Jump to content


Green New Deal


Recommended Posts


8 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I always forget...what is the first rule of holes again?

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah, stop digging when you are in one.

And there is no hole digging.  I thought it was an interesting observation from Sitting Bull from over 200 years ago that we still face today.  It didn’t really require you to discount what he said.

Link to comment

Fact-checking the OP:

 

None of the links in the OP are to Ocasio-Cortez' actual proposal. None of the language quoted in the OP was written by AOC or her co-author, Markey, including the "book report" being derided in this thread.

 

Data For Progress is not affiliated with AOC, and they are not authorized to speak for her. Their work is being falsely proffered as AOC's work in a lot of places - mostly conservative echo chambers, but also by conservatives on forums across the internet.

 

American Action Forum is yet another in a litany of conservative PACs dedicated to the maintenance of the Republican majority in Congress. They donated millions of dollars in 2012 and 2016 to defeating Democrats, and their biggest supporters are Big Pharma and fossil fuel concerns. 

 

The DocumentCloud stuff linked in the Democrat Utopia thread, and again here for good measure, is of dubious origin. It was not authored by AOC, and seems to be largely distributed by conservatives across the internet.

 

So that's, what - four talking points building the premise for the discussion that are incorrect at best?  Nice. :thumbs

 

In case anyone wanted to read the actual proposal, here you go. 

 

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution on a Green New Deal.pdf

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

Fact-checking the OP:

 

None of the links in the OP are to Ocasio-Cortez' actual proposal. None of the language quoted in the OP was written by AOC or her co-author, Markey, including the "book report" being derided in this thread.

 

Data For Progress is not affiliated with AOC, and they are not authorized to speak for her. Their work is being falsely proffered as AOC's work in a lot of places - mostly conservative echo chambers, but also by conservatives on forums across the internet.

 

American Action Forum is yet another in a litany of conservative PACs dedicated to the maintenance of the Republican majority in Congress. They donated millions of dollars in 2012 and 2016 to defeating Democrats, and their biggest supporters are Big Pharma and fossil fuel concerns. 

 

The DocumentCloud stuff linked in the Democrat Utopia thread, and again here for good measure, is of dubious origin. It was not authored by AOC, and seems to be largely distributed by conservatives across the internet.

 

So that's, what - four talking points building the premise for the discussion that are incorrect at best?  Nice. :thumbs

 

In case anyone wanted to read the actual proposal, here you go. 

 

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution on a Green New Deal.pdf

 

Higher paying and more jobs, better infrastructure, clean environment and better quality healthcare? f#&% that bartender!

 

I also didnt see the part where it says give a living wage to people unable to work or unwilling to work like I have seen around the internet.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

9 hours ago, teachercd said:

They do, it is why this is the best country in the world, the most freedom to do what you want,  with the most technology, some of the best universities in the world, the best chance to make something of yourself even if you come from nothing.  People in America have been thinking about their grandkids for 250 years.

 

Not when it comes to climate change and a clean environment they dont. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Not when it comes to climate change and a clean environment they dont. 

Yeah they do...but you are acting like they can do more than they can and that is the problem.  Change is not an explosion it is a slow burn.  What you want to do is blame people that probably don't need to be blamed.  I am sure you drive a car that uses gas...I am sure you leave the lights on at times...I am sure that back in the 80's (if you were alive) you used Aquanet hairspray, I am sure you bought styrofoam, you probably smoked a cig or a cigar, I bet you have tossed things that could be recycled in the trash.  

 

I have no idea if you are a grandma or not but if you are I am willing to be my beach house that you think about your grandkids and their future all the time. 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Yeah they do...but you are acting like they can do more than they can and that is the problem.  Change is not an explosion it is a slow burn.

Change can be fast or slow. The entire US economy changed to war production in the first few months of 1942. It's about whether we have the will to make a change that fast or not.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Change can be fast or slow. The entire US economy changed to war production in the first few months of 1942. It's about whether we have the will to make a change that fast or not.

We started the change in 1939 because we started selling s#!t to anyone that would buy it.  By 42 we were already in the war and had about 2.5 years of changing over to war production.  From 39-41 we made a mint.  Also, since FDR forced a lot of stuff on industry it was easier/quicker, you are right, but it was not always totally legit.  Also, it is a lot easier to turn a tuna canning factory into a bullet making factory than it is to get 310 million people to make sure their paper ends up getting recycled and that they give up their cars and walk/bike to work.

 

But regardless, change starts with each person.

 

Do you drive a car?

Do you recycle EVERYTHING that can be recycled?

Do you leave lights on?

Ever smoke?

Ever use aquanet (I did, I had some sweet feathered looks back in the day)

 

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, teachercd said:

We started the change in 1939 because we started selling s#!t to anyone that would buy it.  By 42 we were already in the war and had about 2.5 years of changing over to war production.  From 39-41 we made a mint.  Also, since FDR forced a lot of stuff on industry it was easier/quicker, you are right, but it was not always totally legit.  Also, it is a lot easier to turn a tuna canning factory into a bullet making factory than it is to get 310 million people to make sure their paper ends up getting recycled and that they give up their cars and walk/bike to work.

 

But regardless, change starts with each person.

 

Do you drive a car?

Do you recycle EVERYTHING that can be recycled?

Do you leave lights on?

Ever smoke?

Ever use aquanet (I did, I had some sweet feathered looks back in the day)

But it's easier to change a ICE car plant to an electric car plant than convert a tuna canning factory to a bullet making factory.

 

And you might want to read about the war production for WW2:

Quote

War production profoundly changed American industry. Companies already engaged in defense work expanded. Others, like the automobile industry, were transformed completely. In 1941, more than three million cars were manufactured in the United States. Only 139 more were made during the entire war. Instead, Chrysler made fuselages. General Motors made airplane engines, guns, trucks and tanks. Packard made Rolls-Royce engines for the British air force. And at its vast Willow Run plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan, the Ford Motor Company performed something like a miracle 24-hours a day. The average Ford car had some 15,000 parts. The B-24 Liberator long-range bomber had 1,550,000. One came off the line every 63 minutes.

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

9 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

But it's easier to change a ICE car plant to an electric car plant than convert a tuna canning factory to a bullet making factory.

 

And you might want to read about the war production for WW2:

 

1939 we started selling s#!t to anyone that would buy it.  By 42 we were only selling to certain countries.  And the good old WPB was regulating...sort of.  But comparing us being attacked in WWII and of course everyone getting on the same page (for the most part) to go fight isn't exactly the same as the temp going up.  I get it, I do, but I just think most people do try to help when they can.  

 

Now, back to you...

 

You didn't answer my questions.

Link to comment

as is typical on HB and across the internet and discourse in general, we completely ignore the actual source in favor of continuing our sport of disagreement which is way more fun.

 

 

Per the actual literature, it all sounds mostly vague and ideological. Which makes it...harmless at worst? This part gives me pause though:

 

to promote justice and equity by stop22 ping current, preventing future, and repairing


23 historic oppression of indigenous peoples, com24 munities of color, migrant communities, .....

 

First off, I guess I'm not seeing the connection to these things and the environment. Second, equity is not the same thing as equality. Maybe they are working with different definitions than I am but equity seems more like pure bona fide socialism where we all make and receive the same. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, teachercd said:

1939 we started selling s#!t to anyone that would buy it.  By 42 we were only selling to certain countries.  And the good old WPB was regulating...sort of.  But comparing us being attacked in WWII and of course everyone getting on the same page (for the most part) to go fight isn't exactly the same as the temp going up.  I get it, I do, but I just think most people do try to help when they can.  

 

Now, back to you...

 

You didn't answer my questions.

I linked to the car manufacturers going from 3+ million cars in 1941 to basically none (139 over the next 3 years). You said we can't change that fast, but I've just shown an example that we did indeed change that fast, so it's not only possible but it's already been done. Now whether we should or will do that for climate change is a different issue, but we can do it if we so choose.

 

As for your questions, they don't really matter for whether we institute a Green New Deal. Plus you're conflating things we do currently with things that we've done in the past, but I'll give you my personal answers:

Do you drive a car? Yes, but I also walk or ride a bike when I can. Plus I try to live close to where I work (I was actually working from home for several years) and generally try to reduce transportation. Although I do fly about once or twice a year when there isn't a practical alternative. And I've worked out that swapping my current Honda Accord for an electric vehicle won't save as much in greenhouse gases as waiting for the Accord to die.

 

Do you recycle EVERYTHING that can be recycled? Yes, but I much prefer to reuse. For example, we get milk in glass containers that can be washed and reused, and we save other glass containers for our own reuse rather than recycling them.

 

Do you leave lights on? No, but it's a constant battle to get the kids to turn them off.

 

The next two questions don't matter as it's not what we've done but what we're doing now and what we'll do in the future that matters. We can't change the past.

Ever smoke?

Ever use aquanet (I did, I had some sweet feathered looks back in the day)

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...