'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

VYFan said:
Our country also picks winners and losers with subsidies, and pushes or protects certain industries that get labeled “in the national interest.” The difference is degree, not kind.
Click to expand...

Yes. Of course. The degree is much different.

VYFan said:
They don’t have most of the family restrictions anymore (I believe); no one-child rule, no restrictions on where to live, etc. (I think). As for baby killing, the USA and our ethics have been willing to kill babies for economic or convenience reasons at a staggering rate, so we aren’t better than they are in that point.
Click to expand...

Not anymore, but they are still feeling the effects of what they did for decades. The Chinese government had much more restrictive rule than the US ever did. Plus they fined people who didn't obey the one child policy. They also took property away and even killed adults who didn't follow the rules. As bad as US abortion has been, China was much worse.

VYFan said:
The only real issue besides business (which we will work out over time by agreement) is Taiwan. Either we will or won’t have a military conflict over Taiwan, and I want it to remain independent for many reasons, including status quo and self-rule, but China’s position that Taiwan is their property is not “insane” or “expansionist “; they have a very credible argument that it is theirs—historically. I probably will get yelled at for this, but Hong Kong has not deteriorated as much as I expected in a quarter century.
Click to expand...

I want Taiwan to remain independent too. The way to prolong that situation is to show China the US and Taiwan aren't a threat to them and won't start violence.

I think China has no right to take over Taiwan, but they have the ability to do it whenever they want. The way to keep Taiwan is not militarily it is diplomatically. Hong Kong has had problems but you are right overall.

VYFan said:
It’s not that I like these guys and I don’t really want to be remembered as “on their side” on anything. I just think the rhetoric around here is far from the reality about China.
Click to expand...

Same here. They are communist. They suck. But they aren't a threat to the US. Even the rhetoric about the Uighurs is way overblown.
 
IMG_9321.jpeg
 
VYFan said:
China is nothing like the Soviet Union. I don’t consider them an “enemy”; just a competitor. What is the political division they create? That isn’t already there? What “combat” have we had with them? (And if we have, how relatively close to our shore was it compared to how close to their shore?)

Basically, aren’t their crimes stealing our IP whenever they can, and behaving monopolistically in some industries by supporting their corporations more than we support ours? Business crimes?

Perhaps my far-more-moderate attitude towards China than the anti-China propaganda I keep hearing gets me labeled as a victim of their influence.
Click to expand...

They're not identical, but "nothing" like them? For starters, they're both totalitarian one-party, Marxist-Leninist states with the ambition of international socialism, which is obviously inconsistent with our existence as a free nation. So their ideological opposition to the Amerian political and economic systems are certainly very similar, whcih I why I consider their position to be as adversarial as the Soviet Union's. Internally and like the Soviets, they have a command economy, rely on slave labor or quasi-slave labor, and imprison or murder dissidents. They're bad hombres.

Globally, they support support enemies of the West - Iran, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, and others. Again, much like the USSR did.

Within the United States, they send spies to major research facilities, military bases, and political offices - much like the Soviets did.

Are there differences? Sure. They don't have a significant forward-deployed military presence like the USSR did. They are less interested in territorial expansion beyond Taiwan (at least in the short term, at least). They're also far more interested in the long game and infiltration than the USSR was. (They learned from the USSR's mistakes.) But they are a very nefarious force. Anybody should be able to see that.

Monahorns said:
We know that the Soviet Union planted followers into high levels of the US government. McCarthy was right. The John Birch society was 98% right. China got stupid Swalwell and the Clintons. Bad but not Soviet Union level.
Click to expand...

You think the Clintons and Swalwell are their only assets in the United States? The Clintons are significant, but Swalwell is mostly a dumbass with a Pacific Rim-job fetish. Having said that, how the hell did he scam a seat on the House Intelligence Committee when the leadership knew he was banging a spy?

They have spies in colleges all over the United States. How the hell do you think they got that?

They got MFN (now "permanent normal trade relations") status in the '90s, while they were hustling missile technology from us. Yes, Clinton was whoring for them, but he wasn't alone. Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress also went along.

And Mark Milley told his counterpart in China that he'd warn them of an attack? That's a pretty big ally for them to have.

And do you remember Covid? Our entire media shutdown the lab-leak theory for a few years and discouraged people from blaming China. You don't think China pushed them to do that? Surely, you're not that dumb.

So yeah, they have Swalwell and Clinton. And 90 percent of our media, most of academia, most of Congress for the last 30 years, and most of our big business community. The Soviets had some players in high places but nothing anywhere near as pervasive.
 
Mr. Deez said:
They're not identical, but "nothing" like them? For starters, they're both totalitarian one-party, Marxist-Leninist states with the ambition of international socialism, which is obviously inconsistent with our existence as a free nation. So their ideological opposition to the Amerian political and economic systems are certainly very similar, whcih I why I consider their position to be as adversarial as the Soviet Union's. Internally and like the Soviets, they have a command economy, rely on slave labor or quasi-slave labor, and imprison or murder dissidents. They're bad hombres.

Globally, they support support enemies of the West - Iran, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, and others. Again, much like the USSR did.

Within the United States, they send spies to major research facilities, military bases, and political offices - much like the Soviets did.

Are there differences? Sure. They don't have a significant forward-deployed military presence like the USSR did. They are less interested in territorial expansion beyond Taiwan (at least in the short term, at least). They're also far more interested in the long game and infiltration than the USSR was. (They learned from the USSR's mistakes.) But they are a very nefarious force. Anybody should be able to see that.



You think the Clintons and Swalwell are their only assets in the United States? The Clintons are significant, but Swalwell is mostly a dumbass with a Pacific Rim-job fetish. Having said that, how the hell did he scam a seat on the House Intelligence Committee when the leadership knew he was banging a spy?

They have spies in colleges all over the United States. How the hell do you think they got that?

They got MFN (now "permanent normal trade relations") status in the '90s, while they were hustling missile technology from us. Yes, Clinton was whoring for them, but he wasn't alone. Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress also went along.

And Mark Milley told his counterpart in China that he'd warn them of an attack? That's a pretty big ally for them to have.

And do you remember Covid? Our entire media shutdown the lab-leak theory for a few years and discouraged people from blaming China. You don't think China pushed them to do that? Surely, you're not that dumb.

So yeah, they have Swalwell and Clinton. And 90 percent of our media, most of academia, most of Congress for the last 30 years, and most of our big business community. The Soviets had some players in high places but nothing anywhere near as pervasive.
Click to expand...
Uncharacteristically hyperbolic and condescending post for you.
 
I won’t get into details but the climate models claim high CO2 sensitivity to counteract the cooling effect of particles generated by burning biomass. It’s always been BS because it ignores the growing use of LPG and natural gas in developing countries for heating and cooking. The climate cultists just assume biomass burning grows in relation to population growth, which is obviously stupid since global poverty has dropped precipitously since the 1970’s due to capitalism.

 
My wife often puts the thermostat on 78 F during the day. I typically prefer 77 F, but whatever.

 
mchammer said:
wattsupwiththat.com

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency Approves First Generation IV Nuclear Reactor

All of these are positive developments for those of us who enjoy the perks of civilization, such a light at night and heat during the winter.
wattsupwiththat.com wattsupwiththat.com
Click to expand...
That's good news. I'm still an advocate for on-site solar and vertical wind generation but those will never be the full solution. Nuclear makes so much sense. We are going to need tons of new energy in the future, so it's really good that we are moving this forward again.
 
Monahorns said:
That would be awesome. Sad that government is so involved though, or it would already be gearing up.
Click to expand...
It is not awesome. There is not an "emergency". It is bad practice to use emergency declarations to address everyday problems. (whether Dem or GOP) We will indeed need more power in the future, but this would be way too much government involvement to solve a problem. We should be using a "all of the above" approach to energy but this would be a crappy strategy to do so.
 
We don't have an emergency; we just have bad policy in place with the current admin. If DJT is not a sufficient politician to get congress to correct, then we need a better politician. We don't need POTUS on the left or the right, usurping more power via presidential decrees, signing statements or preemptive emergency declarations.
 
i'm sure some of you on here are much more knowledgeable than me on this. Why don't/cant we run water pipelines in conjunction with oil pipelines? Seems like 60-70% of the cost could be shared between the projects and get fresh water to places out west that need it.
new texas pipeline
 
mchammer said:
Click to expand...


I think the round numbers are that Saudi Arabia produces 10 million barrels a day and the US produces 14 million barrels a day. Before the fracking and horizontal drilling, the US produced about 6 million barrels a day. Of that 8 million new barrels a day, I think 90% of it comes from the Permian Basin. If not 90% it is 70-80%. It is modern miracle that no one ever talks about. Truly amazing job by my people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top