Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Cruz Destroys Gender Activist Judge During Hearing
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:29:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 272
Message-ID: <v47d4v$i81t$1@dont-email.me>
References: <_qidnWbvU5joYdL7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <akSdnTp7Xod4lPj7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v46nj2$dg7s$3@dont-email.me> <HcKdnbj3yKOqqfr7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 19:29:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b83f50571f8894859414094d29b93a5b";
	logging-data="598077"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Vr1JxYsl7eda+85I6c5Bffm05iujamxo="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QAUE1R10umHBYKAGncObDYy+9zo=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 12441

BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On Jun 10, 2024 at 4:21:06 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/8/24 9:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>  On Jun 7, 2024 at 5:51:24 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  
>>>>  On 6/4/24 5:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>    On Jun 4, 2024 at 8:25:10 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>    
>>>>>>    On 6/3/24 10:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>      In article <v3llcv$3kpo$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>      wrote:
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>      On 6/3/24 2:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>      In article <v3kipd$3u0gd$5@dont-email.me>, FPP
><fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>      wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>      On 6/2/24 10:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>      FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========