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

When Obamacare crashed and burned, Republican hands were clean. When this idiotic liberal idea crashes and burns, lots of idiotic liberals will crash and burn with it...

 

The "immediate risk" to our national security manifested itself as "extreme" weather effects at or near installation infrastructure over the last 25 or more years, that may or may not be related to climate change, where nearly 50% of more of the sites in question experienced no such effects?

If this is the "immediate risk" to national security the DoD - a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Obama Administration - spoke about in 2014, one can only conclude said "immediate risk" failed to manifest itself.

 

Very informative but I'm too lazy to read the prolix pdf. Thanks anyway.

 

AOC is calling for radical substantive change when a supermajority of Americans are very afraid of their own government. Republican and Democrat pols who think this will hurt her political viability are fooling themselves.

You are correct in pointing out that the RP, and even conservatives have yet to offer a detailed serious proposal for change that would result in a significant reduction in the size and power of our Big Bad Government that would also deliver tangible benefits to the ordinary Americans they want to vote for RP candidates.

Both party establishments remain very vulnerable.

 

Don't worry, be happy.

 

I'm going to use the political term DOA. Dead on Arrival. It's a joke. McConnell's clearly using it as a political wedge, which is wise for the Republican Party, but hopefully a bipartisan actual agreement can take place that's pro reform. EX: I'm for cleaner environmental standards and to gradually place panels where it's feasible.

 

Of course it did. Are you at all familiar with how the damn things were developed in the first place?
You think the government just issued a tender for some cool stuff to do some cool stuff they were just thinking about?

From engineering specifications and standards, software development, quality processes and on and on and on. The government was an INTEGRAL driver of the industry's development. I don't claim it was the sole one, or that without their heavy directional involvement it would not have become ubiquitous, but it would have been at a significantly slower pace. As it is, it took almost two decades of development before the advent of the 8086 which I consider the real starting gun of mass commercialization of the technology.

 

You are apparently unaware of the difference between "development" and "commercialization".
This lack of awareness can only be willful.

Sad that you'd rather lie to yourself than admit you are wrong.

 

It does boggle the mind how much people know about stuff they appear to be completely ignorant of.

 

Of course it's not a good idea, nor would it be good for our country.

 

No better illustrated by your nonsense regarding the role of government as the agent of change in societal-level economics.

 

Coal is going away and has been going away for decades. Nothing is going to stop that. Natural gas is cheaper and easier to use.

 

You appear to not understand the commercialization process. I actually participated in it for a large chunk of my career.

Commercialization doesn't happen overnight. Just mastering high volume chip manufacturing techniques required primary secondary and tertiary technological advancements. It took a couple of decades. The government in both its Military and NASA capacities was the primary demand generator for their proprietary needs and as such were the co-developers of the technologies and capital partners in the tooling up and production process.

Well one of us is not only lying to themselves but can't admit they are wrong. I'll leave it to you to figger that poser out.

 

Nah. Didn't happen.
You have nothing here. Give up.

All you're trying to do is avoid the challenge put to you because you know you cannot meet it.

 

You mean you don't believe in " clean coal". Shocked I tell you I am shocked.

 

Well obviously many of our beloved posters think either the Department of Defense is an arm of the green party or they think it is part of the derp state which is an arm of the climate wacko contingent.

 

Sure thing. Except I didn't say it was THE agent of change. I said it was AN agent of change.

And for damn sure Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon within the decade was one helluva bold vision that sparked the digital age and that is just simple historical fact.

But keep trying.

 

I thought the ten year thing was understood as that is what she has been saying. And it is completely unreasonable (insane) to think we'll get off fossil fuels in 10 years. Are we going to make everyone get rid of their gas cars? The heavy hand of authoritarian gov.

 

Really. Then why did you conviently leave it out of your quote?

And if fusion power becomes reality it is highly possible to be out of fossil fuels in ten years except perhaps for a few old cars that will still be running on incredably costly heirloom gasoline.

 

Hahahahahahahaha! You'll have to forgive me if I pass on trying to spoon feed you historical fact. I have outlined just a few of the things you obviously had no knowledge of and you merely dismiss it as irrelevant. I can't help you if inference isn't one of your stronger attributes.

 

BTW, AOC's goal of net zero by putting everyone in electrics cars... Currently, hundreds of coal fired plants supply us with the electricity to those charging stations. Replacing them with Nuclear power plants will be just as asinine in that nuclear waist is a HELL of allot worse than CO2.

Oh, and to get all that lithium out of the ground.... Well, huge environmental impact!

 

No it was not understood, it was misinterpreted. And I think everyone would agree its a stupid notion that the transition from fossil fuels will only take 10 years.

First it was "they are taking our guns" and now its "they are taking our cars". That damn authoritarian government.

 

There you go, lying to yourself again.

You said:
.... but it is a plan to transition to a virutally gridless green energy economy (virtually free energy) while rebuilding and modernizing the transportation infrastructure and addressing serious environmental challenges is something worthy of debate.

And them when the free market - the private sector - was suggested as the vehicle of this change, you said:
No actually, the "free market" isn't interested in making investments in public infrastructure. They are only motivated by profit.

Thus, you see the state, not the free market as -the- agent for change in societal-level economics.

Now, tell us again how the government was involved in the commercialization of, say, the solid-state microprocessor.

 

There are no facts that allow you to meet the challenge put to you - which is why you continue to avoid said challenge.

 

No... the resolution called to make such trains that the air travel will become unnecessary... same meaning, and just as stoooooopid