I’ve re-thought and I see nothing to change in any of my comments. I’ll leave it at that.
2 Likes
Oh, the irony…
Then stop writing it. Ad hominem attacks on commenters that with whom you disagree add nothing but irrelevant negativity.
And I repeat: Oh, the irony…
4 Likes
When such frustration is expressed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, over a period of years, with nothing new ever being said, with the same old litany of complaints, most of which simply do not have the data to back them up, when they are expressed in threads that have nothing to do with the topic, when the person expressing them ignores all arguments and data that contradict his talking points, then yes, it is warranted to point out the counter-productive nature of such conduct.
3 Likes
OK, well, here’s your mistake:
And if those unwilling people were needed to provide information about global warming and the tactics to deal with it, then you might have a point. But since they aren’t [needed], I’m afraid that you’re still striking out.
If Kathy Castor were to seek particular documents from utility companies, say, or from ExxonMobil, do you imagine that those documents would all be handed over willingly and post-haste?
1 Like
Fine by me.
What I said frustration cannot justify is abuse of any sort.
1 Like
OK, well, here’s your mistake. You are assuming, a priori, absent any actual corroborative data, that such documents are needed for any discussion of climate change.
What I said frustration cannot justify is abuse of any sort.
shrug One man’s “abuse” is another man’s expression of frustration. If any real abuse is being offered, it will be dealt with by the moderators.
4 Likes
More comedy!
I’m not assuming anything, except the possibility that subpoenas would be useful to have.
What you may be assuming is that there’s no need for subpoenas, which is an assumption that can be justified by the long and honorable record of corporate honesty on the subject of climate change and the acceptance of responsibility for it!
More comedy!
I am assuming two things:
-
We do not need corporate records to understand the impact of climate change; nor do we need them to recommend policies to mitigate the impacts of the actions and policies that are at the heart of the problem. The scientific record on climate change is not buried deep in corporate America. It’s in scientific institutions and studies that are widely and publicly available. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.
-
Where such subpoenas are warranted, if that should prove to be the case, it’s a simple matter to adjust the role of the committee or to work with other related committees to make such things happen.
4 Likes
What’s interesting is how the committee’s rules and processes haven’t even been established and yet the usual suspects have leaped to unwarranted conclusions. Here is the one, single comment on this by anyone in the House leadership (Note: not Pelosi) :
“My expectation [is] it will not have subpoena power. It will be a recommendatory committee to the Energy and Commerce Committee and the environmental committees,” Hoyer told reporters.
So, two points: 1) we do not yet know whether it will have subpoena power, and 2), it will be working closely with two committees that do have such power.
4 Likes
Maybe, but that’s precisely when you should discuss said “rules and processes.”
Waiting until they’ve been “established” is naïve if not downright comical.
Georgeh wasn’t “discussing” such “rules and processes.” He was whining that the committee wasn’t going to have subpoena power, a fact that, as we’ve seen, is not in evidence, as well as excoriating Nancy Pelosi for the thousandth time.
4 Likes
For even floating the possibility that the second committee she is forming will be less powerful than the first one she formed 12 years ago.
I have no problem with this criticism.
Except that Pelosi hasn’t “floated” any such possibility. Hoyer did. Hence, the problem with the criticism.
Now you’re just being comedic again!
Cheers.
Now you’re just being comedic again! Cheers.
Quoting from the original source article:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hasn’t announced the formal rules and structure for the panel.
So let’s recap:
-
Pelosi hasn’t announced the formal rules and structure for the panel.
-
We do not need corporate records to understand the impact of climate change; nor do we need them to recommend policies to mitigate the impacts of the actions and policies that are at the heart of the problem. The scientific record on climate change is not buried deep in corporate America. It’s in scientific institutions and studies that are widely and publicly available.
-
Where such subpoenas are warranted, if that should prove to be the case, it’s a simple matter to adjust the role of the committee or to work with other related committees to make such things happen.
-
And, in fact it will be working closely with two existing committees that have such authority.
And yet, somehow, Pelosi is just the worst House Speaker ever. Got it.
5 Likes
Incrementalism MIGHT work, but only when there’s enough time. We’ve frittered away that time.
There has to be a first step, but in my lifetime, the forming of ‘Blue Ribbon Commission’ was usually just a way to create the illusion that something was being done, a talking point. I’m not sure that our polity, made impotent by current Culture War dynamics and sheer corruption, can move quickly enough or at all really.
Democrats want you to believe we got here because of the big bad Republicans, and all the while the Democrats were fighting the good fight. Some were, but the majority were protecting the status quo for their big money benefactors, and now its likely too late.
This is how democracies die and populations come to crave a dictator who can accomplish things in big fell swoops while their elected officials bicker, take bribes and generally fumble about inefficiently.
Democrats, either start breaking some eggs or there’s no point really.
2 Likes
[quote=“kumquat16, post:96, topic:82465”]
Pelosi hasn’t announced the formal rules and structure for the panel.[/quote]
And yet a vote on exactly this subject is fast approaching.
You can wait until after that vote is final to voice your objections (should you ever conceive of any).
We do not need corporate records to understand the impact of climate change; nor do we need them to recommend policies to mitigate the impacts of the actions and policies that are at the heart of the problem. The scientific record on climate change is not buried deep in corporate America. It’s in scientific institutions and studies that are widely and publicly available.
Won’t need corporate records? How do you know this in advance?
And how about issuing subpoenas to the EPA? Won’t need records from the Trump Administration, either?
Grossly incorrect and really not worth discussing.
Where such subpoenas are warranted, if that should prove to be the case, it’s a simple matter to adjust the role of the committee or to work with other related committees to make such things happen.
No, it won’t be as simple a matter as you think.
And if you can imagine subpoenas being warranted at some point, why not give the committee that power to begin with? Do you imagine Kathy Castor will do something horrible with it?
And, in fact it will be working closely with two existing committees that have such authority.
So why bother forming this third “Climate Crisis” committee?
And yet, somehow, Pelosi is just the worst House Speaker ever. Got it.
Who said this and where?
3 Likes
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
2 Likes