Re: Cruz Destroys Gender Activist Judge During Hearing

On 6/8/24 8:48 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.
    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
climate change on increased burned areas.
    It was found that nearly all the observed increase in burned areas over the
past half-century is due to human-caused climate change. It is estimated
that from 1971 to 2021, human-caused climate change contributed to a +172%
increase in burned areas, with a  +320% increase from 1996 to 2021. In the
coming decades, a further increase in annual forest burned areas is
expected, ranging from 3% to 52%.

>
You are so full of shit, it ain't even funny anymore.

 "...the extent to which burned area changes are due to natural variability or
human-caused climate change has remained largely unresolved."
 Even your own cite declines to lay the blame for the fires on the 'climate
change' bogeyman.

This is interesting.  So you're changing positions, and no longer deny climate change but instead agree with the statement that the percentage of climate change due to mankind is unresolved?  Or did you just literally drive off a cliff again and have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say because you're so fucking stupid?

They then go on to describe a study that just assumes increases in fires =
'climate change'. No other variables were accounted for, like the billions of
board-feet of dry deadwood lying on forest floors all around the state just
waiting to be ignited because leftist environmental policies prohibit clearing
it out.