Posts Moved From Unrelated Thread

[Major]

Originally Posted by Flylady

Instructed by the media....with no basis would not be facts. Supported by scientific evidence or other proof which is known to be true, i.e. global warming, the melting of the ice caps (view with your own eyes) would be fact...no matter who presents it.

The climate constantly changes. After all, where we live was once covered by ice. It's just that there's no evidence that man causes it, except by "scientists" who make a living from perpetuating the myth. Read Richard Lindzen. The religion of climate change is merely a wealth transfer mechanism. I would have more respect for those who subscribe to this religion if they called it for what it is.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Major

The climate constantly changes. After all, where we live was once covered by ice. It's just that there's no evidence that man causes it, except by "scientists" who make a living from perpetuating the myth. Read Richard Lindzen. The religion of climate change is merely a wealth transfer mechanism. I would have more respect for those who subscribe to this religion if they called it for what it is.

Ya, man hasn't polluted the Earth either, it's all a wealth transfer scam.

[Major]

Originally Posted by Biggd

Ya, man hasn't polluted the Earth either, it's all a wealth transfer scam.

You're showing your ignorance. What I'm talking about is whether man causes climate change. I believe there is no evidence, while others may disagree. Like most conservatives, I am very much against pollution. It sickens me. However, I'm not willing to commit to an agreement in which the US contributes billions of dollars while other countries get to pollute with immunity. Doesn't make sense.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by Major

You're showing your ignorance. What I'm talking about is whether man causes climate change. I believe there is no evidence, while others may disagree. Like most conservatives, I am very much against pollution. It sickens me. However, I'm not willing to commit to an agreement in which the US contributes billions of dollars while other countries get to pollute with immunity. Doesn't make sense.

How about committing to a President who eviscerates the clean air & clean water acts?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Major]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

How about committing to a President who eviscerates the clean air & clean water acts?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

It's a cost-benefit analysis. I'm willing to loosen regulations to promote growth in business. I trust our President, and it appears to be working well. And before I hear it from those of you concerned about our kids and grandkids, I would think you'd be far more concerned about the national debt. Every man, woman, and illegal in the U.S. is saddled with $60,000+ of debt. And it's only getting worse.

[Phantom]

COME ON !

What does any of this have to do with the Threads title -
Winnipesaukee island owner faces fines of $1,000 a day for home expansion



oh wait -- I am sure someone will have a twisted view of how it does ( never mind )

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by Major

It's a cost-benefit analysis. I'm willing to loosen regulations to promote growth in business. I trust our President, and it appears to be working well. And before I hear it from those of you concerned about our kids and grandkids, I would think you'd be far more concerned about the national debt. Every man, woman, and illegal in the U.S. is saddled with $60,000+ of debt. And it's only getting worse.

So, wait a second, you’re against pollution as long as it doesn’t affect the pocketbook. And frankly, I’m a lot more concerned about having clean water to drink and clean air to breath then I am with the debt (which, by the way, your guy just increased by an estimated $2.3 trillion over the next decade) not just for my kids and grand kids but for me.

Have you checked the air in countries without air quality standards like China, Mexico, Chile, etc, etc. I spent over 35 years in the environmental field and remember the Cuyahoga River burning; the Charles & Blackstone Rivers so polluted you couldn’t swim or fish them; and areas of a tidal river in Salem that the color depended on what a local ink company was running that day.




Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

So, wait a second, you’re against pollution as long as it doesn’t affect the pocketbook. And frankly, I’m a lot more concerned about having clean water to drink and clean air to breath then I am with the debt (which, by the way, your guy just increased by an estimated $2.3 trillion over the next decade) not just for my kids and grand kids but for me.

Have you checked the air in countries without air quality standards like China, Mexico, Chile, etc, etc. I spent over 35 years in the environmental field and remember the Cuyahoga River burning; the Charles & Blackstone Rivers so polluted you couldn’t swim or fish them; and areas of a tidal river in Salem that the color depended on what a local ink company was running that day.




Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Exactly this. Here's an interesting article (I know it's probably fake news to some of you): https://www.popsci.com/america-before-epa-photos.

My truth--one backed up by pesky facts--is that (post 1960's) Republican ideology rarely, if ever, helps the masses. The policies enacted over the last couple years reward the rich. The tax cuts did very, very little for the average person, while returning millions/billions to the ultra rich, especially since those cuts are going away in the next few years while the deficit is growing at a rate Republicans promised they'd never allow. In addition, facts show most of the money corporations received from the tax cuts (60-70%) has gone not into their workforces but into shareholder profits. At the same time, public lands are at risk both in terms of pollution by current corporate use and reduced protection as well as the threat to "sell them off" (once again, to corporations).

Effective buying power for the masses has gone down because raises haven't outpaced inflation (a few years ago we started to see the first raises for middle class Americans in a decade, but those are gone now) and added to education costs (both trade and college) the ability for the masses to get ahead is being weakened.

Add to all this the recent Supreme Court hits to unions--the organizations that achieved safety regulations, fair wages, 40-hour work week, vacation time, etc.--and we've got a bleak future for the masses.

Since we allowed so much money into politics, the rules are now made/bought by those with that money. Every policy enacted in the last couple years has been transparently better for the rich than the masses. (The Democrats aren't perfect, BTW--Obama should've slaughtered all those bankers who knowingly destroyed the system as well as prevented those asinine severance packages after corporations and banks received OUR money...)

NOW, the reason I wrote this on this thread is because the anger over the owner of this home is a reflection of an America that is growing tired of what it sees as rich privilege--that rich people can "buy" anything they want, including influence.

I'm not sure that happened here--as mentioned above, there's not enough evidence to know for sure--BUT that seems like an extreme house to be built on such a small island, especially when people with 20' docks are sometimes run through the ringer just to get them fixed.

Just my thoughts--Godspeed, friends!

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

[ApS]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Exactly this. Here's an interesting article (I know it's probably fake news to some of you): https://www.popsci.com/america-before-epa-photos.

My truth--one backed up by pesky facts--is that (post 1960's) Republican ideology rarely, if ever, helps the masses. The policies enacted over the last couple years reward the rich. The tax cuts did very, very little for the average person, while returning millions/billions to the ultra rich, especially since those cuts are going away in the next few years while the deficit is growing at a rate Republicans promised they'd never allow. In addition, facts show most of the money corporations received from the tax cuts (60-70%) has gone not into their workforces but into shareholder profits. At the same time, public lands are at risk both in terms of pollution by current corporate use and reduced protection as well as the threat to "sell them off" (once again, to corporations). Effective buying power for the masses has gone down because raises haven't outpaced inflation (a few years ago we started to see the first raises for middle class Americans in a decade, but those are gone now) and added to education costs (both trade and college) the ability for the masses to get ahead is being weakened. Add to all this the recent Supreme Court hits to unions--the organizations that achieved safety regulations, fair wages, 40-hour work week, vacation time, etc.--and we've got a bleak future for the masses. Since we allowed so much money into politics, the rules are now made/bought by those with that money. Every policy enacted in the last couple years has been transparently better for the rich than the masses. (The Democrats aren't perfect, BTW--Obama should've slaughtered all those bankers who knowingly destroyed the system as well as prevented those asinine severance packages after corporations and banks received OUR money...) NOW, the reason I wrote this on this thread is because the anger over the owner of this home is a reflection of an America that is growing tired of what it sees as rich privilege--that rich people can "buy" anything they want, including influence. I'm not sure that happened here--as mentioned above, there's not enough evidence to know for sure--BUT that seems like an extreme house to be built on such a small island, especially when people with 20' docks are sometimes run through the ringer just to get them fixed. Just my thoughts--Godspeed, friends!

Karl Marx, having just learned of Republican ideology, must be spinning in his grave.

[Major]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Exactly this. Here's an interesting article (I know it's probably fake news to some of you): https://www.popsci.com/america-before-epa-photos.

My truth--one backed up by pesky facts--is that (post 1960's) Republican ideology rarely, if ever, helps the masses.
Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I remind you that it is not republican ideology that created the messes that we have in cities like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, St. Louis, etc. These cities have been run exclusively by democrats for the past 50+ years. It is liberal, not conservative, policies that brought them to where they are right now.

I do agree with you that both sides are to blame. Rhino republicans like the Bushes, McCain, Romney, McConnell, Ryan spend like democrats. Bush is as much to blame for our national debt as Obama, although Obama put it on warp speed.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Major

Like most conservatives, I am very much against pollution. It sickens me.

I understand that not everyone cares about the environment, and I try not to be judgmental.

But I do not think its right for you to assert that pollution sickens you on the very same thread that you vigorously defend a guy who obviously violated environmental rules, question climate change in the face of a mountain of evidence, and assert that economic growth is more important than environmental protection.

[Major]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I understand that not everyone cares about the environment, and I try not to be judgmental.

But I do not think its right for you to assert that pollution sickens you on the very same thread that you vigorously defend a guy who obviously violated environmental rules, question climate change in the face of a mountain of evidence, and assert that economic growth is more important than environmental protection.

It seems like you're pretty judgmental. Notwithstanding, I think the US has come a long way in protecting the environment. Liberals want perfection, a utopia, which is unachievable. There's no evidence that lessening restrictions has negatively impacted anything. In fact, under the old administration, with lots and lots of regulations, Deepwater Horizon, Flint City and the Gold King mining accident happened. I'm not blaming Obama, but these environmental tragedies occurred on his watch so he should own them.

Economic growth is important. What I am against is destroying our economy because of the globalists' obsession with climate change. There should be a balance.

[Biggd]

"The cost of believing climate change is not real is too high" A quote from Bill Ford, chairman of Ford motor Company.

[Major]

Originally Posted by Biggd

"The cost of believing climate change is not real is too high" A quote from Bill Ford, chairman of Ford motor Company.

Another globalist.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Major

Another globalist.

No, he's just pi$$ed because his company changed course to meet fuel efficiency requirements and promoted their Company as a leader in that regard and this president has just taken away all their advantage in being leader in environmental friendly automobiles by loosening the standards. Basically changing the rules that everyone already geared up to meet. It's always about the $$$$$$$$$.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I understand that not everyone cares about the environment, and I try not to be judgmental. But I do not think its right for you to assert that pollution sickens you on the very same thread that you vigorously defend a guy who obviously violated environmental rules, question climate change in the face of a mountain of evidence, and assert that economic growth is more important than environmental protection.

As one who has pontificated on the alternate topic that this thread has shifted to, I suggest we all call ourselves "apostate" on the topic for a few centuries. This topic has closed other threads "back when".

In the meantime, I'm going to ask neighbors for a tow to Welcome Island and maybe take some pictures. (And sail back). Can someone advise the best route from the Marriott Compound—where we'll start the tow? This will be a tow, so boat-traffic will be an important consideration.

Also, is "Welcome Island" a real name?

.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by ApS

.

In the meantime, I'm going to ask neighbors for a tow to Welcome Island and maybe take some pictures. (And sail back). Can someone advise the best route from the Marriott Compound—where we'll start the tow? This will be a tow, so boat-traffic will be an important consideration.

Also, is "Welcome Island" a real name?

.

Really?

You would have your "raghangar" towed by a "stinkpot" Oh the horror! Oh the pollution! Oh the noise from the straining GASOLINE engine!

What if your neighbors see this? Oh my!

[Phantom]

............… and now it's time to close this Thread and move on to the next victim

[ITD]

That went down hill quickly, lol.