SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsPolitics for Conservatives


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Alan Smithee who wrote (110875)6/14/2022 2:14:00 PM
From: HairBall
   of 112611
 
Alan Smithee,

I hope you are right and that holds true...

Regards,
HairBall

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: HairBall who wrote (110876)6/14/2022 2:58:50 PM
From: John Carragher
   of 112611
 
a young couple from upstate ny rented for a year below us. the purpose to get their children in a school that teaches children. One in second grade and one in the forth grade. He remained in ny working while she got the kids into school . she was driving 16 mile twice a day to give her children a chance of getting an education. the year is up and before leaving for my six months up north they had made up their minds and were looking to buy a house near the area where the school is located.

i assume many of those relocating are looking for a place to live where the government doesn't take control over them.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: HairBall who wrote (110873)6/14/2022 3:06:11 PM
From: DMaA
2 Recommendations   of 112611
 
So everyone who dies in San Fransisco goes to hell? I must disagree.

And remember God was willing to save them all if Abraham could have found just 10 righteous men. 10 good men could have saved the cities.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: DMaA who wrote (110878)6/14/2022 4:08:48 PM
From: HairBall
   of 112611
 
DMaA,

Do not put words in my mouth. I learned a long time ago, you cannot change most peoples mind. Let's agree to disagree...

Regards,
HairBall

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: HairBall who wrote (110879)6/14/2022 4:16:08 PM
From: DMaA
   of 112611
 
Ok, and to the most profound degree.

Let's agree to disagree...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: DMaA who wrote (110880)6/14/2022 6:03:09 PM
From: Bill
2 Recommendations   of 112611
 
I love when people kiss and make up. Now give each other a cupcake...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Bill who wrote (110881)6/14/2022 6:24:18 PM
From: J.B.C.
   of 112611
 
BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, ENERGY POLICY, ENVIRONMENT, FREE SPEECH
DEMS WANT TO BAN TELLING THE TRUTH
In a virtual Axios event on Thursday, Gina McCarthy, Joe Biden’s top climate official, urged tech companies to suppress truthful information about climate issues:

“The tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation,” she told Axios’ Alexi McCammond at a virtual event that aired Thursday.
“We need the tech companies to really jump in,” McCarthy said.


“Really jump in” means to ban, suspend, delete and censor views on climate issues different from those of the Biden administration’s extremists, like McCarthy.

McCarthy said that overall, the problem of disinformation has shifted from disputing the reality of climate change…

No one has disputed the “reality of climate change.” The climate has been changing for millions of years, and will continue changing as long as the Earth exists and has an atmosphere. The issue is not climate change per se, but rather the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming that is in dispute. On that issue, the realists are winning out over the alarmists.



…to inaccurate claims about the feasibility and benefits of moving away from fossil fuels.
***
“Now, the challenge really is, how do we accelerate the solutions we have available to us, the technology improvements that we’ve seen that are most cost-effective, in fact cost-competitive with fossil fuels.



…to inaccurate claims about the feasibility and benefits of moving away from fossil fuels.
***
“Now, the challenge really is, how do we accelerate the solutions we have available to us, the technology improvements that we’ve seen that are most cost-effective, in fact cost-competitive with fossil fuels.

“And what the [oil] industry is now doing is seeding, basically, doubt about the costs associated with that and whether they work or not.”



First of all, the claim that “green” energy technologies are “cost-competitive with fossil fuels” is ridiculous. If that were true, then there would be no need for subsidies and mandates–measures that the likes of Gina McCarthy will defend to the death. And energy bills across the country would not be rising rapidly as more wind and solar energy are added to the grid.

And McCarthy doesn’t like talk about “the costs associated with that” because the costs of the administration’s green dreams are in fact ruinous. The impact of high energy prices that we are now seeing is only a drop in the bucket compared with the economic and human disaster that will unfold if the “green transition” actually proceeds. But the Biden administration wants all such discussion censored from social media and from the internet (at least to the extent that Google controls the internet).

Finally, “whether they work or not”–whether the “green” measures proposed by environmentalists would actually have a significant impact on global temperatures–is another sensitive point for the administration. It is sensitive because, on any competent scientific evaluation, the administration’s proposals (and those of any environmental group you care to name) will not “work.” Their impact on climate will not be discernible. Far from being “misinformation,” that is scientific fact that the administration does not even attempt to rebut.

We have here a form of McCarthyism–we could call it Gina McCarthyism–far more dangerous and irrational than the McCarthyism of the 1950s. The Biden administration wants to suppress the dissemination of scientific facts and arguments not because they are wrong, which would be bad enough, but because they are right. And because they are right, they promise to destroy public support for the Green New Deal. The combination of economic and human ruin with suppression of free speech is as contemptible a combination of government policies as one can imagine.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: J.B.C. who wrote (110882)6/14/2022 6:29:00 PM
From: DMaA
   of 112611
 
Policy differences = lies.

"I don't want to hear anymore of these lies about reckless spending." Brandon


He's been lying so long and so constantly, he has forgotten what a lie is.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: DMaA who wrote (110883)6/14/2022 6:59:25 PM
From: J.B.C.
   of 112611
 
Did he ever know any truths?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: J.B.C. who wrote (110884)6/14/2022 7:11:05 PM
From: DMaA
1 Recommendation   of 112611
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, sknxxxz phizle boop You know, the thing.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10