DevoHusker

14 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

If you can just put on your tolerance pants and power through it you won't have to deal with it for another 62 years.  Hopefully World Tattoo Day doesn't fall on a holiday anytime soon since we're casting about judgement on what is a sin and all.  

I absolutely have tolerance for anything, and I mean anything thats not illegal, that an adult wants to do in their own private lives. 

What I have a problem with is forced acknowledgement and national holidays for something that the majority view as fringe, and represents less than 1% of society. 

That it co-opts the most religious Christian holiday this year is unfortunate. I believe that this type of stuff is what will force undecideds and Independent voters to choose Trump. Which is a horrible outcome.

10 minutes ago, ZRod said:

You know Easter is on a different day every year, right, and that Jesus was cool with eunuchs and whores?

How many National holidays did Pilate make for eunuchs and whores?

6 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

And to be clear, I’m not frothed up over it. I voted for Biden last time and will (shudders) vote for him this time. If they could just get out of their own damn way Trump wouldn’t stand a chance.

+1 

Just now, Archy1221 said:

Interesting he settled on the Holiest day of the year for Christians.   He coulda picked March 11th, April 10th, June 16th, October 12th this year.  

Interesting he waited until the day before to announce it too.

28 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Man, you are like a case study in "everything Trump does is fine because Dems are bad."

Lol. Hyperbole much?

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Meh...how many times have Biden or other DC Ds posted pictures of Trump behind bars?

I bet you can find the same tailgate cover with Trump in the bed.

11 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

That's definitely wrong. I'd be interested in where you got that. I think it's close to 20%, so the decimal is probably in the wrong place.

It was a post on Twitter based on a WSJ article. I can't find it now. I was certain it quoted tenths...but I could be wrong. 

I don't have WSJ access, but maybe someone who does can find the article.

43 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Nuclear power is an interesting example. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island definitely had folks pumping the brakes and environmentalists up in arms, but the U.S. continued to be the world leader in nuclear power generation. When the issue became framed as nuclear vs coal and supported by solid evidence, public sentiment shifted --- including the same environmentalists. The Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS Act created 30% tax breaks for building new nuke plants, and they finally opened a new one in Georgia. This should mean a green light from all quarters for building more, but the Georgia plant came in way late and way over budget, so they're going to have to get that figured out, along with the waste issues that have always been a problem. The industry wants to move towards some smaller capacity but faster and cheaper nuke plants. 

 

So yeah, nuclear fits into the low-carbon, energy efficient picture, along with solar and wind and EVs. They all bring fresh and counter-productive problems to the table. Some people forget that, but a lot of people don't. The environmentalists and scientists concerned about global warming are often the same people publicizing the fact that EV batteries introduce profound problems with mining and disposal. That doesn't mean mocking or dismissing EVs, it's just another problem that needs to be solved. The rap sheet on internal combustion engines remains pretty long, too. 

 

I've worked for a couple entities in the EV world over the last 30 years, and nobody takes government mandates as law because they aren't. Gov. Schwarzenneger enlisted mandates for automakers to reduce emissions by 25% by 2009, and of course nothing came close to that. There's political value to declaring mandates and it does spur some innovation and cooperation, but corporations generally don't do things if they can't find a way to make money on it.  

Good info, thanks.

58 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Doesn't the vast majority of discussion take place in the center of this diagram? 

 

Perhaps it's a subset of We Should Take Care of Our Environment, but one might think this diagram deserves a circle Ignoring Climate Change is Dangerous (and Not Hysterical), as that's where a lot of the scientists reside. 

 

But given the parameters of We Should Take Care of Our Environment, what does a good Libertarian suggest? The words Our Environment are tricky for individualists. 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not in favor of arbitrary dates, forced conversion, mandated technology, and increased taxes. Solar is great, but a recent hailstorm decimated a large array in Texas. Nuclear options continue to be shuttered. I think there has only been one new one go online since 2015. Lots of new wind turbines, but later disposal is still an issue. EV battery mining is a scourge on the very Earth we want to save. How about disposal options for batteries that weight 1200+ pounds?

I read that the EV mandate by 2030 would manage to cut emissions by .20%. Yes, the decimal is in the correct spot. Will see if I can find it again.

I dont want higher taxes for unproven "solutions". How about we start by cutting the $9 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies, and see what the private market can do with an even playing field. Check out what Norway has figured out about EV mandates.

https://shopzabunicoffee.com/

@Scarlet

This is in Grand Island. 

10 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Seriously? We know it will be a problem... This isn't debatable

 

I continue to be amazed at your ability to find rage anywhere you want. You're F150 is not THE problem, and neither is that jet plane. We, as a society, are collectively the problem to our own future. A story as old as time.

The only person finding rage is you, and it's because I don't hold the same position or outlook as you do. This is what I believe. I am in the center.

I have been on exactly one cruise. 20 years ago. Best coffee I have ever had, and it's not even close. Wish I knew what it was or exactly what they did...

12 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Climate change is real, yes? And we agree that it we'll be a problem or humanity long term, right? Clearly the free market doesn't work to mitigate the issue, so the next logical step would be legislation and consumption tax, no?

 

Are you a smoker? Do you have a problem with tobacco taxes? Do you think we should still be using asbestos, lead paint, CFLs, leaded gasoline, remove catalytic converters from cars, allow companies to leach toxins into the water like hexavalent chromium, maybe it's ok if your near by feed lot drains their s#!t pond into the local tributaries?

Environmental change is real. Yes.

It may or may not be a problem for humanity, we truly do not know.

Why doesn't the free market mitigate the problem? Do you have sources for that? And, if human consumption is the driving factor, what is anyone doing about China, India and Russia...whose negative output dwarfs the US and Eu?

No, I don't believe that "usage" or "consumption" taxes or fair or realistic. Tell that to the climate warriors that jet set around the globe to tell me that my 2008 F150 is the major contributing factor. gtfoh

Nope, not a smoker. My dad is/was and still says he should have a seat in Devaney in perpetuity cause "smoker's taxes" paid for it.

As to the rest, we learned as we go...and some things are definitive and some are supposition.

3 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Yes, because the scientific method doesn't exist 

Lol...

Yeah, because all those chicken littles totally go by scientific method 

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Even if we've had nothing to do with the way the climate has been changing, it's pretty imperative for life as we know it to figure out ways we can engineer against it.

This is very good, and common sense. The problem are the "envirobros" chicken littles (as @teachercd says) that scream for higher taxes and forced conformity but really have no idea what will work to mitigate the issue.

56 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It is the correct thread. Abortion rights are on the ballot. If Biden doesn't win, abortion will be criminalized early in the next term. 

So 6k votes, (less than 2%) for an open State legislature seat the middle of Alabama, directly affects this Presidential election thread. In a State legislature that is 75% republican. 

Okay.

20 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Democrats keep winning elections.

 

That is a huge change in just two years. Could probably draw a straight line from overturning Roe to all of these results.

 

 

This is interesting, and you may be correct on your supposition. But perhaps this is the wrong thread?

8 minutes ago, NebraskaHarry said:

Everything else aside, the voice alone is enough for me to not want to vote for him.

It definitely takes some getting used to

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Mexico is going to pay for it.

 

Jokes aside, he was asked about that, and he said that will come later. Finding out who's responsible could take years in maritime law, but that bridge needs to be rebuilt now.

Good, that's the correct response all around. Thanks.

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

I assume he means until the ship's owner, or Maersk Lines, repay the US Government, right?

(sad trombone...)

58 minutes ago, commando said:

if there is a silver lining.....it's that it happened at that time of night when traffic is about as light as it ever is.   imagine if it had happened during rush hour

I saw a figure of 32k vehicles per day cross the bridge