McConnell to set up vote on Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal'.....

They're going to filibuster their own "urgent-action" legislation.

 

If, and that is a BIG if, the new green deal actually happened, this country's economy would crash, and even if the new green deal actually was able to reduce emissions to 0 in 10 years, China and India would make up that amount and more. Meaning there would be no change in terms of human contribution to global climate change. So Democrats can keep reminding voters all they like. Millennials will grow up into adults eventually, and like most people over 30, they will smarten up and become more and more conservative as they do.

 

The FAQ was posted on AOC's website, and it contained all the foolish stuff that the right is attacking her over. It was pulled once the flood of scrutiny started, and first her team blamed Republicans, then blamed it on her staff for posting a draft. Give me a break, she believes everything in the FAQ, and it was only pulled because of criticism from her own party. I bet old Nancy herself asked her to pull it.

 

So what is this? The radical Democrats want this 'green-dream' thing -- BUT -- they don't want a congressional vote on it?

What exactly is up with that? Are they waiting for another Obama to be installed in the presidency who can simply decree it to be the Law of the Land with a "pen and a phone"...? F*ck what the taxpaying, bill-paying citizens of this country want! Radical Democrats ALWAYS know far better than we do "what's best for us"....

. "Here be's a phone... now for a pen, and I'm SET!"

 

Gee how was the government involved in development of the microprocessor industry? Demand creation might give you a clue.

https://www.nap.edu/read/6323/chapter/3#19

 

Well, I have yet to find ANY Long term goals outlined by the Right. Is there a coherent cohesive plan for the future of the nation. You know sorta like a "road map" for MAGA?

But I do get how you need to dismiss without discussion of the the content itself. Merely dump ridicule and derision in ignorant dismissal with nothing of substance to respond with.

Empty partisan rhetorical bullshit. Nice fitting shoes ya got there.

PS. Might want to recall Obama's justification for investing in renewables was met with derision by the republicans, allowing the Chinese to continue to pour many many many more billions into what they considered a highly strategic industry. Nah, you guys were whining about how solar would never be competitive and it was a giant waste of money.

Feel free to pass the blame around.

 

That goalpost looks heavy - better get someone to help you move it.

Explain to the class how the government was involved in the commercialization of, say, the solid-state microprocessor.
Don't like that example? Pick another.

 

I see you are not familiar with demand creation as a growth factor in the commericalization process.

Maybe it might help if you look up the "technology adoption curve" and then figger out who the first market drivers were. They are called early adopters. And the US government (military and space) were primary drivers of that early commerical demand. You know where they pay orders of magnitude more for early production because the application need was so critical.

 

When you can explain to the class how the government was involved in the commercialization of the solid-state microprocessor, let us know.

Until then, carry that goalpost around all you like.

 

I can't wait for this lol.

 

that was because of national security, the green bean deal is nothing of the kind

 

Those wood-burning semi-trucks are the best!

 

Same here!

 

And climate change isn't a threat to national security?

Perhaps you should read what those over paid professional progressives over at the pentagon say about it.

 

Climate change poses “immediate risks” to national security and will have broad and costly impacts on the way the US military carries out its missions, the Pentagon said in a new report on the impact of climate change released on 13 October (2014)
https://unfccc.int/news/climate-change-threatens-national-security-says-pentagon

Almost 4.5 years ago.
Where/how have those risks presented themselves?

 

Sorry but nobody was talking about the FAQ until of course I pointed out that the Republicans on this site are unable to tell the difference between a website and a resolution before Congress. Her actual resolution says nothing about getting rid of planes or car farts as the People on this gorum have claimed.

And I have yet to see an actual link to these FACs.

 

Try quoting the whole thing instead of as usual excerpting in such a way as to missrepresent what the resolution actually said. Always a dead giveaway when someone only quotes part of a statement.

The actual is part of a ten year goal. Try honesty. It will do you good.

 

Heard of a little outfit called NASA? And lets not forget all that missile biz. Like I said, leading edge industrial sized demand creation by the government. Implementing bold ideas. IIRC, the republicans were screaming about spending the money on domestic programs instead of galivanting to the moon for no good purpose at the time. Deja vu all over again?

 

I'm partial to the helicopter ones, myself.

 

This has nothing to do with how the government was involved in the commercialization of the solid-state microprocessor.
As expected, you cannot meet the challenge put to you.

 

So glad you asked that. YOu see, the DoD happens to be monitoring this risk and report on it annually. Go figger, imagine those clowns actually doing something as stupid as that.

https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/tab-b-slvas-report-1-24-2018.pdf

 

The turtle is still fighting the civil war.

 

Amazing that Republicans are so scared they seem to need to lie and missrepresent what the resolution actually says. You guys must be learning from Trump and his record eight thousand plus lies and deliberate misrepresentations

Now if you want to actually debate what her resolution actually says that might be fun. .

 

Yes after all increasing strong storms, flooding , and stronger hurricanes and rising seal levels could not posdibly be a threat. Just ask New Orleans or Puerto Rico or New York what an exaggeration it is to imagine any threat from global warming.

 

monitoring weather patterns has always been a concern, climate change, which is perfectly normal occurrence, is taken into consideration...

agw is propaganda to gain funds, plain & simple... any agency lookin to skirt funding issues, will find ways to use the agw wurlwind to their advantage... here's hoping the military gets most of those funds rather than some baffoon that wants to send us back to the stoneages...