Texas loves socialism when it comes to weather

Oh no! Socialism... like the police department, fire department, mail service, roads, libraries, etc. etc. How will we ever survive with these evil machinations??? They are going to destroy society for sure!!

originally posted by: darkbake
Oh no! Socialism... like the police department, fire department, mail service, roads, libraries, etc. etc. How will we ever survive with these evil machinations??? They are going to destroy society for sure!!

None of that is socialism.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
Texas has always thought of itself as an independent state. They even call themselves their own republic.
The people sure are different there, not necessarily bad or good, just different.

They sure do have the most independent spirit.......until............weather.

Yes folks that’s right, as soon some cold, snow or rain hits TeeeHAw all bets are off.
abc13.com...

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Saturday warned that all of Texas faces an unprecedented winter storm and issued a state disaster declaration. President Joe Biden approved an emergency declaration for the state of Texas and ordered federal assistance to supplement state and local response efforts

What do you call it when a state can’t take care of it’s own citizens and gets federal assistance? Isn’t that socialism???
That horrible S word...

Picking on Texas here, but Just food for thought..

Swing and a miss as usual, but you get a star for participating as always (I know you get upset), don’t worry sweetheart. Plowing roads isn’t socialism hun. If it were, I suppose capitalism was replaced a long time ago and we can blame the state of America on socialism and you’d agree with me.

a reply to: Rob808

Swing and a miss as usual, but you get a star for participating as always (I know you get upset), don’t worry sweetheart. Plowing roads isn’t socialism hun. If it were, I suppose capitalism was replaced a long time ago and we can blame the state of America on socialism and you’d agree with me.

Listen hun, agree or don't agree. I'm not the only one who is saying this.

Like here:
www.spokesman.com...

Environmental Protection Agency, farm subsidies, the FBI, the FCC, the FDA, FEMA, fire departments, food stamps, garbage collection,

or here
thehill.com...

—fortify FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) ($45B); and

or here
www.timesrepublican.com...

Other socialist-supported programs include: Department of Agriculture, the Pentagon, Center for Disease Control, Food and Drug Administration, FEMA,

What is socialism? Simply stated, socialism is taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole. The streets and roads we drive on are taxpayer funded — thank you President Dwight Eisenhower (R) for your Interstate Highway System Act of 1956.

I could go on all day

a reply to: Morbidlynx

Sorry for the late reply.

There are always downsides to ANY form of climate manipulation, take the Sahara, it could be altered to make it a usable green farming area but what would that do elsewhere, well sand from the Sahara is an important part of our CURRENT climate system, it often forms rain seeds when it is blown high into the atmosphere as moisture then condenses on the tiny sand and dust particles.

Turn the Sahara green and reduce the amount of sand in the atmosphere but also by default then alter the rainfall pattern elsewhere as a result.

One method of altering the Sahara that was put forward many, many decades ago but never actually attempted as far as I know was to create huge checkerboard like black squares across the desert using Tar refined from oil, the idea was that these black areas would create an artificial updraft when the sun shone on them as they would get very hot, this updraft would push moisture laden air up into the higher atmosphere were it would then condense and so rain someway downwind of these artificially induced thermal plumes once.

There are so many method's that have been suggested, for everything an upside and a downside, what is good for one area may be very bad for another.

Still your point is excellent and also accurate I agree we MUST have the science to do both, cool and warm the planet as needed.

China is currently apparently experimenting with climate control, wonder if that is why they have had those recent disasters there, the Soviet union definitely did during the cold war era and according to some the US also definitely has, often with the goal of weaponizing climate according to some, want to destroy a country, destroy it's harvests and it's food production without ever needing to fire a missile at them.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Ideology has gotten in the way of common sense by many here on ATS.

I cop to getting govt. grants for some of my projects. There is a lot of govt. money available if you know how to jump thru the hoops. Research is an industry as is writing the grants to get funded. Of course it's socialism to receive tax dollars from the National Endowment for the Humanities to fund BS social research into the ramifications of working the graveyard shift.
It's common knowledge in the research game that it's easier to get grants after you have squandered a million $$ on your first one.

In my village there are 11 cop cars for 6 officers and a boat to patrol a mostly dry river. That grant money had to be spent if you want to get the next one.

Please sir, I'll have another....

a reply to: JAGStorm

What is socialism? Simply stated, socialism is taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole.

Wrong.

Socialism is the seizing and ownership of the means of production by the "workers" (Which just ends up being an all-powerful state apparatus.). That includes people as well as buildings and infrastructure.

The military is not a socialist organization it does not produce anything.


Government service does not equal socialism.

Edit:

I could go on all day

And you'd be wrong all day. All of your sources are also wrong.

Mad how everyone suddenly claims to know the ''real'' definition of Socialism now, yet for years here, every single thing slightly left of Centre has been called Socialism.

🤔

a reply to: valiant

And all of those people were likely wrong too.

Socialism has a definition. It is not about social services or free school.

Look up the Nordic Model. That's what dumb#s here and elsewhere think is socialism.

It isn't.

a reply to: projectvxn

Oh I am aware, it's more Welfarism than anything. Though if everyone started calling that Socialism (which is what seems to have happened over the last few decades) then eventually, definition or not it will be known as such and spoken about as such.

I just find it convenient how people play dumb with things, til it suddenly suits there argument.

That isn't aimed at you BTW

originally posted by: valiant
Mad how everyone suddenly claims to know the ''real'' definition of Socialism now, yet for years here, every single thing slightly left of Centre has been called Socialism.

🤔

ATS, has become the arbiter of political thought by the ultimate Qanon cult wing of the self described "conservative" Republican party.

I have been regarded as a socialist/communist because of not bowing down to the "chosen one" when in actuality I'm a free market capitalist that worships the laissez-faire economy. I find it very hard to give most of the current members any credibility at all now that politics has been replaced by a distorted religious fervor. There's also a negative side....

One, three letter acronym word...SIN.

Social Insurance/Security Numbers.

Im often told confess my SIN's an release myself such a thing when God calls to judge.


Repent ye Sinners, for ye have chosen the beast instead of Gods protection(tax exemption), and will not release yourself into the Lords hands, and be a flock of sheep when Judgement ring ye bells.

Repent from thy wicked ways....

It's not like 2011 didnt show everyone that Texas was ill equipped to deal with extreme winter weather.

Nothing was done cause money.

Texas to California: "hahaha politicans let the free market decide, stop trying to regulate energy"

Texas now ( while the lack of regulation is failing in real time): "We need to figure how this happened"


#ing clowns.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Over expansion and putting stress on the power grid seems to be a large core of the problem.

I've got 3 different family members in close proximity, in households/neighborhoods with no power going on 24 hours.

The common denominator between these three is they are all in new developments (past 20 years) Cheap cookie cutter homes (that are FRESH AND NEW!) that you literally can't tell one from the other, and there are thousands of them in a small area.

Meanwhile, my house, which has suffered one outage lasting about 8 hours total, is in a large neighborhood of houses built in the 60s. Older, but established, and very stable. (Roughly the same price as the other three houses too)

Seems to me, when these builders come in and develop these huge plots, they don't ask enough questions regarding potential added stress on the grid.




Plenty of other WTF issues encountered by these three homes (data lines buried 4 inches in to the soil, cheap 3tab roofs, severe drainage issues, underpowered AC units, etc.) but not having power for days in the midst of storm is the cherry on top.

Sounds like piss poor planning.

a reply to: vonclod

Yeah... and then... add the fact that a lot of the youngens living in that area want their homes to feel like a hotel so they crank the AC to 65 degrees in 100 degree summers. Blow out their AC, and then bitch on social media about.

I've tried to explain the 20 degree rule to them but they look like deer caught in the headlights. They'd rather just shell out thousands of dollars for new systems over and over. Oh and then complain about being broke... on social media.


Derailing a little but a lot of people should just live in apartments. Homes are too big of a task to maintain for a LARGE amount of the population. Go into enough of them and over time you'll see what I mean.

originally posted by: valiant
Mad how everyone suddenly claims to know the ''real'' definition of Socialism now, yet for years here, every single thing slightly left of Centre has been called Socialism.

🤔

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: JAGStorm

Oh look, a guy has fallen! What to do other than kick him in the face?

Sorry, but that is how your posts here come across. Very dickish.

It should fit right in here lately...

a reply to: LABTECH767

Actually, climatologists know we'd be in a cooling period were it not for CO2 output, as solar irradiation is currently decreasing. Also, they know the causes of previous heating and cooling trends (these are referred to as "forcings").

It's true that's been hotter in the past but the point is that we now have a world with billions of humans to feed and many of them living on coasts (and most of them in developing countries that don't have the infrastructure to deal with rising tides and an increase in natural disasters) and depending on agriculture that's becoming less stable. We're looking at droughts and famines. Also keep in mind that past changes in climate also resulted in mass die-offs, even extinctions, and this warming trend is far more rapid.

a reply to: Phallacy

Very good point, knowing and accepting are not the same thing though not all scientists agree and remember they are only human having a few letters after your name and having sat in a few lecture halls then written a few ideas that correspond with the lecturers own beliefs does not make them the super geniuses we would like them to be, some are however very smart indeed not all though some are simply gifted with good memories and never come up with an original thought in there entire lives, perhaps better suited to the legal profession or something in there cases.

Our population I and others have discussed elsewhere, we could feed a vastly larger population the planet could easily sustain them but our economic model, our culture and our application of our capability's are all skewed to making money not feeding the planet, not solving our environmental fluctuations.

Look back 14000 or so years ago, the planet was much cooler, the glacial maximum had yet to end and the seas were HUNDREDS of feet lower, perhaps effectively much more than that in some areas as the model of sea level fluctuation due to ice formation does not take into account subcrustal magma displacement and only very poorly takes into account crustal depression and rebound.
So some areas may have been HIGHER due to the underlying magma being displaced from the continents were the ice had affectively formed a second frozen continent over them and squeezed that magma out from under the continents into lighter less dense sections of the crust uplifting them and so exposing even more potential land area.

Either way unlike those people - as far as we know and lets be fair we DON'T we only know about the hunter gatherers that lived in the mostly inhospitable hinterland and nothing of those that lived on the fertile warm lands that are now beneath the sea or there level of social and cultural development let alone what level of technology they may have possessed but though I am a proponent that there may have been previous technological ages I believe at that time about 12000 or so years ago there were non actually present or capable let along global to deal with the danger they faced.

We on the other hand HAVE the tool's, we just need to apply them but I am afraid it would take global political will, some of the necessary work would NOT be financially beneficial and seem like a whole in economy's so nationalised industry's to do that work would be the only possible solution since corporations and company's are all about profit in the financial sense of the world, it would be immensely, endlessly profitable but at a very slow return that private investment could never absorb.

We could feed, cloth, shelter all humans on the planet and are currently producing far more than enough food to feed them so human population despite the enemy's of humanity that have hijacked the climate debate and the ecological arguments for there own agenda (which is frankly ANTI HUMAN) people are not the problem governments ARE the problem and so are corporations.

We could solve, plan ahead and do all the necessary work to fix our planet, vast areas of unusable land could be walled off with gigantic DAMN type walls and water pumped into them to compensate for ice loss, huge walls could even be built around Greenland and even Antarctica, they would have to be built very well, even the sea could have giant damns built IN it though that would be adverse to global oceanic current's however one beneficial spin off would be tidal power and a slowing of the moons slow retreat away from our planet.

But it is political will, new technology's and a motivation that are lacking, people will go on as they are now until it happens, then they will adapt and continue to go on even if millions and billions die.