April 23, 2019

(WATCH) John Stossel on the Green New Deal: Fact versus fiction

Look What We FoundStories from around the web

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal proposes to save the planet. It calls for the United States to reduce carbon emissions to zero in 10 years.

John Stossel speaks with former editor of Popular Mechanics James Meigs about how only people who don't understand the energy economy could have such impossible goals.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-04-24 22:02:31 -0400
Now you know Barbie won’t like this at all . Opposite to her bull shit . Can’t tax the shit out of you when they go green .
commented 2019-04-23 23:20:11 -0400
Andrew 10%

No Andrew, you’re falling into the lefty trap of ‘leaving out half the facts’. Which half did you leave out? The environmental and financial cost the video touched on. It’s only a ‘huge improvement’ if you leave those items out of the equation, at which point, it becomes more of a ‘fell good’ policy.
commented 2019-04-23 16:04:28 -0400
Andrew Stephenson how about all you proponents show us by adopting this to your lifestyle first?
commented 2019-04-23 16:03:35 -0400
Andrew Stephenson WRONG! They know exactly what will happen if this was implemented. IT is not a mystery that it would be a massive disaster.
commented 2019-04-23 15:13:38 -0400
Sure why not “Stephenson” go ahead and add plagiarism to your list of what you do as you already lie and slander on a continual frequent basis, you might as well cover all the bases LOL.
commented 2019-04-23 11:00:31 -0400
Here’s a thought for you,

Would I be able to identify this as an example of the “nirvana fallacy” without knowing what that is? You’d pretty much need to spot it to use the keyword to find a sentence to plagiarize. Once the thought is there, is it actually easier to plagiarize, or just write it yourself, considering it’s one sentence with less than two dozen words?
commented 2019-04-23 10:56:47 -0400
Charred,

Which of the following options is more difficult
- Read the article.
- Consider the claims being made in the article.
- Go on the internet, and find someone else’s response that precisely articulates the comment I’m trying to make
- Paraphrase it (the only “hit” if you Google my comments with quotation marks is Google’s indexes of my activity on the Rebel).
- Do that again, for the second half of my comment, which is a separate and distinct point. Maybe a third time, since the parenthetical comment is also a separate thought.
- Synthesize multiple copy-pasted and then paraphrased ideas into a cogent post that responds to the topic.

Or,
- Write a two sentence reply based upon synthesizing the same knowledge I would need to search for topical material to “copy and paste” anyway.
commented 2019-04-23 10:09:03 -0400
Giving up before you start because a goal is so aggressive as to be “impossible” is to fall prey to the Nirvana fallacy – perfect is the enemy of good. Even going only 10% of the way to that goal, which is still aggressive but achievable (and largely represents the direction things are going anyway), and represents a huge improvement.