Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FPP Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Cruz Destroys Gender Activist Judge During Hearing Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:21:06 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 220 Message-ID: References: <_qidnWbvU5joYdL7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:21:07 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="15c0df494d3af75a759cbd42baeb0f83"; logging-data="442620"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19RpqIOKrpqJ8Je1FZBr2XA" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:8vRfR/40UzX0I8w+G6DP8Pkgw2s= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 12660 On 6/8/24 9:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > On Jun 7, 2024 at 5:51:24 AM PDT, "FPP" wrote: > >> On 6/4/24 5:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> 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. >> >> You talk a big game, but I'm quoting NOAA. >> >>> NEWS & EVENTS >>> Study Finds Climate Change to Blame For Record-Breaking California Wildfires >>> Published onAugust 8, 2023 >> >>> In a new NIDIS-funded study in Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, >>> an international group of researchers created a climate-driven model of >>> summer burned area evolution in California and combined it with natural and >>> historical climate simulations to assess the importance of human-caused ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========