Reply With Quote
I just want you to explain your theory.
You are still stalling.
But AHF your america hating is reaching croutons________ levels so far this year.
I just want you to explain your theory.
You are still stalling.
with all due respect and i mean ALL due respect, i think youre highly intelligent and know where i stand. i think what you want is for me to dance for you.
“Runs” the country? No.
The president has a great deal of influence on governmental policy in the form of directives, and general steering of the agencies given to him by Congress to manage.
The people who “run” the country are a hodge-podge of often competing interests, corporate and public.
Overall, no one really “runs” the country. It is too big, and too complex for any one person, or even a large, powerful group for that matter, to really do more than generally guide in any one direction.
I have seen evidence of some concerted effort on the part of various groups to influence things, and I am under no naive illusions that there are not groups of fairly powerful people who do push things one way or another.
I have however, seen no evidence that could really be said to support the assertion that any one person or group really "runs" things.
If a group of people decide that the science supporting global warming is sufficient to allow for a reasonable prediction of a global disaster, is it that astonishing that they might spend some effort trying to formulate a plan to mitigate or avoid that disaster?
Personally, I have come to firmly believe that the concern regarding the supposed economic costs of this plan is based on literally nothing other than knee-jerk anti-environmentalism.
Critics of global warming science love to advocate the "do nothing" course of action as the cheapest long-term solution, but have never failed to fail when it comes to providing any reasonable support for that.
Simple free market action will cause us to move in the direction of lowering our CO2 output anyways, even if we do nothing. The big problem for the "deniers" is that if we do this before that happens while energy is relatively cheap, we come out with a very strong compe ive advantage. I can support that statement, and have in numerous threads here.
As I see it, we can either get out ahead of the curve, or cede a lot of the compe ive advantage to those who are doing so, i.e. Europe.
If we "do nothing", it will be the ultimate irony that our inability to anticipate what the free-market will do down the road will cause us, through the same free market, to be at a total compe ive disadvantage to the "socialists" in Europe.
We will have locked ourselves into massive investments in fossil fuels for decades, and be attempting to make the adjustment at a time when energy is expensive, while the Europeans, already having made that investment, will out compete us on the world market, because their economies will have already made the adjustment, and who are insultated from the rising costs of fossil fuels.
No, I just wanted you to explain your claim. My belief about who runs the country is roughly the same as RG's. Is yours the same?
roughly, yeah its the same . i just think the ones who push our country one way or the other are the same ones who push all the other countries one way or the other.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
