EPA to reject Obama fuel efficiency standards early next week

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Xist

How many times has the U.S. attempted that? How well did it ever work long-term?

Don't really know since history is a weakness of mine. Worked very well with Japan though. The US wasn't conquering them to stem a refugee crisis, but the concept is the same.

The problem is that citizens have a weak stomach for spending both blood and treasure for humanitarian reasons. If El Salvador sunk some of our Navy ships, we'd have no problem punching their face in. If all they are doing is killing their own people, we don't mind so much.

My point is, either a problem is severe enough that it warrants overthrowing the regime causing the humanitarian crisis, or it's not. Treating burn victims is entirely worthwhile so long as the fire is already out. If we're going to allow the fire burn, then let the whole darn thing burn down.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I don't know why Trump is attacking CAFE, but he will surely lose. It makes sense for the federal government to set maximum pollution limits since pollution is not confined to a local area, but forcing states to adhere to a minimum pollution amount is absurd on the face of it.

Of the major political parties, I'm most closely in agreement with the Libertarian party, and my stance on this has been consistent. As much as I have always loathed that CA sets standards that affect the vehicles I get (and associated price), I have to say that states rights trump federal agendas, especially when the agenda is to decrease fuel efficiency standards.

The Koch brothers are very consistent in their mission to promote prosperity for people, and Americans in particular. They've backed people of all political parties. They are among the least politically motivated individuals, especially considering their wealth brings more power and influence than any 1 political group can muster. In other words, politicians can be for the Koch brothers, but the Koch brothers have no need for particular politicians or groups. Reminds me of the opening line of "The Departed", where Jack says he never wanted to be a product of society, he wanted society to be a product of him.

*I can't remember if CAFE was a campaign issue.If it was,then it's no surprise that he's pursuing it.Since the Supreme Court has ruled carbon dioxide a toxin,and the EPA is charged with protecting the American people,and President Trump took an oath to protect us from threats (including ourselves),it may be a more complicated undertaking,doing the rollback.
*The rule of law will no doubt,go under an electron scanning microscope in deciding if 50-years of de facto authority of California to set more stringent standards can,arbitrarily and capriciously be overturned.The larger issue may be the proposition to altogether ban internal combustion from the state by 2035.
*I own,and have read everything Ayn Rand ever published,and there ARE some very attractive aspects.I can imagine much of it resonating with business owners.I did a couple of years precinct work for the Libertarian Party in Dallas.I took it as just part of my self-education.
*The Koch family has done well and they have the resources to influence folks,and their businesses would be affected by 'policy',so it's no wonder that they'd participate in the public arena so as to protect their interests.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Don't really know since history is a weakness of mine. Worked very well with Japan though. The US wasn't conquering them to stem a refugee crisis, but the concept is the same.

Monroe Doctrine
'banana republics'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

There is a degree of culpability. It still stands that the wall is the humane solution.

The solution needn't involve blood and treasure in current year. It does look, today, like an Internet Bill Of Rights is necessary.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*I own,and have read everything Ayn Rand ever published,and there ARE some very attractive aspects.I can imagine much of it resonating with business owners.I did a couple of years precinct work for the Libertarian Party in Dallas.I took it as just part of my self-education.
*The Koch family has done well and they have the resources to influence folks,and their businesses would be affected by 'policy',so it's no wonder that they'd participate in the public arena so as to protect their interests.

I've not ready anything by Rand, but have been accused of being closely associated with her, and therefore unworthy of debating. Atlas Shrugged is on my list to read someday, but it's a very big book, and there are plenty of other books I should read too that are shorter in length. Speaking of big books, I still need to work through Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

The main flaw of Libertarian principles is that they are insufficient to address "tragedy of the commons" issues, such as environmental concerns and global warming. The fundamentalist attitude is something along the lines of "what business of yours is it, if I pee in my corner of the swimming pool".

That said, it's better to err on the side of liberty than authority to the government. Too much freedom for an individual can result in them doing harm to themselves, which is a relatively easy problem to address. Too much authority granted to government can lead to gas chambers and mass graves; a problem much more dire and difficult to solve.

Originally Posted by freebeard

Monroe Doctrine
'banana republics'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

There is a degree of culpability. It still stands that the wall is the humane solution.

The solution needn't involve blood and treasure in current year. It does look, today, like an Internet Bill Of Rights is necessary.

Iran Contra... goes along with my principle that if a cause is worth anyone's bloodshed, it's worth our bloodshed.

I'm not sure isolationism is right, but at least it mostly avoids messy politics and unintended consequences. It's by far the simplest solution, and I do like simple solutions.

Is a wall really effective? It seems to me it's more of a statement than a deterrent. I don't think the problem is so much one of physical access to the country, but motivations for being here in the first place, and of there being little consequence of having done so illegally. Concertina wire is easily defeated with a pair of wire cutters or a blanket. The weakness of a wall is that the entire length must be maintained, and a single breach makes it ineffective. Patrolling will still be required, so why not just forego the wall and patrol?

[Xist]

In "Adam Ruins the Wall" on YouTube, he says a wall wouldn't work because 40% of illegal immigrants fly into the country.

Sixty percent of the time it would work none of the time?

There is a huge list of times the U.S. tried to "improve" governments. It is so big I did not even try reading it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._regime_change

[oil pan 4]

That's why I said the ones worth having here come through check points either fly or drive and are here legally at least for a while.
We know they probably aren't likely to be murderers, drug dealers, gang members. If they are sneaking across the open boarder, they are more likely to be.

[freebeard]

[First time Ecomodder choked and ate my post in a long time, anyways...]

Originally Posted by Xist

"Adam Ruins the Wall"

The mother of the girl who appeared on the cover of Time magazine with the President paid $6000 to coyotes to get that result. She could have flown into San Diego and submitted to the legal process, but no — the coyotes got the money.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Iran Contra... goes along with my principle that if a cause is worth anyone's bloodshed, it's worth our bloodshed.

Else the principle that if a cause is worth anyone's bloodshed, it's worth selling the guns, using Israel as a cut-out. 'Cause that's what happened.

The Concertina wire is a honeypot. Sensors attract the [nominally nonlethal] drones.

If I read Ay Rand it's so long ago I've forgotten. When you read her see if you can figure out why see was infatuated with the serial killer.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

In "Adam Ruins the Wall" on YouTube, he says a wall wouldn't work because 40% of illegal immigrants fly into the country.

Sixty percent of the time it would work none of the time?

There is a huge list of times the U.S. tried to "improve" governments. It is so big I did not even try reading it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._regime_change

You may be amused at what retired USMC General Smedley Butler shared about a regime change experience he had in the USA,circa 1936.
'When you own a huge chunk of the bloody third world the babies just come with the scenery'

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by Xist

In "Adam Ruins the Wall" on YouTube, he says a wall wouldn't work because 40% of illegal immigrants fly into the country.

Sixty percent of the time it would work none of the time?

There is a huge list of times the U.S. tried to "improve" governments. It is so big I did not even try reading it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._regime_change

What about the "bad guys" who TUNNEL 'under-the-wall' into USA?

[oil pan 4]

The USAF developed technology after Vietnam to be able to detect tunneling activities from 35,000 feet above.