Posted on 05/18/2014 5:14:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
Von wrote: Here's a clue, John, about the cost for climate change in the near future: PUBLIC WORKS! I should thank you since I'm going to be really busy. Unfortunately many places won't be able to pay for the costs so lots of people will die. --Settled Science Brakes Into Cold Sweat
Dear Comrade Von,
Wow, it's a wonder that I'm not deaf.
CAP LOCKS ARE ONLY FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.
Truthfully, it looks like you have nothing but time since you’re writing here arguing with a guy who's never going to agree with you anyway.
Part of it is ideological. And part of it is neurological.
I think there's something wrong with your brain.
Because I'm not exactly sure what public works has to do with climate change; but then I'm not sure what climate change has to do with global warming. Tell me: are they still the same thing?
I missed the last UN report on climate change, so I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean these days.
On the other hand, let's talk about your brain damage: you could have some rare form of Tourette's where you shout out civil phrases like: POLICE CAR! Or AMBULANCE! Or CITY HALL!
Many places won't be able to pay for the cost of what? Climate change? Public works?
Many places can't pay for the costs of public works now.
But here's the thing: After 30 years of doomsday predictions about people dying from global warming, I don't think you can point to one documented death from so-called warming.
People die every year from heat prostration. But fewer people die from it than they did 100 years ago. And you want to give up all of that progress that we've made, just at a time when developing economies need the same amenities that developed economies have.
I can guarantee you that denying these developing economies cheap and reliable sources of energy have already led to deaths.
How many people you think die every day because certain countries don't have enough police officers, police cars or ambulances? If you were truly worried about the people you say you worry about you to address that problem today, rather than worrying about some mythical future that's always 30 years away.
Wendal wrote: Just shows we need to get rid of oil period and just have renewables. Then we wouldn't have to worry about derailments or leaking pipe lines.-- Another Oil Train Explodes in Town; River Contaminated: Who Wants Keystone Now?
Dear Comrade Wendal,
Yes and we wouldn't have to worry about hospitals, or keeping lights on after dark on public streets, or adequate food distribution to urban centers. And since people wouldn't be able to go to doctors offices, or schools, or grocery stores, think of all the time that we'd save-- so that we could just stay home and cook dinner!
Sheldon wrote: I must say off the top that I had always been an admirer of your writing, and to some extent, your abilities as a fellow financial advisor. Imagine my having been surprised by your comment about the Pharisees being distinguishable from their stench.-- Ukraine.com? Better Hurry
Dear Sheldon,
The other definition of Pharisee is a hypocrite, self righteous, sanctimonious. I'm sorry that you think I meant Jews in general, or Pharisees as representatives of Jews. I'm not anti-Semetic. It's akin to me using the term Jesuitical, as in sly, crafty, equivocation.
I have a great deal of respect for Jews, grew up in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. My first serious girlfriend was Jewish as have been several others, I've been been to Temple and Seder dinner several times.
You misunderstand my meaning. I just recently wrote a piece about arming Jews in Ukraine. I'm a friend of Israel's, etc, etc.
Don't paint me as an anti-Semite, because that's not what I meant. I think the causal way in which people look for offense is a terrible tragedy of the modern world.
Van1man wrote: Well, not really. Bush's war was Iraq. Afghanistan, which Bush chose to mostly ignore, is America's war. Remember we went there to retaliate for 9-11? We went to Iraq, well the list is of reasons too long for this forum, it changed a lot, sometimes daily. And before you call me a lefty, pinko, peacenik, my solution to Afghanistan all those years ago? Nuke em, discourage the next guy from messing with us. -- Geithner Confirms Obama's a Liar, Again, and Again, and Again
Dear Comrade Crazy,
Nuke ‘em, huh?
We didn't go to Afghanistan to retaliate for 9/11.
We went to Afghanistan in order to deny Al Qaeda operating bases with which they can launch attacks on the United States and other countries.
While to simple minds, like Pres. Obama's, it might've seemed that Bush was ignoring Afghanistan, the truth is that Bush was sticking to the original mission of keeping the US footprint as small as possible, while maintaining the capability of denying the enemy room to operate.
We were very successful in this.
Since Obama has taken over they've widen the war. Over 70% of the U.S. casualties have happened since Obama surged troops into Afghanistan.
I agree that Iraq was Bush's war. But it was my war too. And yes the administration didn't often do the best job explaining why we were there, but it's hard to take criticism seriously from a guy who truly believes that we should've nuked Afghanistan, as a better policy alternative to what we did.
I would never call you a lefty, pinko, peacenik; but I might seriously call you Comrade Crazy.
Of course nuking Afghanistan is over the top.
But how about defoliating the poppy crops?
Our satellites and drones must have mapped every location they are cultivated in the godforsaken country by now.
And since we are pulling out — eradicating their opium is the right thing to do as we leave.
I get so incredibly tired of this same thing appearing over and over, every day and night in the MSM. / bitter sarc
(Facepalm) This person has the right to vote!?!
I think the causal way in which people look for offense is a terrible tragedy of the modern world.
/echo
We are so screwed.
eradicating their opium is the right thing to do as we leave.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doing this would cause starvation for many families in that nation.
When it comes to the War on Drugs the Libertarians are right.
“eradicating their opium is the right thing to do as we leave.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doing this would cause starvation for many families in that nation.”
Eliminating the slave trade may have starved the families of many of the low-level workers involved in the trade. Which would have been worse, starving the workers’ families or supporting slavery?
Some tough questions have no easy answer.
That's too bad, but our well being comes first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.