Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ]
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
06 Mar 2019, 3:49 pm
THIS is awesome!
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/juliana-ve ... Ky4H95TAKw
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.
06 Mar 2019, 5:24 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
06 Mar 2019, 7:43 pm
EzraS wrote:
What if they lose?
..then they lose?
Who knows? Then maybe the same people go after State governments. Or maybe something different happens ? Who knows.
But it sounds like they have quite the case considering 36,000 pages of evidence.. so if it doesn't get dismissed before a trial, they at least have a shot - and it's a worthy endeavour, IMO. MAGA hats off to them for actually trying to make America great again.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.06 Mar 2019, 9:50 pm
But they're just kids. I'd think you of all people would hold that against them. 
And if Juliana is on the spectrum that'll make it even worse since she'll actually only be about 11 in autism years.
On a serious note it will be interesting to see how this goes and turns out.
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
07 Mar 2019, 12:53 am
"Just kids?" Mhmm - kids.. the next generation that has to inhabit this place. Also, the lawyers most certainly are not kids. And even those with 2/3rds emotional maturity deserve a sustainable environment and climate.
Interesting indeed! It's pretty awesome that it's even happening.. and that it's survived several dismissal attempts and will have to face several more I'm sure.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.
07 Mar 2019, 5:31 pm
07 Mar 2019, 5:46 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
07 Mar 2019, 7:07 pm
Crimadella wrote:
No offense, but this is ridiculous. I wounder if they will win? No. "I'm going to sue you for events that have not yet occurred, events that are only predictions which have failed to come true time and time again.". It would be a lot better for people to attack the issue of suppressing technology that already exists, not allowing corporations to buy patents and suppress technology.
Not yet occurred?
The US gov’t has known about this stuff for at least 50 years and these people have 36,000 pages of evidence to prove it. The process has been ongoing for more than 50 years.. and the results are already apparent.Why would it be better not to tackle THE issue directly?
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.07 Mar 2019, 7:49 pm
goldfish21 wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
No offense, but this is ridiculous. I wounder if they will win? No. "I'm going to sue you for events that have not yet occurred, events that are only predictions which have failed to come true time and time again.". It would be a lot better for people to attack the issue of suppressing technology that already exists, not allowing corporations to buy patents and suppress technology.
Not yet occurred?
The US gov’t has known about this stuff for at least 50 years and these people have 36,000 pages of evidence to prove it. The process has been ongoing for more than 50 years.. and the results are already apparent.Why would it be better not to tackle THE issue directly?
Tackling the issue directly would be not allowing green technology to be suppressed. They intentionally suppress the technology so others can't compete with energy production. The basic idea would be to allow others to buy access to the technology being suppressed then have the current carbon taxes in place making green technology which already exists to actually be used and in a way which makes it as profitable or more profitable than fossil fuels. The lawsuit is ridicules because our government is a democracy, thus everyone votes, it would be individuals attempting to sue everybody for how they have voted. Technically everyone would be entitled to a cut of the money, as well as a loss of the money, thus the entire 'thing' is completely ridiculous.
The US government is not a body independent from the people. The people elect other people and cast vote in particular directions.
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
07 Mar 2019, 8:04 pm
Crimadella wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
No offense, but this is ridiculous. I wounder if they will win? No. "I'm going to sue you for events that have not yet occurred, events that are only predictions which have failed to come true time and time again.". It would be a lot better for people to attack the issue of suppressing technology that already exists, not allowing corporations to buy patents and suppress technology.
Not yet occurred?
The US gov’t has known about this stuff for at least 50 years and these people have 36,000 pages of evidence to prove it. The process has been ongoing for more than 50 years.. and the results are already apparent.Why would it be better not to tackle THE issue directly?
Tackling the issue directly would be not allowing green technology to be suppressed. They intentionally suppress the technology so others can't compete with energy production. The basic idea would be to allow others to buy access to the technology being suppressed then have the current carbon taxes in place making green technology which already exists to actually be used and in a way which makes it as profitable or more profitable than fossil fuels. The lawsuit is ridicules because our government is a democracy, thus everyone votes, it would be individuals attempting to sue everybody for how they have voted. Technically everyone would be entitled to a cut of the money, as well as a loss of the money, thus the entire 'thing' is completely ridiculous.
The US government is not a body independent from the people. The people elect other people and cast vote in particular directions.
Um, no.
Just because access to green technologies should be a thing doesn't mean that subsidizing the fossil fuel industry shouldn't be a thing.
Also, according to a Princeton study in 2014, the USA is no longer a democracy, but rather an oligarchy. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.07 Mar 2019, 8:10 pm
goldfish21 wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
No offense, but this is ridiculous. I wounder if they will win? No. "I'm going to sue you for events that have not yet occurred, events that are only predictions which have failed to come true time and time again.". It would be a lot better for people to attack the issue of suppressing technology that already exists, not allowing corporations to buy patents and suppress technology.
Not yet occurred?
The US gov’t has known about this stuff for at least 50 years and these people have 36,000 pages of evidence to prove it. The process has been ongoing for more than 50 years.. and the results are already apparent.Why would it be better not to tackle THE issue directly?
Tackling the issue directly would be not allowing green technology to be suppressed. They intentionally suppress the technology so others can't compete with energy production. The basic idea would be to allow others to buy access to the technology being suppressed then have the current carbon taxes in place making green technology which already exists to actually be used and in a way which makes it as profitable or more profitable than fossil fuels. The lawsuit is ridicules because our government is a democracy, thus everyone votes, it would be individuals attempting to sue everybody for how they have voted. Technically everyone would be entitled to a cut of the money, as well as a loss of the money, thus the entire 'thing' is completely ridiculous.
The US government is not a body independent from the people. The people elect other people and cast vote in particular directions.
Um, no.
Just because access to green technologies should be a thing doesn't mean that subsidizing the fossil fuel industry shouldn't be a thing.
Also, according to a Princeton study in 2014, the USA is no longer a democracy, but rather an oligarchy. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
I'm personally against subsidizing altogether. If someone chooses to build a factory or whatever, they should not get any breaks, if that was banned altogether then the problem would be solved. Well it's nice to hear BBC thinks the USA isn't a democracy, they are wrong. We elect people, no one is there that hasn't been elected and their positions aren't guaranteed, people can always choose to vote someone else in.
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
07 Mar 2019, 8:17 pm
Crimadella wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
No offense, but this is ridiculous. I wounder if they will win? No. "I'm going to sue you for events that have not yet occurred, events that are only predictions which have failed to come true time and time again.". It would be a lot better for people to attack the issue of suppressing technology that already exists, not allowing corporations to buy patents and suppress technology.
Not yet occurred?
The US gov’t has known about this stuff for at least 50 years and these people have 36,000 pages of evidence to prove it. The process has been ongoing for more than 50 years.. and the results are already apparent.Why would it be better not to tackle THE issue directly?
Tackling the issue directly would be not allowing green technology to be suppressed. They intentionally suppress the technology so others can't compete with energy production. The basic idea would be to allow others to buy access to the technology being suppressed then have the current carbon taxes in place making green technology which already exists to actually be used and in a way which makes it as profitable or more profitable than fossil fuels. The lawsuit is ridicules because our government is a democracy, thus everyone votes, it would be individuals attempting to sue everybody for how they have voted. Technically everyone would be entitled to a cut of the money, as well as a loss of the money, thus the entire 'thing' is completely ridiculous.
The US government is not a body independent from the people. The people elect other people and cast vote in particular directions.
Um, no.
Just because access to green technologies should be a thing doesn't mean that subsidizing the fossil fuel industry shouldn't be a thing.
Also, according to a Princeton study in 2014, the USA is no longer a democracy, but rather an oligarchy. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
I'm personally against subsidizing altogether. If someone chooses to build a factory or whatever, they should not get any breaks, if that was banned altogether then the problem would be solved. Well it's nice to hear BBC thinks the USA isn't a democracy, they are wrong. We elect people, no one is there that hasn't been elected and their positions aren't guaranteed, people can always choose to vote someone else in.
Princeton is an American university. BIG $$$ wins elections.. Super PACs etc.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.07 Mar 2019, 8:32 pm
Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ]
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Tik Tok will be banned by the United States again. |
12 Mar 2024, 4:12 am |
| 911 outages in 4 states |
18 Apr 2024, 11:38 am |
| FAA to Increase Oversight of United Airlines After Issues |
02 Apr 2024, 6:59 pm |
