(Opinion) I Wonder About Democrats...

[Katniss]

42 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

 

We'd be better served to admit that most televised news, save for Fox, is clearly in the tank for the left. Late night talk, most print media (newspaper and mags), all social media and Hollywood as well.

The right gets Fox and talk radio. If we can't agree on that much, the exercise is pointless.

 

Fox news, much like CNN, typically spin the truth and leave things out to support bias political beliefs. I don't think Fox is exempt from that. Talk radio is the same.

[Likely Guy]

2 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Separating Democrats from liberals/progressives is a requirement. Most lib/prog folks I've chatted with seem to be anti-current version of America in almost every comment they make. They seem to want to become Sweden or the country the Founders fled. Hard to use those countries as a template when they are 1/5th and 1/33rd the size of the US. And both have their own issues.

What? Size is an issue?

Most countries checkout what other countries are dong to better the lives of their citizens. It's not a 'template' on what you have to do, it's a model that you can adapt to suit 'your' needs.

[DarkHunter]

1 hour ago, Likely Guy said:

What? Size is an issue?

Most countries checkout what other countries are dong to better the lives of their citizens. It's not a 'template' on what you have to do, it's a model that you can adapt to suit 'your' needs.

Size is a bit of an issue, a lot of these European countries are far smaller in terms of land area and population size, which tends to cause each individual country to be extremely homogeneous in terms of culture, while the United states due to it's far larger sizes has multiple different cultures within it.  A better comparison would honestly be between the United States and the European Union with individual European countries being compared to individual US states.

The problem with the liberals in general is that they want to apply a one size fits all agenda, really what best suits themselves, to everyone in the country and they just largely assume it will automatically work for everyone.

[Tatetopa]

Pretty interesting thread. Uncle Sam, I visualize you doing the spoken intro with your best hair on fire, "Were all gonna die", Lindsey Graham impersonation. You bring up some good points, but then dilute them with hyperbole.

What is your alternative?  You claim liberals are bent on destroying America and everything they suggest is crazy or won't work.  What is your proposal?

Green New Deal. it is a vision, a pipe dream.  It needs some conservative input. We won't do away with coal and petroleum in the next 20 years or probably even 50. Yet, the vision is clear skies and clean water and no dependence on foreign oil.   (Yes among other things) We could tell Saudi Arabia and Iran to go pound sand, and even better, if we move away from oil the market glut and subsequent price fall will cripple their economies.  So, the engineers say, we can make cars more efficient. We can make airplanes more fuel  efficient and less polluting. ( we have been doing that for the last 20 years or more). We can work on high speed rail and infrastructure.  Freightliner has been building better trucks every single year they have been in business.  So there are a whole lot of alternatives that would get us closer and provide new jobs in a new technology rather than sitting back and watching factories close.  You don't think that plant closures cost money and reduces our competitiveness in the world?

Ranchers in Texas are leasing acreage to put up wind turbines because it makes them money.  T Boone Pickens made his fortune in oil, but he is considering a huge wind installation in Oklahoma.  Or you can be an ignoramus and say "Wind power doesn't work because the wind doesn't blow all of the time."  Backward thinking.  If Pickens thought like that, he wouldn't be a billionaire.

Don't worry about climate change if that is too far to go, just think about pollution and personal responsibility.  Personal responsibility, you seem to like to talk about that, is it only for poor people?  If you build a hog farm or a power plant and floods breach the berms around your settling ponds and pollute the water in the communities downstream, is that your responsibility or just everybody else's tough luck?  You want to take the profits but not pay the piper? If you take coal off of my public land, do you pay a fair price for it or work a sweet deal with your buds in the DOE?  If your tailings pollute drinking water, is  that just God's Will for somebody downstream or lack of responsibility?   We could do something about those things and throw in mine safety and reduced heavy metals in power plant emissions too.

Or is the conservative approach Do Nothing?  If you are a politician, you can paint it up pretty and say" Let market forces take care of it."  That is an option, but you may not like the results.  God may love America, but market forces are atheist and don't give a a cr*p about national borders.

EC, good idea leave it alone.  I like some of your other stuff too, but you exaggerate too much and don't use logic in some of you arguments, just fear mongering.

Finally I would like to mention the Founding Fathers.  They were some of the most brilliant men of their age, anywhere on earth when they lived.  Jefferson and Franklin would give just about any scientist in the world today a run for their money if they had been born in this age.They gave us a really good form of government that has lasted a long time.  It should be very hard to change.  So yeah, I like the amendments too, all of them, not just 1,2 and 5.  That being said, they were NOT conservatives.  They were radicals and liberals for their time.  They may not have gone so far in their time to end slavery, but they did make sure there would be no Lords, Ladies, Dukes, Princes, Earls, or Counts in America, that was pretty egalitarian and firmly broke with European tradition.  If they had been conservative, we would still be singing "God Save the Queen."

[+OverSword]

4 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Neither side, even the leaners and the more moderate within the groups will ever take the chance to go to three or more major options. The times it's been done...Ross Perot anyone?...it cost one side dearly. This last election was a prime opportunity to have the socialist vs the left moderates, the establishment R hacks and the Tea Party-ish. Problem was, Hillary crushed Bernie illegally, the sixteen R's were so busy being typical politicians that most voters said "screw it, all things being equally putrid, we'll take the outsider". The issue is the new breed's only option is to infest into the old party". Our elections are too close to chance it. And at the end of the day, nearly all voters go with the closest to what they are.

 

I’m not talking about the presidency, it starts with the congress and senate. You build a voting block there and worry about the Oval Office in a decade or two 

[Jerry Gallo]

10 hours ago, Katniss said:

Maybe he meant the rise of white nationalism, calls for the bible to be taught in public schools again, calls for constitutional amendments to overturn legalized same-sex marriage, deregulation to curtail many environmental protections, tax cuts that really only benefit the most upper class and corporations, and I guess moving in a direction back to isolationism?

1. White nationalism...racism...nearly every ism, is the most tired slur there is. While there are certainly some ignorant people in this country where race matters in the grand scheme, there's infinitely more people using race as a talking point. Try quantifying it for people.

2. The angst the mention of God and the Bible creates amazes me. Makes me wonder, is this fear, or is it simply another obstacle to indoctrinating young people that a leftist government is their one true savior? 

3. Gay marriage legalized by fiat through an activist court. Consistency of our government is the key here. One side trying to properly go through the legislative process while the other avoids it like the plague, using judges to do their bidding. If having to choose between a traditionalist (backwards thinker) and a cheat who subverts the Constitution, I'll take the former every time...simply because they are known quantities.

4. Environmental protection regulations...yet another example of gov't eliminating an obstacle to leftist control. The tree huggers have overplayed their hand here.

5. I got benefit from the tax cut and I am FAR from upper class. Can't we be honest enough to admit we envy anyone who is doing better than us and admit punishing the wealthy is an emotional salve?

6. Another ism, another talking point. If Trump wants us out of NATO, climate change alliances, or trade agreements that offer little benefit to us, I am all for it. I would imagine most individuals do not invest in things that offer them no benefit or offend their sensibilities. The contrast is stark, I'd never ask a leftist to donate to or support the NRA or a church. But the left almost demands that I help pay for whatever makes them feel good about themselves. If you can explain that inconsistency, we might have something real to discuss.

And by the way, it is noted that rather than answer the question I asked, you simply ignored those things as if they weren't there.

[Jerry Gallo]

10 hours ago, Katniss said:

Fox news, much like CNN, typically spin the truth and leave things out to support bias political beliefs. I don't think Fox is exempt from that. Talk radio is the same.

At no point did I try and defend Fox or talk radio as being more honest or less biased than the left's institutions. I was quantifying, not qualifying. I was merely pointing out the left enjoys the benefit of significantly more media exposure than the right. Prefer to talk about what I said, rather than what you think I meant. 

[Jerry Gallo]

10 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

What? Size is an issue?

Most countries checkout what other countries are dong to better the lives of their citizens. It's not a 'template' on what you have to do, it's a model that you can adapt to suit 'your' needs.

Of course size is an issue. I have no issue with checking out what other countries are doing to better the lives of their citizens. Executing the template over 32x the people and 21x the area as if neither of those things exist as challenges is the problem we often arrive at when drilling down beyond general topics.

 

[Jerry Gallo]

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

I’m not talking about the presidency, it starts with the congress and senate. You build a voting block there and worry about the Oval Office in a decade or two 

And I appreciate your sentiment. I agree we need to address this from a local level and work our way up. The idea is that we elect local people who actually vote our conscience until we get a majority of those people to national congress. The problem is, by the time we get there, those people have morphed into either a comfort zone of high salary, cushy benefits, and outside influence or they become what they actually ae and not what they said they were. While I am quite conservative, I realize all government is bad on some level. None of them truly represent us.

 

 

 

[Katniss]

3 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

1. White nationalism...racism...nearly every ism, is the most tired slur there is. While there are certainly some ignorant people in this country where race matters in the grand scheme, there's infinitely more people using race as a talking point. Try quantifying it for people.

2. The angst the mention of God and the Bible creates amazes me. Makes me wonder, is this fear, or is it simply another obstacle to indoctrinating young people that a leftist government is their one true savior? 

3. Gay marriage legalized by fiat through an activist court. Consistency of our government is the key here. One side trying to properly go through the legislative process while the other avoids it like the plague, using judges to do their bidding. If having to choose between a traditionalist (backwards thinker) and a cheat who subverts the Constitution, I'll take the former every time...simply because they are known quantities.

4. Environmental protection regulations...yet another example of gov't eliminating an obstacle to leftist control. The tree huggers have overplayed their hand here.

5. I got benefit from the tax cut and I am FAR from upper class. Can't we be honest enough to admit we envy anyone who is doing better than us and admit punishing the wealthy is an emotional salve?

6. Another ism, another talking point. If Trump wants us out of NATO, climate change alliances, or trade agreements that offer little benefit to us, I am all for it. I would imagine most individuals do not invest in things that offer them no benefit or offend their sensibilities. The contrast is stark, I'd never ask a leftist to donate to or support the NRA or a church. But the left almost demands that I help pay for whatever makes them feel good about themselves. If you can explain that inconsistency, we might have something real to discuss.

And by the way, it is noted that rather than answer the question I asked, you simply ignored those things as if they weren't there.

 Whoops! Oh you didn't have to go through all that, but I did note your opinions on 1 thru 6, because that was not a complaint from me about the current GOP in my post. It was only what I interpreted as to what Raptor Witness may have meant with his post. I guess my question mark at the end of that post was not clear enough. I was just speculating.

Because at the time, you listed what I assume is considered to be the forward thinking part in the political ideologies of conservatism, or what you seem to think he may have only been talking about from my interpretation of your reaction? But my interpretation from his post was that he was referring to the current GOP party itself. And my attempt was to give a example list of what he may have been talking about as backwards thinking from the current GOP. Because he seems to find the current GOP distasteful and maybe not the political ideology of conservatism itself (? I really don't know). So I thought he was separating the two things and saying that the current GOP does not display the forward thinking of conservatism he likes anymore.

And I believe your question was directed at Raptor Witness only, and meanwhile I was trying to give you another possible interpretation as to what he may have meant? But I didn't know you wanted anybody to answer the question and not just Raptor Witness. But if you would like me to answer the question, yes, I do believe the previous things you listed to him is part of the political ideology of conservatism that is modern forward thinking and not backwards.

3 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

At no point did I try and defend Fox or talk radio as being more honest or less biased than the left's institutions. I was quantifying, not qualifying. I was merely pointing out the left enjoys the benefit of significantly more media exposure than the right. Prefer to talk about what I said, rather than what you think I meant. 

Whoops again! Oh you're right, my mistake. Sorry, It seems I misinterpreted your post.

[Tiggs]

On 3/26/2019 at 6:21 PM, Uncle Sam said:

Every proposition and every policy that the far left and establishment Democrats have push seems to be geared towards tearing down United States while stripping away citizens ability to fight back. I am not even kidding when I say this, but this seriously feels like an attempt to prime us for something. Either a coup with no chance of fighting back or an foreign invasion when we are caught at our weakest.

I can understand why you might feel that way.

If it helps -- there's a lot of pacifists on this side of the aisle. Can't swing a cat round here, without hitting a tree-hugging hippie.

They're much more "Peace and Love", than "Invasion and War".


Truth is -- it is entirely possible to hold different political opinions in genuinely good faith.

I'm time-crushed this weekend, but I'll share my perspective on the first.
 

On 3/26/2019 at 6:21 PM, Uncle Sam said:

New Green Deal: Design to get rid of all cars, planes, and anything that is fossil fueled combustion. Many our power plants run off fossil fuel which powers, many of our food distribution requires semi trucks, cargo planes allow us to move products from coast to coast, our boats allow us to trade outside of United States, and finally our military's vehicles require massive amounts of fossil fuel to run. This would practically leave us crippled as a nation and defenseless against any offensive strike from foreign nation. Not to mention there is many social identity politics that will seperate people into classes and making everyone unequal.

I'm going to skip the traditional climate change thing, and address your concerns directly.

Fossil fuel is currently crucial for America's survival.

From a military perspective -- fossil fuel requires an entire supply chain to produce -- and that needs protecting. We fight wars for control and/or access to supplies of it.

We fight those wars because without that fuel, then eventually, it's lights out for America.

I don't particularly like it, but it is what it is.

However -- sunlight's pretty much everywhere, in fairly abundant supply.

if the public uses more renewable energy sources, then there's less pressure on the fossil fuel supply.

And less pressure means less need for war.


It's entirely possible that renewable energy will never be powerful enough for military needs. There was a time not so long ago, it wasn't powerful enough for cars.

But soon, it'll be powerful enough for semi's. Hopefully, one day, plane's.

I don't believe anyone wants to get rid of those things. Just redesign them.


Either way -- the Green New Deal currently isn't a set of laws. It's just a list of goals and aspirations. Principles are easy. Legislating isn't.

IMO, some of it -- like 100% renewable energy generation -- looks unrealistic in a ten-year timescale.

Maybe reality will kick in and they'll come up with something more reasonable. Maybe they won't.

Can't really tell for certain, until they start showing some draft proposals.

[Jerry Gallo]

1 hour ago, Katniss said:

 Whoops! Oh you didn't have to go through all that, but I did note your opinions on 1 thru 6, because that was not a complaint from me about the current GOP in my post. It was only what I interpreted as to what Raptor Witness may have meant with his post. I guess my question mark at the end of that post was not clear enough. I was just speculating.

Because at the time, you listed what I assume is considered to be the forward thinking part in the political ideologies of conservatism, or what you seem to think he may have only been talking about from my interpretation of your reaction? But my interpretation from his post was that he was referring to the current GOP party itself. And my attempt was to give a example list of what he may have been talking about as backwards thinking from the current GOP. Because he seems to find the current GOP distasteful and maybe not the political ideology of conservatism itself (? I really don't know). So I thought he was separating the two things and saying that the current GOP does not display the forward thinking of conservatism he likes anymore.

And I believe your question was directed at Raptor Witness only, and meanwhile I was trying to give you another possible interpretation as to what he may have meant? But I didn't know you wanted anybody to answer the question and not just Raptor Witness. But if you would like me to answer the question, yes, I do believe the previous things you listed to him is part of the political ideology of conservatism that is modern forward thinking and not backwards.

Whoops again! Oh you're right, my mistake. Sorry, It seems I misinterpreted your post.

No worries, I was merely responding to the points as a leftist might make them. Except the part about ignoring the examples, I did make the mistake of making that personal...and for that I apologize. 

On the other issue, all good as well. I've never denied Fox, Rush and Hannity are 100% on the side of conservatives. The issues are that many won't admit the left's side is equally slanted and greater in volume, nor do they realize that mocking those I mentioned while pretending Maddow, Lemon and that ilk are not the exact same. 

[aztek]

Jerry Gallo, why do i know that name? oh you are that dead lawyer from my cousin Vinny, aren't you lol  

Edited March 29, 2019 by aztek

[RavenHawk]

On 3/27/2019 at 1:39 AM, ShadowSot said:

Half the US is trash, half the US is undesirables, I'm sure the way forward is clear.

The real undesirables are anyone who thinks Socialism is OK.  But the majority of those are just mislead.  A simple immersion into our history and the Founding Documents will usually correct that.  A people that do not know their history is doomed to be enslaved.  And the goal of Socialism is to enslave the people to the government.  Reference my clip “The Agenda to Destroy America” (https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/326523-opinion-i-wonder-about-democrats/?do=findComment&comment=6699320)

 

Either the US will adapt to the changing globe,

Why should we follow the rest of the world off the cliff?  Adapting is not blindly following.  We need to follow our own course. 

 

or it's destined to be only a nation of low end workers,

By keeping an open border leads to that destiny.  By allowing mass migration (low end workers) without assimilation, creates an environment where no one can advance and soon the reason for coming here no longer exists.  And this creates the conditions that these people left in the first place.  We need legal immigration by people that want to be here and are able to produce, not take.  We need people that will be good citizens.  If they break the law by their first act on this soil, they are not good citizens.  Washington stated “…whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” and “…the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”  The illegal violates these basic principles.

 

wealthy elites (who is it that keeps providing them tax breaks, exactly?)

Sounds like wealth envy.  For a group that all should aspire to and a group that pays the vast majority of the tax burden and you get hung up on tax breaks?  The rich will always get richer.  Instead of trying to take that away, we need to harness that (taxing is not harnessing).  If there are more productive people, then the taxes take care of themselves.  Instead of stealing from the rich, how do we increase the number of wealthy?

 

and lowering health standards for the average person, or increasing debt. 

Crony Capitalism (Socialism) lowers the standards.  We need to unleash the full capabilities of our system and that will raise the standards and lower debt.  The world would be jealous and follow us.  The world doesn’t much care for us because we have been trying to follow them.

 

 Europe has some mind numbing policies, but in the past we took what they did and made it better, and I believe we can again. 

Don’t you think it is time to cut the umbilical?  Let’s take what we do and make it better.  Why should we insist on pulling from Socialism?

 

While it should not be done without majority consent, the constitution is not holey writ. It must be tested, reexamined, and rebuilt to purpose. 

It has been tested.  The Constitution is a study of human nature.  Human nature does not change.  That pretty much makes it a holy writ.  The purpose of the Constitution was not to grant us rights (or keep up with the times) but to limit government and protect our Natural Rights.  Jefferson stated that “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;”  Therefore change should only be used when there is a clear need, not to just keep up with the rest of the world. 

 

One such change that I have proposed is to repeal the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments and replace them with one (1) “Citizenship Amendment”.  What we have unintentionally done is to create special interest groups in law.  This is opposite to what the Founding Fathers intended.  They intended for everyone to be treated equally.  These separate Amendments prevents that from happening.  If we don’t do this, then we could very well end up with a hundred more Amendments giving each new group its own special rights.  Soon, no one will have any rights.  Socialism uses such weaknesses to destroy us from within.  Notice that the weaknesses Socialism is most active in is past changes and not the original work. 

 

 The founders had no intent of spreading out of power.

Spreading out of power was one of their main concerns.  The Constitution would not have been ratified if the separation of powers were not foremost.  You need to read some of the Federalist/anti-Federalist papers and biographies of the Founders.

 

They were wealthy, land owning men and they intended to keep it that way.

The separation of powers would assure that they were able to keep their land and businesses.  It would be under the tyranny of Socialism that they would need to worry.  There is no reason why everyone can’t be an entrepreneur.  It’s the Plantation mentality espoused by Socialism that creates a stumbling block to that.

 

In some cases to the detriment of the country, as we saw later with the Civil War. 

An uneducated comment about Slavery?  Slavery was not the evil institution back then that we think of it today.  Before the Industrial Revolution, Slavery was the foundation of the world’s economies.  It didn’t change because it was evil.  It changed because it was no longer needed. 

 

I think that the stigma of Slavery was that it was the Black Africans that were the last race that it occurred to.  12 million captured by Muslins and sold to Dutch and English merchants to work in the diseased infested heat of the New World.  Out of those 12 million only about 400 hundred thousand made it to the American colonies and those had flourished to 4 million by the end of the Civil War. 

 

Was it worth it?  It is entirely up to the individual.  Historically, we can collectively look at how the Black race has enriched American Exceptionalism in music and science, and in courage.  Every race that has come here has struggled and sacrificed, including the White race.  Every struggle was different, some harsher than others, but we struggle together.  And that document the Founding Fathers devised allows us to struggle together and unite.  All we need to do is follow Washington’s advice.

[Jerry Gallo]

3 hours ago, aztek said:

Jerry Gallo, why do i know that name? oh you are that dead lawyer from my cousin Vinny, aren't you lol  

I can neither confirm or deny, regardless of what you may hear from the two utes.

[Uncle Sam]

10 hours ago, Tiggs said:

I can understand why you might feel that way.

If it helps -- there's a lot of pacifists on this side of the aisle. Can't swing a cat round here, without hitting a tree-hugging hippie.

They're much more "Peace and Love", than "Invasion and War".


Truth is -- it is entirely possible to hold different political opinions in genuinely good faith.

I'm time-crushed this weekend, but I'll share my perspective on the first.
 

I'm going to skip the traditional climate change thing, and address your concerns directly.

Fossil fuel is currently crucial for America's survival.

From a military perspective -- fossil fuel requires an entire supply chain to produce -- and that needs protecting. We fight wars for control and/or access to supplies of it.

We fight those wars because without that fuel, then eventually, it's lights out for America.

I don't particularly like it, but it is what it is.

However -- sunlight's pretty much everywhere, in fairly abundant supply.

if the public uses more renewable energy sources, then there's less pressure on the fossil fuel supply.

And less pressure means less need for war.


It's entirely possible that renewable energy will never be powerful enough for military needs. There was a time not so long ago, it wasn't powerful enough for cars.

But soon, it'll be powerful enough for semi's. Hopefully, one day, plane's.

I don't believe anyone wants to get rid of those things. Just redesign them.


Either way -- the Green New Deal currently isn't a set of laws. It's just a list of goals and aspirations. Principles are easy. Legislating isn't.

IMO, some of it -- like 100% renewable energy generation -- looks unrealistic in a ten-year timescale.

Maybe reality will kick in and they'll come up with something more reasonable. Maybe they won't.

Can't really tell for certain, until they start showing some draft proposals.

What could be reasonable is putting money into innovation instead of just completely wrecking economy and military. I am all for putting funds into creating alternative source of energy. Let natural innovation happen, while giving it a gentle push with funds. Forcing things doesn't end well for anyone, because someone has to force others and that type of power is abused.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Uncle Sam

[Jerry Gallo]

19 hours ago, Tiggs said:

I can understand why you might feel that way.

If it helps -- there's a lot of pacifists on this side of the aisle. Can't swing a cat round here, without hitting a tree-hugging hippie.

They're much more "Peace and Love", than "Invasion and War".


Truth is -- it is entirely possible to hold different political opinions in genuinely good faith.

I'm time-crushed this weekend, but I'll share my perspective on the first.
 

I'm going to skip the traditional climate change thing, and address your concerns directly.

Fossil fuel is currently crucial for America's survival.

From a military perspective -- fossil fuel requires an entire supply chain to produce -- and that needs protecting. We fight wars for control and/or access to supplies of it.

We fight those wars because without that fuel, then eventually, it's lights out for America.

I don't particularly like it, but it is what it is.

However -- sunlight's pretty much everywhere, in fairly abundant supply.

if the public uses more renewable energy sources, then there's less pressure on the fossil fuel supply.

And less pressure means less need for war.


It's entirely possible that renewable energy will never be powerful enough for military needs. There was a time not so long ago, it wasn't powerful enough for cars.

But soon, it'll be powerful enough for semi's. Hopefully, one day, plane's.

I don't believe anyone wants to get rid of those things. Just redesign them.


Either way -- the Green New Deal currently isn't a set of laws. It's just a list of goals and aspirations. Principles are easy. Legislating isn't.

IMO, some of it -- like 100% renewable energy generation -- looks unrealistic in a ten-year timescale.

Maybe reality will kick in and they'll come up with something more reasonable. Maybe they won't.

Can't really tell for certain, until they start showing some draft proposals.

Good post!

The one tenet of capitalism is that if you have a product that is desired/needed and is as cost effective and efficient as the previous version, someone will come along and perfect it and make a ton of money doing so. Because people will buy it in spite of their politics if it saves them money.

Look at light bulbs. We had the incandescent bulbs for decades. Then someone came along with the swirly CFL bulbs, which morphed into LED's. The early versions of the replacements came with two marketed advantages...more efficient and lasted longer. Problem with the CFL's is that they were more expensive than they were longer lasting, you couldn't dim them, they took a bit to reach full brightness (which seldom matched the incandescent) and they contained small amounts of mercury. Then LED's came out solving many of those problems, taking a bit of time to balance the longevity with the cost. Currently, for all intents and purposes, you are getting your bang for your buck with a more efficient, longer lasting bulb and within a year or two, will likely be your only option save for some specialty bulbs. 

Fast forward to fossil fuels and push aside the purely political aspects, one day we may be a world ran on renewable. But it will not happen until it can, as you said, safely fuel our commercial jets for a practical price. Fuel our homes without limitation of outages. It isn't as though all the successful entrepreneurs can't crack the code of renewable, they just can't offer it profitably, safely or efficiently right now. I am sure we'll get there, just unsure when (decades I'd guess).

The issue with fossil versus renewable, as you obviously know, is that for the most part, it was never intended as a capitalist venture to find a more efficient product. As Uncle Sam has noted, renewable was attached to the climate change hysteria to make some folks (Gore, Solyndra, etc) some crazy money for no real return to the buyer and to scare some folks into supporting those peddling the "damnation of the globe" phenomenon. It was also used for punitive purposes against big oil, because let's face it, what better way to pander to leftists, especially environmentalists, than to punish the greedy oil industry while marginalizing them as trying to kill the planet?!

I don't think most of us crave fossil fuels as the sole provider of energy as much as we just don't see them as the devil incarnate. When one looks at the progression of the GW/climate change hoax (as they sold it, it was a hoax, even as there may be some coincidental truth in there), the faulty, doctored scientific results, the lies told in the e-mail scandal, the gov't funding the science which perpetuates the funding circle jerk, the failed prediction of doom time and again...the path to renewable didn't occur organically like the light bulb did. That said, if someone said in some small way, the hoax perpetuated the path to LED bulbs, I might stipulate. There just wasn't the needless force like Uncle astutely pointed to. 

My dream, is that one day a company will decide it's finally time to get focused and perfect renewable while transitioning out of fossil. They will enjoy record revenues and profits, while receiving gov't subsidies and enduring very modest profit margins, while paying their CEO $50M a year for padding the 401k's of hard working Americans with a desired/needed  product that is more cost effective, efficient and safer for the environment. When the left realizes at the end of the dream that the company's name is Exxon, who is now giving them what they've demanded for decades, I want to see if the hypocrisy flows on the talking points, much like it does today when they ignore the "greed" of Microsoft and Apple because they just can't tie them to their political activism and their CEO's often side with them politically.

[Jerry Gallo]

18 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The real undesirables are anyone who thinks Socialism is OK.  But the majority of those are just mislead.  A simple immersion into our history and the Founding Documents will usually correct that.  A people that do not know their history is doomed to be enslaved.  And the goal of Socialism is to enslave the people to the government.  Reference my clip “The Agenda to Destroy America” (https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/326523-opinion-i-wonder-about-democrats/?do=findComment&comment=6699320)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why should we follow the rest of the world off the cliff?  Adapting is not blindly following.  We need to follow our own course. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By keeping an open border leads to that destiny.  By allowing mass migration (low end workers) without assimilation, creates an environment where no one can advance and soon the reason for coming here no longer exists.  And this creates the conditions that these people left in the first place.  We need legal immigration by people that want to be here and are able to produce, not take.  We need people that will be good citizens.  If they break the law by their first act on this soil, they are not good citizens.  Washington stated “…whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” and “…the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”  The illegal violates these basic principles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like wealth envy.  For a group that all should aspire to and a group that pays the vast majority of the tax burden and you get hung up on tax breaks?  The rich will always get richer.  Instead of trying to take that away, we need to harness that (taxing is not harnessing).  If there are more productive people, then the taxes take care of themselves.  Instead of stealing from the rich, how do we increase the number of wealthy?

 

 

 

 

 

Crony Capitalism (Socialism) lowers the standards.  We need to unleash the full capabilities of our system and that will raise the standards and lower debt.  The world would be jealous and follow us.  The world doesn’t much care for us because we have been trying to follow them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don’t you think it is time to cut the umbilical?  Let’s take what we do and make it better.  Why should we insist on pulling from Socialism?

 

 

 

 

 

It has been tested.  The Constitution is a study of human nature.  Human nature does not change.  That pretty much makes it a holy writ.  The purpose of the Constitution was not to grant us rights (or keep up with the times) but to limit government and protect our Natural Rights.  Jefferson stated that “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;”  Therefore change should only be used when there is a clear need, not to just keep up with the rest of the world. 

 

 

 

One such change that I have proposed is to repeal the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments and replace them with one (1) “Citizenship Amendment”.  What we have unintentionally done is to create special interest groups in law.  This is opposite to what the Founding Fathers intended.  They intended for everyone to be treated equally.  These separate Amendments prevents that from happening.  If we don’t do this, then we could very well end up with a hundred more Amendments giving each new group its own special rights.  Soon, no one will have any rights.  Socialism uses such weaknesses to destroy us from within.  Notice that the weaknesses Socialism is most active in is past changes and not the original work. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spreading out of power was one of their main concerns.  The Constitution would not have been ratified if the separation of powers were not foremost.  You need to read some of the Federalist/anti-Federalist papers and biographies of the Founders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The separation of powers would assure that they were able to keep their land and businesses.  It would be under the tyranny of Socialism that they would need to worry.  There is no reason why everyone can’t be an entrepreneur.  It’s the Plantation mentality espoused by Socialism that creates a stumbling block to that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

An uneducated comment about Slavery?  Slavery was not the evil institution back then that we think of it today.  Before the Industrial Revolution, Slavery was the foundation of the world’s economies.  It didn’t change because it was evil.  It changed because it was no longer needed. 

 

 

 

I think that the stigma of Slavery was that it was the Black Africans that were the last race that it occurred to.  12 million captured by Muslins and sold to Dutch and English merchants to work in the diseased infested heat of the New World.  Out of those 12 million only about 400 hundred thousand made it to the American colonies and those had flourished to 4 million by the end of the Civil War. 

 

 

 

Was it worth it?  It is entirely up to the individual.  Historically, we can collectively look at how the Black race has enriched American Exceptionalism in music and science, and in courage.  Every race that has come here has struggled and sacrificed, including the White race.  Every struggle was different, some harsher than others, but we struggle together.  And that document the Founding Fathers devised allows us to struggle together and unite.  All we need to do is follow Washington’s advice.

 

A "like" wasn't enough, this is a fantastic post!

[Jerry Gallo]

10 hours ago, Uncle Sam said:

What could be reasonable is putting money into innovation instead of just completely wrecking economy and military. I am all for putting funds into creating alternative source of energy. Let natural innovation happen, while giving it a gentle push with funds. Forcing things doesn't end well for anyone, because someone has to force others and that type of power is abused.

Spot on!

Another issue is conditioning, something the left is great at. We concede a little, that's the new norm as they ask for more. Pretty soon, we morph from "we can't have a woman having a back alley abortion with a rusty coat hanger" to "let's harvest and sell body parts" and "he's only a couple days old with severe defects, it okay to kill him". We can no longer concede without getting something in return, especially when only doing so to appear more moderate or to appease moderates who demand concession from only one side.

Indoctrination of young people via gov't run schools and conditioning of the citizenry (via the media and admired celebrities) that pays no attention or lacks the intellect to know what their government is doing is the battle we now face. Rhetoric wins the day, silence is the great Achilles. The flaw in Conservatism is that most who represent it at Fox and talk radio are too busy trying to replicate the sensationalism of their opposition, rather than taking a step back and demanding answers to tough questions. They should focus on exposing the playbook, how the left has deftly rigged the system in their favor. Instead, the right side's politicos and pundits spend all their time apologizing and playing defense or making a name for themselves. If Trump has represented any true message, it's "stop playing by someone else's rules and losing". 

[Gummug]

On 3/27/2019 at 11:00 AM, South Alabam said:

Well look at AOC and the threat she poses.

AOC threatens to put moderate Dems ‘on a list’ to be targeted by activists during 2020 primaries

https://www.westernjournal.com/hermancain/aoc-threatens-put-moderate-dems-list-targeted-activists-2020-primaries/

Congress represents the district they are elected from. This is why they have votes. Just because they may not vote with their party on every issue, they become "targets." Now , you seriously imagine this freshman piece of trash in a real position of power.  Say goodbye to freedom as you know it.

What is scary imo is that she ever got elected to begin with. And how many Democrats seem to be okay with her agenda. Getting rid of cows? Getting rid of air travel? I am sure though the elite Congressmen will have access to it  (and to guns no doubt).

[Raptor Witness]

On 3/28/2019 at 7:05 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

LOL, the Stone Age huh? Enforcing laws, showing deference to innocent, law abiding people, asking people to be responsible for themselves...that's backwards thinking?

White collar criminals, who brag that they can get away with murder, are not my idea of law abiding, responsible, citizens. 

Trump was wearing a suicide vest, and he walked straight into the heart of the GOP.  The only reason you didn't hear the explosion, is because you're already in purgatory, and don't realize it yet.

 

[+DieChecker]

7 hours ago, Raptor Witness said:

The only reason you didn't hear the explosion, is because you're already in purgatory, and don't realize it yet.

Nahhh... It was because the dynamite was actually bits of wood. No crime was then found to have happened, and we're supposed to get over it and move on, but many still are scared that his bits of wood are going to explode.

[Jerry Gallo]

10 hours ago, Raptor Witness said:

White collar criminals, who brag that they can get away with murder, are not my idea of law abiding, responsible, citizens. 

Trump was wearing a suicide vest, and he walked straight into the heart of the GOP.  The only reason you didn't hear the explosion, is because you're already in purgatory, and don't realize it yet.

 

Interesting that you take exception to Trump's use of meaningless hyperbole by using equally meaningless hyperbole. Do you have any tangible, specific items to discuss, or is this just a spot for you to vent your emotions?

[Jerry Gallo]

11 hours ago, Gummug said:

What is scary imo is that she ever got elected to begin with. And how many Democrats seem to be okay with her agenda. Getting rid of cows? Getting rid of air travel? I am sure though the elite Congressmen will have access to it  (and to guns no doubt).

Sterling observation here! 

AOC is proof that either her supporters are lazy and pay no real attention to finding truth or they just don't care about truth so long as she is one of theirs and in power. To whit...

AOC said "They had to amend the Constitution to make sure that Roosevelt did not get re-elected."

Roosevelt won his fourth term in November of 1944. He died in April of 1945. Congress approved the 22nd Amendment in March of 1947 and it was ratified by the states in February of 1951. So, as she so often does, she plays fast and loose with an issue and adjusts the facts to turn them into a sound byte the unaware supporters likely won't check out. 

In the Congress that approved, 47 Democrat representatives and 16 Democrat senators voted in favor of term limits. And Truman, the sitting President at the time, was not subject to the amendment, so "they" didn't prevent one of "hers" from being re-elected. Presdiential term limits weren't a unique thing, they were discussed by Washington and Jefferson historically. And while a few tried unsuccessfully for a third term (Grant comes to mind), the country stood by the tradition of two terms until FDR.

Ultimately, AOC is telling people how much the radical left craves power and once they have it, they think they should be able to keep it. Many on both sides of the political aisle have offered repeal of the 22nd Amendment with zero success. Polling done in 2018 indicates a high majority of Americans (82%) want term limits for Congress, including 76% of Democrat voters. So, thankfully, her lies likely amount to p***ing into the wind. Much like Hillary who was named after Sir Edmund, AOC is so brash she doesn't even try to hide her attempts at revisionist history. But Trump tweets, so her lies are justified in the minds of some. 

 

[Jerry Gallo]

Just another example of a biased liberal outlet who relies on social media innuendo over facts. Love to see a poll of Newsweek readers who read this article and believed it. And another of hard core leftists who have no problem with dishonest journalism so long as it favors their side.By any means necessary I suppose!

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-attacked-twitter-constitutional-mistake-was-she-1381693?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=NewsweekTwitter&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true