Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 21:09:11 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Cruz Destroys Gender Activist Judge During Hearing References: <_qidnWbvU5joYdL7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS Message-ID: Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 21:09:11 +0000 Lines: 139 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-0aRlmJTbGnsxyool5DevozBkjTwlYAeDSPQ0Gw+6DeMCJJ+voXhOyVPWQw2aGuCRq0vIUgQe/Eb82Ms!sRtAfsTUBXzG1ZPtIQlxjW50AueqI929eeIkNLRq6qNASY7/t01JC0XUsU7Mn14Oyq5Rd42/0Fqj X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 8324 X-Original-Lines: 85 On Jun 4, 2024 at 8:25:10 AM PDT, "FPP" wrote: > On 6/3/24 10:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >> In article , FPP >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/3/24 2:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>> In article , FPP >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/2/24 10:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>> FPP wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/2/24 3:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >> >>>>>>>> So when you said you don't talk about another state's governor because >>>>>>>> he doesn't affect your life... that was... wait for it... a lie. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How does eating out affect my life? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, trying to destroy capitalism and education in the country is >>>>>>> another matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your own words: another state's governor doesn't affect my life. >>>>>> >>>>>> Weird how you're now claiming some governors have the power to do exactly >>>>>> that by "destroying capitalism and education" throughout the entire >>>>>> country by signing laws that only apply to their respective states. How >>>>>> does DeSantis signing an education bill that only applies to Florida >>>>>> affect your life, Effa? >> >> Still no answer here. >> >>>>>> But for some reason when Newsom signs laws, according to Effa the Hutt, >>>>>> he only has the power to affect California, despite the fact that in many >>>>>> cases, he actually does affect the whole country with his bullshit. Like >>>>>> when he banned all gas-powered vehicles by 2035. That affects the whole >>>>>> country because California is such a large percentage of the car market, >>>>>> vehicle manufacturers conform their products to California standards >>>>>> regardless of where they'll eventually be sold. >>>> >>>>> Newsom went out to eat. >>>> >>>> Newsom did exactly what Cruz did that gets your panties in a twist: he >>>> went on vacation while his state was in crisis. And he did it twice. >>>> Cruz only did it once. >>>> >>>>> DeSantis is destroying a state. >>>> >>>> Not your state. Doesn't affect your life. Your words. >> >>> Nope. False equivalence. >>> >>> Newsom owned up to it. >> >> Newsom never 'owned up' to fleeing the state for vacation. Once he got >> caught, he admitted his maskless indoor dining at the French Laundry was >> wrong. But he never gave a mea culpa for being on vacation in Cabo while >> he his state was on fire. >> > You guys caused the fires, ignoring climate change. To quote our newest Hutt: Nope. This nonsense that the California wildfires are due to 'climate change' is ridiculous. Even Emperor Newsom has admitted that historically bad forest management at both the federal and state level is a major factor in the severity and frequency of the most recent wildfires. Anyone who thinks that if we'd all just installed more solar panels and rode our bikes to work, that the state wouldn't be on fire every year is completely delusional. And these idiotic media reporters and politicians who keep saying that the amount of acreage burned in California in 2019-- the worst fire year (2.2 million acres)-- is 'record-breaking' and 'unprecedented' are bald-faced liars. It's fucking factually completely untrue. Before the 1800s, California would see anywhere from 5 to 14 million acres burn EVERY YEAR. That's 12% of the state burning every year. Before there were any SUVs or 'climate change'. Just as there were massive droughts in California long before the era of 'climate change'. California had a 500-year drought between 800 and 1300 AD. These are documented scientific facts, but that undermines the Agenda, so we get flat-out lies from politicians claiming this is unprecedented, which goes completely unchallenged by their media lackeys. Excess timber comes out of a forest in only one of two ways. It's either carried out or it burns up. We used to carry it out. It was called logging. We had healthy forests and a thriving timber economy. Then in the 70s, we began imposing a shit-ton of environmental laws-- both at the state and federal level-- that have made it all but impossible and wildly unprofitable to carry out that timber and what we've seen over those decades is increasingly severe forest fires. We've had an 80% decline in timber harvested out of California forests since 1980 and we've had 85% increase in acres destroyed by fire over that same period. The mismanagement has gotten to the point where you can tell the boundary between private forestland that is not affected by these laws and the public lands that are. The burn scars follow the property lines almost exactly in many cases. Wow, the climate sure is clever to only change over the public lands and burn them while leaving the private lands alone, isn't it? An untended forest will grow and grow until it chokes itself off. When there are too many trees for the land to support, they start dying off, and that dead timber becomes thousands of square miles of fuel, just waiting to be set ablaze. California currently has four times the timber density that the land can support. Even the reliably leftist L.A. Times, which never misses an opportunity to blame something bad on 'climate change', noted that there are currently more than 150 million dead trees in the Sierra Nevada, just waiting to be ignited. That's how nature manages a forest and if we don't want half the state on fire, we have to do something other than nature's way. That's why we started the Forest Service to begin with-- to scientifically manage the forests so that they're both preserved for people's use and to keep them healthy and reduce fires to a minimum. And we had healthy forests for decades. But then the enviro-kooks came along and said "You're interfering with nature! Stop it!" and got all sorts of laws passed requiring a hands-off approach to forestry and now here we are, with the entire West Coast frequently ablaze. The Native American tribes understood this and would routinely both clear away dead trees and brush from around their settlements and villages and conduct controlled burns to reduce the possibility of large out-of-control fires. Then came the white environmentalists, who dismissed the practices of those they considered ignorant savages, and decided they knew better how to do things. Well, we're seeing how well that worked out, huh? But no, we're still having to deal with idiots like Pelosi, Newsom, Occasional-Cortex, and Karen Bass who insist that this problem can be solved with carbon caps and solar panels and windmills, when the truth is that if the U.S. literally shut down all emissions COMPLETELY-- cars, gone; industry, gone; cattle farming, gone; airplanes, gone; all of it, gone-- and we lived that way for the next 80 years, it would only reduce the global mean temperature by 0.3 degrees. That's from the U.N. IPCC model itself. You can go run the numbers yourself if you don't believe it. These wildfires are not a 'climate change' problem. They're a forest management problem. Period.