January 22, 20214 yr Author 15 hours ago, DrPhilly said: Yeah, but it is a good example that JohnSH brings up to show their lack of full logic It's an interesting point and one that I didn't consider, but pipelines are still a major environmental and economic liability. Just because one method might arguably be less damaging to the environment doesn't mean it's still not significantly destructive. While alternative means of transportation might also have significant risks associated with them, it is a huge difference that these pipelines are literally running through people's backyard . You don't have that issue transporting by truck or ship. These companies lay out these pipelines with little oversight and are constantly caught evading what basic regulations are in place, and when these pipes spring a leak (which they constantly do), you end up with contaminated water supplies and damaged ecosystems in what are typically rural or impoverished areas that are way down the list in terms of the politician's priorities for assistance. Not to mention, these pipelines often have a deleterious economic impact in terms of property values and and commercial development. The question shouldn't be about how to transport fossil fuels; the question needs to be "How do we ultimately quit fossil fuels?"
January 22, 20214 yr 13 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: It's an interesting point and one that I didn't consider, but pipelines are still a major environmental and economic liability. Just because one method might arguably be less damaging to the environment doesn't mean it's still not significantly destructive. While alternative means of transportation might also have significant risks associated with them, it is a huge difference that these pipelines are literally running through people's backyard . You don't have that issue transporting by truck or ship. These companies lay out these pipelines with little oversight and are constantly caught evading what basic regulations are in place, and when these pipes spring a leak (which they constantly do), you end up with contaminated water supplies and damaged ecosystems in what are typically rural or impoverished areas that are way down the list in terms of the politician's priorities for assistance. Not to mention, these pipelines often have a deleterious economic impact in terms of property values and and commercial development. The question shouldn't be about how to transport fossil fuels; the question needs to be "How do we ultimately quit fossil fuels?" The point is they often ignore the impact of whatever the replacement is vs. whatever they are doing away with or regulating.
January 22, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, DrPhilly said: The point is they often ignore the impact of whatever the replacement is vs. whatever they are doing away with or regulating. No they don’t.
January 22, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, DrPhilly said: Environmentalists talk about trade-offs all the time.
January 22, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, sameaglesfan said: It's amazing that how his innocuous remarks were taken that way. It speaks volumes about how Trump supporters see themselves.
January 22, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Who made the order to vacate the Capitol building? Nobody seems to want to answer that. It's completely disrespectful to the troops.
January 22, 20214 yr The comparison couldn't be any more stark: One President was beloved by and cared for the troops. One doesn't give an ish.
January 22, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, Kz! said: The comparison couldn't be any more stark: One President was beloved by and cared for the troops. One doesn't give an ish.
January 22, 20214 yr 2 hours ago, Dave Moss said: Environmentalists talk about trade-offs all the time. environmentalists, such as those who conducted the studies during the Obama administration, may talk about trade-offs. but media outlets can get a lot of mileage out of the outrage from less circumspect readers who see "pipeline" and think "bad for environment" without considering these trade-offs.
January 22, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, toolg said: Who made the order to vacate the Capitol building? Nobody seems to want to answer that. It's completely disrespectful to the troops. it seems like it was an unintended consequence. the Capitol police asked the NG to relocate, as Congress was starting to re-convene and go about normal business. I don't think there was an expectation that the NG would be sleeping/stationed at the Capitol building continuously, and that as things normalize they would be moved out. seems there was some lack of coordination on the timeline here though, and the NG - in an attempt to comply with the request - moved the soldiers into the parking garage. I don't believe the Capitol police ordered them out and into the cold. they just asked them to make way. not every incident needs to be some sort of crisis. it was a miscommunication between two groups that aren't used to coordinating with one another. 1 hour ago, Kz! said: Wow. 5,000 troops. 2 stalls. Sick. you're a day behind #loser. Senator Duckworth already took care of it.
January 22, 20214 yr 2 hours ago, Dave Moss said: Environmentalists talk about trade-offs all the time.
January 22, 20214 yr 9 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: it seems like it was an unintended consequence. the Capitol police asked the NG to relocate, as Congress was starting to re-convene and go about normal business. I don't think there was an expectation that the NG would be sleeping/stationed at the Capitol building continuously, and that as things normalize they would be moved out. seems there was some lack of coordination on the timeline here though, and the NG - in an attempt to comply with the request - moved the soldiers into the parking garage. I don't believe the Capitol police ordered them out and into the cold. they just asked them to make way. not every incident needs to be some sort of crisis. it was a miscommunication between two groups that aren't used to coordinating with one another. you're a day behind #loser. Senator Duckworth already took care of it. So what? It still happened. The utter disregard Biden showed for the troops was disgusting.
January 22, 20214 yr 14 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: it seems like it was an unintended consequence. The situation was mismanaged. The guardsman deserve to be treated better by their commanders. Where did they expect they would all go, once they exited the building in the middle of a large city? The consequences are: morale is shot, TX is recalling their units, NG may decide not to respond if called in later.
January 22, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, toolg said: The situation was mismanaged. The guardsman deserve to be treated better by their commanders. Where did they expect they would all go, once they exited the building in the middle of a large city? The consequences are: morale is shot, TX is recalling their units, NG may decide not to respond if called in later. it was mismanaged, no doubt. I'm just saying it wasn't done in malice. it was lack of communication and coordination. Hanlon's razor.
January 22, 20214 yr 4 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said: Don’t care. We’re talking about press sec boobs. Speak for yourself! This is exactly how I want kz spending his day.
January 22, 20214 yr I guess my two biggest takeaways from this morning's conversation are: 1. These posts aged poorly: 2 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Yes, but it doesn't seem realistic. They're going to find every video of President Biden on YouTube and erase the dislikes? Stupid if true but it seems outlandish. 2 hours ago, Paul852 said: It's simply not true. The press secretary video now has like 36k dislikes. I really doubt YT cares. This is just more sadness from these people. 2. I don't miss.
January 22, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, Kz! said: I guess my two biggest takeaways from this morning's conversation are: 1. These posts aged poorly: 2. I don't miss. At making a fool of yourself? Yeah dude, accurate.
Create an account or sign in to comment