend to have smaller families the more we are educated and the more money we make.

The U.S. is a first world country, and there are certain ethnic groups that have very large families in this country. It seems it is white people who believe, for some reason, (guilt?) smaller families are needed. Third world countries have larger families because they tend to have a larger mortality rate. Their children die more often.

When it comes to religion some religions interpret the bible to say go forth and multiply and don’t stop multiplying.

Religion is a guideline toward civilization. Religion guided man from beasts to cognitive human beings. Do monkeys worship the sun? If they did, would they still be monkeys?

Others tell us any type of birth control is wrong.

No, my religion tells me irresponsible $ex is wrong. If you want to put the blame for many of society’s problems on something or someone, look at the policies that have been promulgated by the left.

Yeah it may have made sense 2k years ago but shouldn’t the divine have made that clear in it’s writings?

You missed that class in your bible studies as well, j2t2? I can see why. You phx8 on Putin instead of doing your homework.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 19, 2019 12:57 PM
Comment #438298
Weary Willie wrote: This is wrong. It is fiat currency and debt that demands an ever growing economy.
… and who is trying to grow their voting base by open-borders (Democrats), and who is trying to import as much cheap labor as possible (both Republicans and Democrats, greedy owners and operators of many businesses and corporations, and lawyers who teach the greedy people how to NOT hire Americans, etc.).

j2t2 seems to blame everything on non-socialist/leftist extremism. For example, over H E R E in this column, j2t2 blames the problems with public schooling on conservatives. That’s what happens when you look at the world through the lenses of a socialist/leftist extremist.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2019 1:26 PM
Comment #438300
This is wrong.

No it is not, Weary. Face reality with capitalism if it isn’t growing it is dying. That is just a fact. Why do you think Trump makes so many untrue statements about how great the economy is doing and how he promised 5% growth and 3% growth under Obama was so bad?

The U.S. is a first world country, and there are certain ethnic groups that have very large families in this country. It seems it is white people who believe, for some reason, (guilt?) smaller families are needed.

Prosperity Weary, prosperity and religious beliefs. More so than racial/ethnic groups IMHO.


Third world countries have larger families because they tend to have a larger mortality rate. Their children die more often.

I would agree along with no access to birth control.

Religion is a guideline toward civilization. Religion guided man from beasts to cognitive human beings.

Woah Weary what are you saying? Your fellow conservatives will put you on the ‘B’ list if you try to tell them you accept Darwin’s theory of evolution. Everyone knows God created man, and man alone, in his image.

Seriously Weary do you think the religious “guideline” has changes over the centuries? Catholics are against birth control of almost any kind to this day, just as priest cannot marry and such. Mormons seem to have the go forth and multiply thing going on as well.

No, my religion tells me irresponsible $ex is wrong.

So any s*x that doesn’t lead to procreation is wrong, Weary? Yet you tell me “If you want to put the blame for many of society’s problems on something or someone, look at the policies that have been promulgated by the left”! I’m thinking this kinda proves my point Weary.

You missed that class in your bible studies as well, j2t2?

How funny that old conservative “logic” is. I have to be a bible scholar to ask a question like I asked about Leviticus 19-34! Or to say anything about religion! Yet conservatives can ramble on about secular humanist or anything else for that matter without knowing anything but what their movement leaders tell them !

Posted by: j2t2 at February 19, 2019 2:10 PM
Comment #438307

Are you trying to say ethnic groups are having large families in the U.S. because they don’t have birth control, or are they having large families in the U.S. because they are more prosperous? Let’s try to be consistent, j2t2.

Growth is a bi-product of capitalism. Growth doesn’t allow capitalism, capitalism allows growth. Debt and inflation demands growth, not capitalism.

Let’s answer my question, j2t2. Do monkeys worship the sun? If they did, would they still be monkeys?

I’m not a Darwinist. Science is still looking for the missing link between the monkey and the human. They haven’t found it yet. It’s a religious belief that the world started 6000 years ago. That coincides with the invention of writing. Is it a coincidence, or did it so fundamentally change the world that some thought it started anew?

Did monkeys learn to write on their own? If not, why not? If humans came from monkeys without God’s help, why didn’t monkeys invent writing? Why didn’t they tame fire? Why aren’t monkeys driving around in automobiles?

You shouldn’t blink when you’re reading, j2t2. You missed a word as you were reading my comment when you blinked. I said irresponsible $ex is wrong.

I shouldn’t have to explain this to you, j2t2. You can’t get a $exually transmitted disease from someone who doesn’t have a $exually transmitted disease. Get it? I’m sure you are going to avoid that fact with some obscure case of a dirty toilet seat or wearing someone else’s soiled underwear, but for the greatest majority of cases STD s are transmitted by way of promiscuous $ex. Fidelity prevents STD s whether you agree with that or not.

My religion says $ex is between a man and a woman. It elaborates on that by insisting the man have $ex with only one woman, one without an STD. The woman should only have $ex with one man. Religion allows one man and one woman to have $ex when they have committed themselves to each other. That is a guideline religion set up to protect the species from being ravaged by disease. Capitalism didn’t set that guideline, religion did.

I’ve already demonstrated how you’ve bastardized Leviticus. Your interpretation is warped to fit your agenda.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 19, 2019 3:53 PM
Comment #438308

Attempting a dialogue with j2t2 is similar to herding cats. One never knows when they will change direction or just sit and lick themselves.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2019 4:00 PM
Comment #438311
j2t2 wrote: So any s*x that doesn’t lead to procreation is wrong, Weary?
See how j2t2 desparately draws ridiculous conclusions (see RULE #(07) below)?
Logic is not j2t2’s strong suit.

That’s all j2t2 has, other than his usual rude, vulgar name-calling fit-throwing, and the frequent abuses of Theory and Logic:
  • (10) IRRELEVANT COMPARISONS (apples to oranges):
      Example: Why use walls for your house and property for self defense, to stop intruders from breaking and entering your home, when a nuclear missile would be more effective?
  • (09) INCOMPLETENESS AS PROOF OF FACT:
      Example: Your theory of a wall/fence/barrier for border security does not explain why there are no unicorns, so your theory must be wrong.
  • (08) IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT GOOD REASON:
      Example: Sure, the experts say walls work, but I know better than the border patrol and I.C.E., and all the countries that say walls work.
  • (07) REACHING BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION:
      Example: Despite border walls reducing border trespasses by 95% in San Diego, there are still illegal immigrants getting into the U.S. Therefore, walls don’t work, because the illegal immigrants must be beaming down from the Star Ship Enterprise.
  • (06) OVER-APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR (which states that the simplest explanation must be correct):
      Example: The Department of Homeland Security reports 2,000 homicides per year by criminal non-citizens, and the GAO reported 22,557 homicdes by criminal non-citizens from 1991 to 2004 (in only 5 states). That’s hard to believe, so they must have all been suicides.
  • (05) INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES or REQUIRE SOLUTIONS:
      Example: One illegal alien over-stayed their VISA. Therefore, walls don’t work, and all walls should be torn down.
  • (04) JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF IT’S CHARACTERISTICS or MIS-PRIORITIZATION:
      Example: The wall hurts the feelings of the people of other countries. Therefore, their feelings are more important than border security (and 2,000 homicides per year by criminal non-citizens), so all walls and fences should be torn down.
  • (03) BLAMING THE TOOL:
      Example: We should ban guns because they kill people. We should also ban pencilz becuz they mispell wordz, and we should ban ICE and the Border Patrol, because the rights of illegal immigrants are more important than the rights and security of U.S. citizens (plus, Democrats want the votes, money, and power)
  • (02) TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
      Example: If one illegal immigrant gets across the border, it proves that walls don’t work.
  • (01) PROOF BY LACK OF EVIDENCE, and LACK OF PROCESS:
      Example: CNN, NYTimes, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and NPR said Trump is a traitor and colluded with the Russians, so he should be impeached. Brett Kavanaugh should also be impeached, because Democrats are the party of “Guilty Until Proven Innocent - especially if you are not a Democrat”.
Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2019 4:31 PM
Comment #438315

Wow D. your desperation is showing. Tell you what because I haven’t said any of those things why not put words I actually say into the logic categories? Because until then you ain’t got anything but foolishness.

Let’s try to be consistent, j2t2.

That is what I get for being brief and using simple words to express concepts I guess. Weary, I am saying some ethnic families are prosperous and have religious beliefs that cause them to want large families.

Growth is a bi-product of capitalism. Growth doesn’t allow capitalism, capitalism allows growth. Debt and inflation demands growth, not capitalism.

Don’t put words in my mouth Weary. Capitalism flounders without growth. It withers, we go into recessions and depressions. It’s just one of those things Weary. You didn’t think capitalism was perfect with no downside did you?

Let’s answer my question, j2t2. Do monkeys worship the sun? If they did, would they still be monkeys?

Wow way over my head Weary. I don’t know if monkeys worship the sun or anything else for that matter. I guess you are using this as some proof that the theory of evolution is wrong. Remember though when you believe Jesus came from a “virgin” birth you don’t have much credibility when it comes to evolution. Look I really don’t want to get side tracked into some discussion about religion and evolution so make your point so we can move on please.

I said irresponsible $ex is wrong.

I shouldn’t have to explain this to you, j2t2.

Weary two things. First I defined an irresponsible that meets some religions definition. Your religion has a different definition but you think I read minds!

I’ve already demonstrated how you’ve bastardized Leviticus. Your interpretation is warped to fit your agenda.

All you did Weary is interpret 19-34 different than many, perhaps to fit your agenda. You know how you guys project so much. Besides if it was that easy Weary why did our friend Royal dodge the question with all the BS he could muster?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 19, 2019 5:11 PM
Comment #438316

A “Royal dodge”! LOL, I like that j2t2.

My answer didn’t suit j2t2; so he had to deny it. That’s OK, I don’t object. I take into consideration j2t2’s limited ability to comprehend and give him a lot of slack. His ego is delicate and we wouldn’t want him to harm himself.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2019 5:22 PM
Comment #438317
j2t2 wrote: You know how you guys project so much.
HHMmmmm … perhaps we should all take lessons from j2t2 on “decency”, based on j2t2’s WORDS of WISDOM, and his repeated questioning whether we have any “decency” ?
Who other than j2t2 has more right to ask whether we have any “decency” ?
Come on, j2t2, please give us some of your WORDS of WISDOM. Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2019 5:27 PM
Comment #438318

“Capitalism flounders without growth. It withers, we go into recessions and depressions.”

Has anyone else scratched their head wondering what the hell j2r2 means by this comment?

The United States has been operating under a system of democratic capitalism since our founding. We are today, the most economically successful country on the planet, and have been for decades.

We have weathered civil war, regional wars and world wars. We have survived recession and depression. Our nation is great and growing greater every day.

Where is the Soviet Union that had its leader Khrushchev declare that they would “bury us”? How are all the communist countries of the world doing. Who wants to move to Cuba or Venezuela?

The wanna-be socialist among us are malcontents and ne’er-do-wells pining for mother government to rule their lives so they “feel” safe.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2019 6:15 PM
Comment #438319

Test test

Posted by: j2t2 at February 19, 2019 6:20 PM
Comment #438320
j2t2 wrote: Capitalism flounders without growth. It withers, we go into recessions and depressions.
Royal Flush wrote: Has anyone else scratched their head wondering what the hell j2r2 means by this comment?
Yes, I wondered for a moment, but quickly dismissed it as just another twisted looney-toon comment, based on j2t2’s hatred of anything that is non-socialist/leftist-extremism. Sort of like j2t2’s response: Test test

j2t2,
Just checking … seriously, do you expect anyone to take you seriously, or show you any respect, when you repeatedly question others’ integrity and decency while you are repeatedly calling others (who disagree with you) Nazis, Fascists, Repub F**ktards, Beastialists, F**king Fascists, as*hats, ignorant F**ks, or telling them F**k you, or Go F**k yourselves, etc., etc., etc. (which you claim to be “proud” of, and call your Words of Wisdom) ?

What is your goal here?
Are you hoping to convert or educate anyone?
Or, are you here only to spew hate and try to irritate people you hate (i.e. anyone who disagrees with you)?
Because, that doesn’t work on people who realize you are either mentally unbalanced, and/or blinded by deep-rooted hatred that fuels your nasty, vulgar, racist, hate-speech, and the hypocrisy (or lunacy) to call it “Words of Wisdom” (i.e. something to be proud of).

But, IF you don’t get it, then thanks for continuing to be the gift that keeps on giving, and please give us some more Words of Wisdom (something new perhaps?).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2019 6:28 PM
Comment #438321
j2t2 wrote: Test test
HHHMMmmmm … perhaps that “Test test” was supposed to be Tsk Tsk ?
You never know, with j2t2 … grammar and spelling is not his strong suit.
Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2019 6:36 PM
Comment #438322
Royal Flush wrote: Where is the Soviet Union that had its leader Khrushchev declare that they would “bury us”? How are all the communist countries of the world doing. Who wants to move to Cuba or Venezuela? The wanna-be socialist among us are malcontents and ne’er-do-wells pining for mother government to rule their lives so they “feel” safe.

Exactly. Socialist extremists (Cheaters of Type #2) perpetuate the myth that we can all somehow live at the expense of everyone else.
How did that work out for Venezuela, East Germany (ended 1990), Ethiopia (ended 1991), Poland (ended 1989), Romania (ended 1990), USSR (ended 1991), and some other nations that are struggling with problems inherent to socialist extremism?

Cheater Category #1 and #2:

  • Cheater Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism, monopolies, and the freedom to explore and wallow in almost every manifestation of unchecked greed (e.g. mortgage crisis from 2005-to-2009 and up to 10,000 foreclosures per day).
  • Cheater Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state, that will wipe their lazy butts for them; where politicians lure citizens into being increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged; e.g. $70 Billion per year in Medicare fraud; $Trillions borrowed from Social Security; etc.) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; tries to disguise their envy and jealousy as demands for equality; and perpetuates the myth that many things should be free, and that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.
Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2019 6:40 PM
Comment #438323
Don’t put words in my mouth Weary. Capitalism flounders without growth. It withers, we go into recessions and depressions. It’s just one of those things Weary. You didn’t think capitalism was perfect with no downside did you?

Capitalism returns to normal much faster after economic calamities. Are you trying to say other forms of economics provides a static environment? Why do socialist and communist economies suffer during global economic calamities along side capitalist economies?

No, j2t2. All YOU did was interpret Leviticus to have it say breaking into someone’s house deserves sanctuary in it.


Weary two things. First I defined an irresponsible that meets some religions definition. Your religion has a different definition but you think I read minds!

Maybe here’s an example where punctuation would go a long way. Or, it’s more hypocrisy at work expecting me to read minds while criticizing your assertion I’m expecting you to read my mind. I don’t really know what that comment means….

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 19, 2019 6:56 PM
Comment #438324
Weary Willie wrote: I don’t really know what that comment [by j2t2] means.
Yeah … a lot of j2t2’s rants make no sense (e.g. “Test test” versus Tsk Tsk; and “to” versus “too”; etc.), and I know what you mean about the punctuation too.
Watch next when j2t2 calls us the grammar Nazis (after all, that’s one of his favorite names to call people, other than also calling them Fascists, Repub F**ktards, Beastialists, F**king Fascists, as*hats, ignorant F**ks, or telling them F**k you, or Go F**k yourselves, etc., etc., etc. ).
Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2019 7:30 PM
Comment #438335

It was a test D., wanted to see how long it took for you to respond with your ad nauseam Big Lie nonsense and ad hominem attacks. Of course you didn’t let me down. It shows us how much of a proselytizer you are. Your justice corrupting,scapegoating propaganda divides us as much as Roger Ailes divided the country with Faux News. I would think even your buddies here on WB would get wise to you eventually.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 20, 2019 5:30 AM
Comment #438338
Are you trying to say other forms of economics provides a static environment?

Woah big boy you are overthinking this. I said nothing about any other economic system and didn’t compare anything.

No, j2t2. All YOU did was interpret Leviticus to have it say breaking into someone’s house deserves sanctuary in it.

It seems to me Weary you have re-interpreted Levitcus19-34 not me. Try again.

Maybe here’s an example where punctuation would go a long way.

Or perhaps using your head a bit. We were talking about irresponsible s*x. We had different definitions, as do the different religions.

Or, it’s more hypocrisy at work expecting me to read minds while criticizing your assertion I’m expecting you to read my mind. I don’t really know what that comment means….

You critiqued as if I was supposed to know what religion you belonged to without you saying as much. Is that really that hard for you to understand or are you just hunting for a diversion?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 20, 2019 5:48 AM
Comment #438343

Overthinking is better than not thinking at all.

You you are not comparing capitalism to any other economic system, how can you say it is dying?

How do these comments make sense, j2t2?

This person is ugly, compared to no one else.

This automobile moves slower than nothing.

It’s like saying, “This change won’t work because we don’t do it that way.”

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 20, 2019 7:45 AM
Comment #438346
j2t2 wrote more nonsense: It was a test D., wanted to see how long it took for you to respond with your ad nauseam Big Lie nonsense and ad hominem attacks. Of course you didn’t let me down. It shows us how much of a proselytizer you are. Your justice corrupting, scapegoating propaganda divides us as much as Roger Ailes divided the country with Faux News. I would think even your buddies here on WB would get wise to you eventually.
Oh … “propaganda” like your nasty, vulgar, racists, hateful rhetoric shown here?

Oh … “scapegoating” like this, in which many Democrats and similar ilk:

  • (1) are despicably pitting U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants against each other for more votes, money, and power;
  • (2) sought to continue slavery (source: www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Party);
  • (3) created the KKK (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan);
  • (4) created Jim Crow laws (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws);
  • (5) and imposed racial segregation (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats).

Again, many thanks to j2t2 for being the gift that keeps on giving. Please keep digging that hole you’re in deeper and deeper, and keep up the good work, because it is doing wonders for helping you and your socialist/leftist extremist causes!

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2019 8:55 AM
Comment #438363
Overthinking is better than not thinking at all.

Depends on the circumstances don’t you think Weary?

You you are not comparing capitalism to any other economic system, how can you say it is dying?

I didn’t say it was dying Weary. When we hit the finite limit of the planet changes would need to be made.

How do these comments make sense, j2t2?

Because you don’t have to compare a system to point out a characteristic of a system. SO either overthinking or not thinking would be the answer to your question I suppose.

This person is ugly, compared to no one else.

This automobile moves slower than nothing.

It’s like saying, “This change won’t work because we don’t do it that way.”

Hopefully this isn’t some proof that you have to compare/contrast as the only means to describe a system. Or in this case an automobile. As an example “The automobile will only go 5 mph” or “This person is ugly on his own merits”.

Thats really all I was saying about capitalism when asked “Why do nations want to grow and grow and grow their populations?”. It was one of several possible reasons nations grow and grow. I’m sure there are more we didn’t mention. But IMHO capitalism does demand growth. SO do capitalist. As I stated earlier look at how happy our conservative friends here are when they hear news about the economy growing under Trump. Or when Trump promised much better economic growth.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 20, 2019 7:08 PM
Comment #438365
Oh … “propaganda” like your nasty, vulgar, racists, hateful rhetoric shown here?

Nope D.. Propaganda like “(1) are despicably pitting U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants against each other for more votes, money, and power;
(2) sought to continue slavery (source: www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Party);
(3) created the KKK (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan);
(4) created Jim Crow laws (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws);
(5) and imposed racial segregation (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats).”

You see D. this stuff is just not relevant to today’s racial problems. Since the 60’s those nasty racist vulgar guys switched parties, yep, went to the repubs, especially down south because the dems passed civil rights legislation at that time. You know that. I mean how many KKK guys voted for Clinton?

Face it D., the southern border isn’t a real emergency. Yet Trump claims it is, because he is “despicably pitting U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants against each other for more votes, money, and power;”. He has tried to suppress the vote to keep himself and other extremist right wing ideologues in power as well. But to listen to you project one would think it was the Dems not the Repubs actively suppressing the minority vote.

Oh … “scapegoating” like this, in which many Democrats and similar ilk…

No I was talking about your scapegoating here in this thread and in other threads on WB. As an example the comment above where you use me as a scapegoat with all the logic blunders you claim I made in this thread. The problem is I didn’t say any of the stuff you said I did. I asked you to point out specifics but you wasn’t able to or chose or not. There are many examples from you of these deceptive practices D.. Too many, way to many, to list in the time I have available to correspond here on WB.

We could go on with the generalizations, the vague ambigouus comments from you but you as smart as you claim to be know what they are. It is intentional like Joseph Goebbels, Roger Ailes and others. Propaganda, myth misinformation, half truths and outright lies is how I usually refer to your comments. Disinformation and trolling are other tactics you use often as well.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 20, 2019 7:39 PM
Comment #438379
j2t2 wrote wrote: Blah, blah, … , blah, blah, blah, … blah, blah, … Face it D., the southern border isn’t a real emergency.
Not to you, “open-borders” phx8, and Ed O’hrealy, because you three want open borders.

I disagree, and the survivors and families of the 2,000 people murdered per year by criminal non-citizens would disagree.

According to j2t2, 2,000 homicides per year by criminal non-citizens, and tens of thousands of deaths per year (due to drugs flowing across the Mexico/U.S. border), is a crisis?

More victims: site2data.com/victims1.html

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2019 10:41 PM
Comment #438381

CORRECTION: According to j2t2, the 2,000+ homicides per year by criminal non-citizens, and tens of thousands of deaths per year (due to drugs flowing across the Mexico/U.S. border), is “N O T” a crisis?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2019 10:45 PM
Comment #438386

Truth to power, the same Dutch historian who talked at the last Davos meeting owned Carlson.

According to j2t2, the 2,000+ homicides per year by criminal non-citizens, and tens of thousands of deaths per year (due to drugs flowing across the Mexico/U.S. border), is “N O T” a crisis?

Our own Tucker Carlson wants us to believe that our president would go to his vacation retreat and play golf during a national emergency! This dog and pony show is for the weak minded followers of Trump D., nothing more. Not getting what he wanted to fund the border is not an emergency.

This is a power grab by Trump, it is despicable that he ignores the rule of law and violates the Constitution. It is even more despicable that our “give me liberty or give me death conservative friends” are backing this power grab.

D. likes to bring up the 2k homicides and 10k drug deaths supposedly by illegals, as if it were not an inflated number, but when asked “why not thoughts and prayers”, the same solution conservatives discuss when there is a school shooting or any other mass killing he folds. He must not care about all those families.I mean he doesn’t even consider mass killings to be a crisis FFS. The worst part is he believes that a wall will stop the flow of drugs and because some border patrol guys say so! Like they are experts. Like the walls already in place have stopped the flow of drugs and gangs into the country.

The fact is along the border where the wall would go is safer than most other parts of the country. The bad guys are in other parts of the country. A wall didn’t keep these bad guys out these past decades but all of a sudden it will work! No wonder we are 23 trillion in debt with that kind of thinking.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 21, 2019 12:03 AM
Comment #438440

That made no sense.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 21, 2019 9:58 AM
Comment #438458

More twisted and depraved logic by j2t2, whose hypocrisy and depravity knows no bounds, and repeatedly resorts to frequent abuses of theory-and-logic:

  • (10) IRRELEVANT COMPARISONS (apples to oranges):
      Example: Why use walls for your house and property for self defense, to stop intruders from breaking and entering your home, when a nuclear missile would be more effective?
  • (09) INCOMPLETENESS AS PROOF OF FACT:
      Example: Your theory of a wall/fence/barrier for border security does not explain why there are no unicorns, so your theory must be wrong.
  • (08) IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT GOOD REASON:
      Example: Sure, the experts say walls work, but I know better than the border patrol and I.C.E., and all the countries that say walls work.
  • (07) REACHING BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION:
      Example: Despite border walls reducing border trespasses by 95% in San Diego, there are still illegal immigrants getting into the U.S. Therefore, walls don’t work, because the illegal immigrants must be beaming down from the Star Ship Enterprise.
  • (06) OVER-APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR (which states that the simplest explanation must be correct):
      Example: The Department of Homeland Security reports 2,000 homicides per year by criminal non-citizens, and the GAO reported 22,557 homicdes by criminal non-citizens from 1991 to 2004 (in only 5 states). That’s hard to believe, so they must have all been suicides.
  • (05) INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES or REQUIRE SOLUTIONS:
      Example: One illegal alien over-stayed their VISA. Therefore, walls don’t work, and all walls should be torn down.
  • (04) JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF IT’S CHARACTERISTICS or MIS-PRIORITIZATION:
      Example: The wall hurts the feelings of the people of other countries. Therefore, their feelings are more important than border security (and 2,000 homicides per year by criminal non-citizens), so all walls and fences should be torn down.
  • (03) BLAMING THE TOOL:
      Example: We should ban guns because they kill people. We should also ban pencilz becuz they mispell wordz, and we should ban ICE and the Border Patrol, because the rights of illegal immigrants are more important than the rights and security of U.S. citizens (plus, Democrats want the votes, money, and power)
  • (02) TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
      Example: If one illegal immigrant gets across the border, it proves that walls don’t work.
  • (01) PROOF BY LACK OF EVIDENCE, and LACK OF PROCESS:
      Example: CNN, NYTimes, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and NPR said Trump is a traitor and colluded with the Russians, so he should be impeached. Brett Kavanaugh should also be impeached; especially since he is not a Democrat. Democrats have become the party of “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”.

Again, many thanks to j2t2 for being the gift that keeps on giving. Keep up the good work. Your contributions are doing wonders for the Democrats and their causes.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2019 3:14 PM
Post a comment