patrick.net

socal2 says

And why do you want to take away the best weapon America has (producing our own oil and gas) against OPEC and the Russians at this critical point in time? We have far more pressing immediate concerns to deal with.

Hell no. Don't get me wrong. American oil is a much much better alternative than OPEC and Russian oil. No argument there.
A better alternative for America and the world is a FREE source of fuel like solar, which will put the final nail in the coffin of OPEC, pollution, and Climate Change. Russia will thrive because it will end up being a capitalist country, and become one of us.
OPEC will have one hell of an adjusting to do because they don't have the brains, the capacity, or the willingness to develop. Fuck them. I have no compassion for 7th terrorists.

joeyjojojunior says

Reducing greenhouse emissions would help against OPEC--it wouldn't have much effect on oil and gas production but would have a bigger effect on oil and gas consumption.

There's a billion Indians and Chinese that aren't even using cars or electricity yet. They will pick up demand where we drop off, unless the plan is to keep them mired in crushing 3rd world poverty.

If America doesn't produce our own (and cleaner) natural gas and oil, OPEC and Russia will very much benefit in the near term.

Like I said--oil and gas production shouldn't be affected very much.

joeyjojojunior says

it wouldn't have much effect on oil and gas production but would have a bigger effect on oil and gas consumption.

Joey? You do realize, all production would be eventually consumed, don't you?

Yes...

Trumps dad was a democrat? Ok

joeyjojojunior says

Yes...

So...

Strategist says

A better alternative for America and the world is a FREE source of fuel like solar, which will put the final nail in the coffin of OPEC, pollution, and Climate Change.

I'm not against solar or alternatives. I'm against no-nothing government bureaucrats FORCING us to use it before the technology is economically viable to replace oil and gas which is still the cheapest and most productive energy source known to Man.

We can do alot of harm to humanity and our economies if we do this wrong or too fast. History is replete with examples of needless famines and misery because of ignorant government central planning. We are paying the price now because dumb greens wanted to ban nukes 30 years ago. These same people are now screaming that we are all going to drown if we don't do something NOW.

Besides - America is already decreasing our carbon emissions faster than any other country thanks to fracking and natural gas. No environmental regulations were needed to achieve this carbon reduction, just old fashioned innovation and profit motive. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can develop our new found energy bonanza, improve our economy, get people back to work, reduce our carbon emissions through cleaner natural gas, put the hurt on OPEC/Russia and also work on developing alternative fuels.

The U.S. Leads All Countries In Lowering Carbon Dioxide Emissions
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/06/19/the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-lowering-carbon-dioxide-emissions/#d7c29f15f48b

Obligatory
www.youtube.com/embed/Vs1e2PPqTOE

socal2 says

Strategist says

A better alternative for America and the world is a FREE source of fuel like solar, which will put the final nail in the coffin of OPEC, pollution, and Climate Change.

I'm not against solar or alternatives. I'm against no-nothing government bureaucrats FORCING us to use it before the technology is economically viable to replace oil and gas which is still the cheapest and most productive energy source known to Man.

That has changed in many states. Solar is now a lot more economical in high electricity states like California, Hawaii, and many others.

socal2 says

We can do alot of harm to humanity and our economies if we do this wrong or too fast. History is replete with examples of needless famines and misery because of ignorant government central planning. We are paying the price now because dumb greens wanted to ban nukes 30 years ago. These same people are now screaming that we are all going to drown if we don't do something NOW.

That was 30 years ago. Nuclear energy was clearly more economical than fossil fuels. Times have changed.

socal2 says

Besides - America is already decreasing our carbon emissions faster than any other country thanks to fracking and natural gas. No environmental regulations were needed to achieve this carbon reduction, just old fashioned innovation and profit motive. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can develop our new found energy bonanza, improve our economy, get people back to work, reduce our carbon emissions through cleaner natural gas, put the hurt on OPEC/Russia and also work on developing alternative fuels.

That I agree. Spearheading solar is even better. Solar is just a technology like cell phones and computers whose costs are falling like a rock. Solar is already the cheapest source of energy in most of the world. It makes no sense to promote a dying product like coal, which creates so much pollution.

Can someone describe what "It's too late." &" You fucked around & fucked up this place." mean.

Almost forgot. You don't give a damn.

HEY YOU says

Can someone describe what "It's too late." &" You fucked around & fucked up this place." mean.

HEY YOU says

Almost forgot. You don't give a damn.

That's true. No one gives a damn, but if you want an answer, some elaboration would help.

There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in liberal nanny state land with this political sacrilege and defilement of liberal religious tenets! Burn the heretic Trump at the stake!

I think China and India should have stricter emissions standards to make up for having so many people farting.

Automan Empire says

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

How about we tax the hell out of people who choose to live at sea level by the coast?

Because coast lines were stable for literally tens of thousands of years

Nitpick: "only" 10,000, not tens of thousands.

You are correct. This is a rare case when I went off memory instead of referencing an expert source. I should have said a bit over 10,000 years.

Strategist says

Dan owes me a hundred beers for proving him wrong a hundred times.

You really need a dictionary. Now you don't even know what prove means.

Plus, from your posts, you've had enough to drink.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Dan owes me a hundred beers for proving him wrong a hundred times.

You really need a dictionary. Now you don't even know what prove means.

Plus, from your posts, you've had enough to drink.

he he he. You must have have proved me wrong a couple of times. So you owe me 98 beers only. It's only fair.

Another poll? Damn, what is the definition of insanity?

If you count all the illegal immigrants, Trump might actually be the first Pres to achieve a negative approval rating.

It's herd telepathy, incited only during times of extreme, noxious stimulus.

Hope Trump does so much damage that we never get over it & end up a failed democracy.
It's on the Republican voters. Enjoy the misery brought on by your ignorance.

socal2 says

Here in California, the poorest people will be hit hardest because they can't afford to live in the nice coastal areas and need AC to cool their homes and have massive commutes to work.

Why can't people understand that coastal elites (the Democrat party leadership) do NOT care about poor people? If they make enough to support themselves, they're not paying enough tax. And if they're not making enough to support themselves, that's also fine because people on welfare vote Democrat mostly!

Quigley says

Why can't people understand that coastal elites (the Democrat party leadership) do NOT care about poor people? If they make enough to support themselves, they're not paying enough tax. And if they're not making enough to support themselves, that's also fine because people on welfare vote Democrat mostly!

Yep. This is one of the main reasons why California has the highest poverty rate in the nation.
http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/

Despite some of the highest taxes in the world and massive welfare programs, Liberals are a total failure in addressing poverty in California.

socal2 says

There are tens of millions of Americans who can't afford to live near their jobs. Many of them live in deep liberal Blue states like California, New York and Washington that already have high taxes and housing development restrictions making the cost of living sky high.

If these states are foolish enough to raise the cost of living even higher implementing Paris accord energy restrictions, many of the residents will certainly boycott and move to greener pastures like Texas - as many are already doing every single week.

Good: chance for CA to become a two-party state again.

This is leonardo dicaprio's yacht. This is the same asshole lecturing you on your carbon footprint.

This is Al Gore’s House. It uses twenty times as much energy as the average American home. $30,000 a year in utility bills yet he thinks he can lecture you on your carbon footprint.

Strategist says

Holy shit. I stand corrected. I revise my statement... most poor, who are on welfare don't work anyway.

I guess if you make $1,800 per month, with 6 kids, you will need welfare. These are the type of people I would respect. At least they are working, and doing their best.

If you were making 3 times this money when you had the 6 kids, you deserve welfare. Otherwise, the only thing you should get for free is a dick-otomy

zzyzzx says

This is Al Gore’s House. It uses twenty times as much energy as the average American home. $30,000 a year in utility bills yet he thinks he can lecture you on your carbon footprint.

A little smaller than Thomas Friedman's Wife mansion-palace. That only is home to two people, when Friedman isn't sucking Corporate Cock in China or Chartres

Elon Musk flies his 650ER all the time. It "Only" uses 490 gallons of fuel an hour at cruising speed.

Great pics, zzyzzx.

Just curious-- does the fact that Gore lives in a big house mean that global warming is fake?

joeyjojojunior says

Just curious-- does the fact that Gore lives in a big house mean that global warming is fake?

At the very minimum it paints him as a non-believer in the very thing he preaches. Like if Pope were to openly bang hoes.

It's like Dan proposing confiscation of assets from the polluters and than balking at the suggestion that his gas-guzzling jalopy should be on the list.

It does? So, if Gore lives in a smaller home, then global warming will be reversed?

It's the same tired argument people make saying if Buffett really wanted to solve income inequality, he could give away all his money. These problems are collective and must be solved as a population.

joeyjojojunior says

It does? So, if Gore lives in a smaller home, then global warming will be reversed?

You're funny.

joeyjojojunior says

It's the same tired argument people make saying if Buffett really wanted to solve income inequality, he could give away all his money. These problems are collective and must be solved as a population.

If the same argument is applied to countries instead of persons you basically have Trump's position on GW measures: why the fuck US has to do more than China, India, Russia?

joeyjojojunior says

Just curious-- does the fact that Gore lives in a big house mean that global warming is fake?

To me it doesn't matter if someone thinks climate change is fake or not. The optics are bad. If Gore truly was worried about climate change he would make at least an honest attempt at reducing his carbon footprint. That house is ridiculous for his age. Normal people, even climate change deniers, usually downsize at that age regardless of their beliefs. It's like, "shit, my kids just moved out. Let's fucking stick it to the globe and double the size of our house."

While I don't know where Gore derives his current wealth (and I don't care to look it up) I'm pretty certain some of it is from his notoriety over climate change. I don't deny that climate is changing, but when one of the most noticeable figureheads of a movement does the complete opposite of what he's preaching it really destroys any validity they may have had. It's like an alcoholic leading an AA meeting drunk.

I certainly agree with that. Gore is politician and not a good spokesperson.

zzyzzx says

This is Al Gore’s House.

This still doesn't mean we shouldn't tax carbon. Hell, if you hate Gore so much, tax his carbon use!

The opulence of the rich does not negate the fact that we're killing ourselves by polluting.

Dan8267 says

if you hate Gore so much, tax his carbon use!

As long as it doesn't bring my standard of living down I'm all for it.