The Green New Deal is out; most Orwellian Socialist garbage I have ever seen

a reply to: Wayfarer
Does that really matter. You do not know my worth PERIOD. But you snide little leftist I hope you get what you want.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

Can't watch vids with sound at work, so I'll take your word for it and watch it later tonight.

Regarding your example, what you're using is hyperbole because from your vantage her recommendations are 500 billion absurd (in part I suspect founded from your own personal political opinions on renewables), whereas from my vantage (and previous mention of other nations achieving similar goals to what she's stated already) its really not that far-fetched.

Just because another nation did something doesn't mean it's feasible for the United States to do it, or vice versa. For example, some smaller nations couldn't possibly put out the GNP we do in a year. They're not large enough and don't have the population or the resources to do it. I know that's not the same thing, it's just an example of how a country's ability to do x, y or z can be impacted by many factors. It doesn't mean those countries are lazy or lack the will to do it.

Sure, this is a valid point, and I'm not so brazen as to imply we're identical to any other country. Merely the fact that it has been done though is a datapoint in her favor when assessing the feasibility of her New Green Deal.

When you yourself acknowledge that just because another country did it doesn't mean we can do it, that's not very positive for her. It's a hair more solid than "I think we can do this".

Now you're just being obtuse without offering a counter-argument. All I acknowledged was that you are correct insomuch as all nations are unique in their own ways. The point you misconstrued was the fact that it has been done means it is possible, not that because its been done in other countries its still silly (because the US isn't other countries).

I already offered a counter-point. Unless they can demonstrate this is achievable in the US, it's pointless. I doubt it is.

How pray tell would they demonstrate it if Conservative legislators are insistent it wouldn't work and wouldn't let them try?

You're not serious are you?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

That's what Trump does. Same tactic when negotiating and you and your ilk are all over him for it.

Now it's a good thing?

And no that's not what this muppet is doing. These are the LOW end of her targets. If shes saying 70% she wants 85%.

The plan is pure government takeover of everything. 100% Communist.

What propels these initiatives is best reflected in this article:
hbr.org...

The world’s scientists sound a final alarm on climate

We have about 12 years left. That’s the clear message from a monumental study from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It wasn’t just the IPCC that told a stark story. Thirteen U.S. government agencies issued the U.S. National Climate Assessment, which concluded that climate change could knock at least 10% off of GDP. Other studies tell us that sea level rise is going to be worse than we thought, Antarctica is melting three times faster than a decade ago, and Greenland is losing ice quickly as well. If both those ice sheets go, sea level rise could reach 200-plus feet, resulting in utter devastation, including the loss of the entire Atlantic seaboard (Boston, New York, D.C., etc.), all of Florida, London, Stockholm, Denmark, Paraguay, and land now inhabited by more than 1 billion Asians).

So.......what is the fix?


I can't believe people still buy the crap the IPCC still spews out. Their credibility was toast after ClimateGate and the East Anglia hack which showed that the entire basis for this ideology is rooted in doctored info and lies.

What a joke.

a reply to: Carcharadon

I thought that poster was joking. It was like their post was going out of the way to be as absurd as possible.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
Ok, wtf???

They stripped 90% of the stuff I liked from the first draft.

I still like the infrastructure fixing.

building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid; upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water; funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases; making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.

But I don't like that it calls for tax money to be spent in trying to hurt the current energy providers. Better in my opinion to just slowly make the modern upgrades in our infrastructure and let the economy decide.

Balance is what we need and that is what I think I see in your post here we all should consider. Can't destroy society over a fairy tale. Besides, how many times over the last 20 years or so has a member of the lying Cabal said it is almost too late ACT NOW? Al Gore, and a few prominent others for sure. Then the Media gladly repeats the story shaming 'deniers'. Orwell's vision played out.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Carcharadon

I thought that poster was joking. It was like their post was going out of the way to be as absurd as possible.

Yeah I wasn't sure either but I wanted to throw out the East Anglia hack and point out the joke that is the IPCC because the East Anhlia stuff has all bit disappeared down the memory hole like it never happened.

But if one reads up on it, the original clowns that lead this Global Warming crap admit kn their own words and emails that the info that was being used was doctored and all lies.

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Carcharadon

I thought that poster was joking. It was like their post was going out of the way to be as absurd as possible.

Yeah I wasn't sure either but I wanted to throw out the East Anglia hack and point out the joke that is the IPCC because the East Anhlia stuff has all bit disappeared down the memory hole like it never happened.

But if one reads up on it, the original clowns that lead this Global Warming crap admit kn their own words and emails that the info that was being used was doctored and all lies.

The true believers will never let it go.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: projectvxn
Clearly written by people who don't understand the law,

Clearly written by people who don't understand 1984.

Or more likely people that understand it perfectly well.And liked what they read, hoping it would be how it became the way governments worked.

Pardon my correction. I meant well.

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

That's what Trump does. Same tactic when negotiating and you and your ilk are all over him for it.

Now it's a good thing?

And no that's not what this muppet is doing. These are the LOW end of her targets. If shes saying 70% she wants 85%.

The plan is pure government takeover of everything. 100% Communist.

You speak with authority as if you are the arbiter of AOC's thoughts on the matter, which is rather presumptuous of you.

Its furthermore presumptuous to think that I am/was all over Trump for that negotiation tactic (which is untrue, and I welcome you to find/quote where I was - something you can't do).

Lastly, why the name calling? She can't hear you (as if calling her names like some super 3rd grade bully was actually going to affect her). Don't you have the capacity for more eloquence than such childishness?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

Can't watch vids with sound at work, so I'll take your word for it and watch it later tonight.

Regarding your example, what you're using is hyperbole because from your vantage her recommendations are 500 billion absurd (in part I suspect founded from your own personal political opinions on renewables), whereas from my vantage (and previous mention of other nations achieving similar goals to what she's stated already) its really not that far-fetched.

Just because another nation did something doesn't mean it's feasible for the United States to do it, or vice versa. For example, some smaller nations couldn't possibly put out the GNP we do in a year. They're not large enough and don't have the population or the resources to do it. I know that's not the same thing, it's just an example of how a country's ability to do x, y or z can be impacted by many factors. It doesn't mean those countries are lazy or lack the will to do it.

Sure, this is a valid point, and I'm not so brazen as to imply we're identical to any other country. Merely the fact that it has been done though is a datapoint in her favor when assessing the feasibility of her New Green Deal.

When you yourself acknowledge that just because another country did it doesn't mean we can do it, that's not very positive for her. It's a hair more solid than "I think we can do this".

Now you're just being obtuse without offering a counter-argument. All I acknowledged was that you are correct insomuch as all nations are unique in their own ways. The point you misconstrued was the fact that it has been done means it is possible, not that because its been done in other countries its still silly (because the US isn't other countries).

I already offered a counter-point. Unless they can demonstrate this is achievable in the US, it's pointless. I doubt it is.

How pray tell would they demonstrate it if Conservative legislators are insistent it wouldn't work and wouldn't let them try?

You're not serious are you?

I genuinely want to hear you explanation.

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: Wayfarer
Does that really matter. You do not know my worth PERIOD. But you snide little leftist I hope you get what you want.

I posited it because while it sounds like you're infuriated at being taxed to death, its extremely unlikely you make enough money to be affected at all by AOC's proposed tax increases.

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: Wayfarer


I would say that 20-30 years is the more likely target, considering the state the current grid is in, and the marketplace itself as providers will only invest so much of their bottom line on improving their products and services. Also if they do make that investment, your utility bill will go higher, which is why I'm building my house as a 100% off grid system from the get-go. Saves me money in the long run, although I'm sure that when this becomes the norm they'll find some way to tax the sun, wind, and water.

I am in agreement with this assessment. I agree its a lofty target and likely several times longer in timescale than whats stated. My opinion is she's aiming at an exceptional goal merely because that is more effective than a minor goal (especially with a large segment of the population/government firmly against green energy).

a reply to: Wayfarer

She listens to people on Twitter 😀

and she's easily triggered 😅

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Wayfarer

She listens to people on Twitter 😀

and she's easily triggered 😅

Well, she responds to trolls who try and get to her on twitter, sure, though I'd argue she's #ing Maverick with snappy retorts (rather than being triggered - but potato, potahto)

Of course, ATS is not twitter, so my original point still stands.

a reply to: Grambler

See this is what happen people you let your children grow up listening to man bear pig and they get all cereal and go to Congress and make idiotic legislation because they believed in manbearpig. But cerealy all this boils down to is a bunch of crap they want to do to fight global warming which by the way if it was true should have East coast in visible range of my location by now is just some pseudoscience bull poop. Thank God al Gore did not get elected gas would probably have a 2 dollar a gallon tax on it.

I read that this will be paid for by having a 70% tax on the rich. I thought the rich were also going to pay for free college for all, free medical for all, all the while still having the best military in the world and large social welfare programs for those who "can't" find work. I wonder what world they live in and how did they get there and how are they a force in our world.

a reply to: Justoneman

I believe that climate change is real.

I don't know what is causing it but I do think humans have a roll.

Personally I care more about pollution than I do about warming, cooling, or even increased storms.

American infrastructure needs repair and a modern upgrade.

But we don't need the government having more power to mess with private citizens. Be that in their personal lives or their business.

The only exception I have is with pollution.
I do not believe that co2 is a pollutant. A pollutant in my opinion is a chemical that has no value to nature.

But even in the case of pollution I don't want government having ultimate authority over anyone.

The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall recognize that innovative public and other financing structures are a crucial component in achieving and furthering the goals and guidelines relating to social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership set forth in paragraphs

WTF does any of this have to do with working towards a greener planet, besides the fact she wants me to be financially creative to fund it? What are these "other" financing structures she speaks of? That statement seems pretty ambiguous for something so crucial to the success of her circus. Of course, as she stated, the rest of it would be government funded.

The paydirt for me is that I get to become part owner in the advancement of someones goals and guidelines they've written for me, that I now need to follow.

I've always had a warm spot in my heart for crazy girls in the past, but she's nucking futs.

Hell yeah, sign me up girl.

a reply to: Grambler

The green deal may well be garbage.

Ideology causes people to see life through tinted glasses not clear glasses.

It creates and good and bad way of thinking but that's how the powers that should not be want things to be.

They want to get all small time insignificant nobodies like you and me to think along the lines of "this world would be perfect if only my side of politics was in power forever" Its only ever this other mob that stuffs things up.

IMO this is very very unwise. this just makes it very very easy to manipulate each person who thinks like that.