Tell Me How I Am Wrong

Now lets look at the second bullet point"
As I wrote it. . .
I am opposed to the forced implementation of the so called “Green New Deal”

And from Tuxedo Guy"
As I understand the Green New Deal nothing is being compelled. That’s why the Inflation reduction act’s green initiatives are about incentivizing clean energy changes.

There have been attempts to forbid the ssle of internal combustion powered vehicles. Some laws are currently in effect with trget dsats ranging from 2030 to 2050 I think. There are current laws prohibiting the dale or use of lawn care equipment that are IC powered. There are serious proposals to ban gas fired household stoves and flame heated outdoor grilling equipment.

Some of these are currently in effect while are merely the stated intention of people who seek the power to implement the "Green New Deal nationally,

The "incentives" for much of this is to avoid conflict with the law (existing law or proposed law).

Now lets look at the second bullet point"
As I wrote it. . .
I am opposed to the forced implementation of the so called “Green New Deal”

And from Tuxedo Guy"
As I understand the Green New Deal nothing is being compelled. That’s why the Inflation reduction act’s green initiatives are about incentivizing clean energy changes.

There have been attempts to forbid the ssle of internal combustion powered vehicles. Some laws are currently in effect with trget dsats ranging from 2030 to 2050 I think. There are current laws prohibiting the dale or use of lawn care equipment that are IC powered. There are serious proposals to ban gas fired household stoves and flame heated outdoor grilling equipment.

Some of these are currently in effect while are merely the stated intention of people who seek the power to implement the "Green New Deal nationally,

The "incentives" for much of this is to avoid conflict with the law (existing law or proposed law). Originally Posted by ICU 812

You are correct, Some states are implementing laws and regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. As far as I know there are no federal laws limiting ice engines in the united states. But I’m not averse to limiting some of the dirtiest technologies. It’s my best guess that many of the dirtiest industries will go the way of the dodo. Things are changing worldwide and those changes will eventually make their way to the United States. Or hopefully we will implement them here and export them elsewhere.

Much as you are, I am "not adverse" to a clean energy. There is a place for wind and solar, but these technologies are not the solve-it-all panacea. I support the use of smaller than we used to build nuclear power stations.

But I do oppose the forced implementation or adoption of new technologies. As a reverse example. In 1900 most transportation was almost exclusively steam powered or horse drawn. Twenty or twenty-five years later, the move towards IC automobiles was inexorable. The obvious advantages of the Model-T and other cars sold the nation on IC motor driven vehicles. Steam powered trains dominated through WW-II to be replaced in the 1950s by diesel-electric. In both cases, unregulated economics drove the change.

"If you build a better mouse rap . . ."

Whenever all electric vehicles become a better mousetrap, they will dominate the roads. Batteries may not be the answer. It may be that fuel cell technologies evolve to rule the roads. As noted above, hybrid electric locomotives already rule the rails.

It is my understanding that California has banned or will phase-in a ban on small IC engines for just about anything. With that in mind, I have seen a report (no link) that an army helicopter brought supplies to a hurricane Helane victims in a remote area of Western North Carolina. These supplies included a pallet of chain saws . . .all of them electric. Not much help there. Of course, one portion of this example is California, and the other is in North Carolina, but the point is valid, I think.

The future will include wind power and solar generation, but there are emerging environmental issues. The same may be said for battery power storage for vehicles. Nuclear to has issues.

My objection is not to the tech ologies themselves. My objection is to the cohesion that has been brought o foster their adoption.

The first bullet point in the OP:

"I am opposed to open borders and the unrestricted influx of unscreened [COLOR="Red"]foreign nationals."

From Tuxedo-Guy:
"I am opposed as well but I am horrified by the cruelty and lack of compassion exemplified by the Previous administration and some of the more conservative state governments."

A fair answer, but that response does not address the topic directly. I will rephrase the first bullet point as an explicit question.

How is the unfetered, unscreened unlimited entry of foreign nationals by the millions a good thing for the USA as a nation and America as a society? Originally Posted by ICU 812

Simply looking at the demographic trends of the United States tells us that immigration is a net positive. The aging baby boom generation and income inequality among the elderly is going to gut the budget even more than it already is. On top of that we have a falling and slowing birth rate in the US. Immigration is the best solution to these problems.

However unfettered unscreened immigration is a problem. Unfortunately no one in Congress is willing to deal with this problem head on. Until they do the problem of asylum seekers is not going to go away.

I’m going to mention Trump now because he and people who listen to him are using those people at the border as villains in his version of bad political theater.

Oops. I don't rad quickly enough to respond to that last post.

The shear volume of unscreened foreign nationals entering the country in a short period is mu primary objection. The volume of folks alone is straining our society in every state and t every level.

We do need engineers, programmers, health care professionals and other educated and skilled immigrants. We also need folks willing to follow less skilled career paths. We defiantly do not huge numbers of career criminals, terrorists and folks who simply have no interest in building a better America.

Much as you are, I am "not averse" to a clean energy. There is a place for wind and solar, but these technologies are not the solve-it-all panacea. I support the use of smaller than we used to build nuclear power stations.

But I do oppose the forced implementation or adoption of new technologies. As a reverse example. In 1900 most transportation was almost exclusively steam powered or horse drawn. Twenty or twenty-five years later, the move towards IC automobiles was inexorable. The obvious advantages of the Model-T and other cars sold the nation on IC motor driven vehicles. Steam powered trains dominated through WW-II to be replaced in the 1950s by diesel-electric. In both cases, unregulated economics drove the change.

"If you build a better mouse trap . . ."

Whenever all electric vehicles become a better mousetrap, they will dominate the roads. Batteries may not be the answer. It may be that fuel cell technologies evolve to rule the roads. As noted above, hybrid electric locomotives already rule the rails.

It is my understanding that California has banned or will phase-in a ban on small IC engines for just about anything. With that in mind, I have seen a report (no link) that an army helicopter brought supplies to a hurricane Helane victims in a remote area of Western North Carolina. These supplies included a pallet of chain saws . . .all of them electric. Not much help there. Of course, one portion of this example is California, and the other is in North Carolina, but the point is valid, I think.

The future will include wind power and solar generation, but there are emerging environmental issues. The same may be said for battery power storage for vehicles. Nuclear too has issues.

My objection is not to the technologies themselves. My objection is to the cohesion that has been brought to foster their adoption. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Government has the responsibility to provide a safe and legal framework / environment for our capitalist society to thrive. But history shows us that the unfettered capitalism has its own problems. At one point in time we dumped our waste just offshore. We had rivers so polluted that they would catch on fire. Currently we have forever chemicals infesting our water and soil and microplastics worldwide. Government solves these problems through regulations. Regulations that reward some industries and limit others are the way they do that. We’re currently in a state of change not just in the United States but across the globe. No one likes it but unfortunately it’s necessary. Or at least that’s my opinion.

Oops. I don't read quickly enough to respond to that last post.

The sheer volume of unscreened foreign nationals entering the country in a short period is my primary objection. The volume of folks alone is straining our society in every state and at every level.

We do need engineers, programmers, health care professionals and other educated and skilled immigrants. We also need folks willing to follow less skilled career paths. We defiantly do not huge numbers of career criminals, terrorists and folks who simply have no interest in building a better America. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Although I would take issue with the characterization of immigrants as “career criminals and terrorists” I take your point. Again the only way to fix this problem is to create some new laws that not only change requirements for immigration but increase the number of allowed visas as well. Or even better yet we need to allow those illegal migrants who have already been here for a decade or longer and who have been educated in our schools to become citizens. It’s not just about the people migrating but it’s more about the children that they will have and the way we integrate them into our communities.

Well, I do not charscterize all of the foreign nationals that have come her ein the past four years (or the past twenty years) as terrorists or criminals although many of them are. Many have been identified as such and been released into our society. Many have been arrested multiple times and re-released into our midst again.

Sure, our system of work visas, green cards and such needs to be revised. My daughter-in-law works in international HR at a university, and she tells me so. However, while all that is negotiated and voted on, there are stroke-of-the pen actions that can be taken to seriously throttle down the torrential influx of new commers of any characterization from every corner of the globe.

Those actions should be taken post-haste., and may be taken without involving members or the House, the Senate or with any concern that the Supreme Court will become involved.

As Larry The Cable Guy often says, "Git 'er dunn!".

But all of the above avoids the central question:

Why and how is bringing in several millions of unknown foreign nationals in four short years a good thing for America.

But all of the above avoids the central question:
Why and how is bringing in several millions of unknown foreign nationals in four short years a good thing for America. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Because those people will have children, and those children will be born American, they will be schooled in American schools and speak American english.

It’s not just about what happens now but what happens in the future as well.

Because those people will have children, and those children will be born American, they will be schooled in American schools and speak American english.

It’s not just about what happens now but what happens in the future as well. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Yes, yes . . .I wholly agree on the desirability of immigration in principle. All of my family came to the USA sometime after 1900. Half my wif's family too. All through Ellis Island and its screening process, all with legitimate travel documents. All with an American sponsor that, in a sense "co-signed" for their financial stability.

The nation is staggering under the ever-growing current burden of millions of unknown go reign nationals, many of whom have no intention of becoming productive citizens, or even becoming any kind of citizens. Many, a great many, are formally known to be criminals in their home country. Many are known to be on the international terrorist watch list. Many are so bereft of resources that they can only eak out a marginal existence in wherever they live. . . .here or anywhere else.

There are so many millions that our existing social services safety net is strained and breaking. Our own citizen unfortunates are being bypassed for benefits in favor of these newcomers. Our indigent veterans have been evicted from government housing for these newcomers. And on and on . . .How cvasn any of this possibly be a good thing for the Nation and American society?

The nation is staggering under the ever-growing current burden of millions of unknown go reign nationals, many of whom have no intention of becoming productive citizens, or even becoming any kind of citizens. Many, a great many, are formally known to be criminals in their home country. Many are known to be on the international terrorist watch list. Many are so bereft of resources that they can only eak out a marginal existence in wherever they live. . . .here or anywhere else.

There are so many millions that our existing social services safety net is strained and breaking. Our own citizen unfortunates are being bypassed for benefits in favor of these newcomers. Our indigent veterans have been evicted from government housing for these newcomers. And on and on . . .How cvasn any of this possibly be a good thing for the Nation and American society? Originally Posted by ICU 812

Because none of what you are saying is true. A bigger load of propaganda would be hard to find. You are making out like the estimated 16 million undocumented people in the country are shiftless indigents and criminals. That is simply not true and we need to get these people working legally and paying taxes.

The country is staggering under the needs of the elderly and the defense industry. If we are going to get the federal budget under control taxes on SS and Medicare must rise and the Income taxes must rise as well.

Because none of what you are saying is true. A bigger load of propaganda would be hard to find. You are making out like the estimated 16 million undocumented people in the country are shiftless indigents and criminals. That is simply not true and we need to get these people working legally and paying taxes.

The country is staggering under the needs of the elderly and the defense industry. If we are going to get the federal budget under control taxes on SS and Medicare must rise and the Income taxes must rise as well. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

This is an excellent point. I propose that people over 70 shouldn't even be allowed to vote. They'll all be dead soon, and definitely don't have a dog in fight for the future of the country. It could be argued they're the ones that have screwed it all up.

This is an excellent point. I propose that people over 70 shouldn't even be allowed to vote. They'll all be dead soon, and definitely don't have a dog in fight for the future of the country. It could be argued they're the ones that have screwed it all up. Originally Posted by Laugh-riot

does that include your parents?

does that include your parents? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Sure. Did you see any sort of exception in that sentence?

To Remain On Topic . . .

#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.