There is certainly way too much division, and it goes both ways.... I will say though that the "Right" started it and also are the ones who have taken it too far, which is why we are here in the first place with a reality star sitting as POTUS.
There was your typical back and forth fights in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, but for the most part people worked together and so did politicians.
Bush was in office and had like an 85% approval rate on the heels of 911. The handling of the military action, and some other gaffes such as Katrina and tanking the economy on the back of deregulation brought on a lot of justified criticism. The Republicans couldnt even bring him out on the campaign trail.
Then Obama takes over, and Republicans felt the need to 'get even' and the criticism was there from day 1, even though, most of the time, there was nothing to criticize. He did a pretty good job and was dignified as President, even navigating an extremely partisan and venomous Republican congress.
Now we have Donald fucking Trump in there. He deserves criticism. People I know who are Republicans hated him until he got the nomination, and suddenly support him because he is on 'their team'. I also know R's who still are true and cant stand him. They have invented something called "fake news", which gives them license to deny any fact they please, and people buy in. That is scary. They deny science and progress. They are pushing an extreme-right agenda, in the face of a "mandate" of not even winning the popular vote. It is safe to say, most people do not want this swing in climate change, health care, planned parenthood, de-regulation, etc... Just show a little bit of moderation. His inauguration speech basically amounted to "neener-neener I won". He appears to have mental illness, which is also scary.
If this were John Kasich in there, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Romney.... and people and media were acting this way, sure... it is not good. Donald Trump is president though. It makes our country an international disgrace.
I love how you gloss over Bush and Cheney being compared to Hitler...followed by McCain/Palin...followed by Romney/Ryan. Every conservative candidate since 2000 has been compared to hitler at some point, has been called a racist, has been accused of pushing granny over a cliff. This rhetoric extends down to the republican voter as well...the tea-party is labelled racist, the deplorable are labelled racist. This is done over and over again and not once do any of you demonstrate the self-awareness in realizing how destructive it is. Repealing and replacing Obamacare is not seen as an attempt to improve the system but is seen as stripping health care away and the literal killing of people. People who want to debate science are accused of "denying science"...the word denier is specifically chosen to compare it to holocaust denial which is understood to be an ultimate evil. Everything you have written is absolute nonsense and you really need to look in the mirror. No previous education secretary needed a 1 million dollar per month security detail but Betsy DeVos for some reason does.
There is certainly way too much division, and it goes both ways.... I will say though that the "Right" started it and also are the ones who have taken it too far, which is why we are here in the first place with a reality star sitting as POTUS.
There was your typical back and forth fights in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, but for the most part people worked together and so did politicians.
Bush was in office and had like an 85% approval rate on the heels of 911. The handling of the military action, and some other gaffes such as Katrina and tanking the economy on the back of deregulation brought on a lot of justified criticism. The Republicans couldnt even bring him out on the campaign trail.
Then Obama takes over, and Republicans felt the need to 'get even' and the criticism was there from day 1, even though, most of the time, there was nothing to criticize. He did a pretty good job and was dignified as President, even navigating an extremely partisan and venomous Republican congress.
Now we have Donald fucking Trump in there. He deserves criticism. People I know who are Republicans hated him until he got the nomination, and suddenly support him because he is on 'their team'. I also know R's who still are true and cant stand him. They have invented something called "fake news", which gives them license to deny any fact they please, and people buy in. That is scary. They deny science and progress. They are pushing an extreme-right agenda, in the face of a "mandate" of not even winning the popular vote. It is safe to say, most people do not want this swing in climate change, health care, planned parenthood, de-regulation, etc... Just show a little bit of moderation. His inauguration speech basically amounted to "neener-neener I won". He appears to have mental illness, which is also scary.
If this were John Kasich in there, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Romney.... and people and media were acting this way, sure... it is not good. Donald Trump is president though. It makes our country an international disgrace.
I love how you gloss over Bush and Cheney being compared to Hitler...followed by McCain/Palin...followed by Romney/Ryan. Every conservative candidate since 2000 has been compared to hitler at some point, has been called a racist, has been accused of pushing granny over a cliff. This rhetoric extends down to the republican voter as well...the tea-party is labelled racist, the deplorable are labelled racist. This is done over and over again and not once do any of you demonstrate the self-awareness in realizing how destructive it is. Repealing and replacing Obamacare is not seen as an attempt to improve the system but is seen as stripping health care away and the literal killing of people. People who want to debate science are accused of "denying science"...the word denier is specifically chosen to compare it to holocaust denial which is understood to be an ultimate evil. Everything you have written is absolute nonsense and you really need to look in the mirror. No previous education secretary needed a 1 million dollar per month security detail but Betsy DeVos for some reason does.
Didn't Trump's son just say (a few days ago) that democrats criticizing his dad weren't even human?
Yeah. He was wrong to say that. The shooter was clearly human. Not even mentally ill. Just a normal member of the #resistance.
There you go again, doing exactly what you're criticizing libs for. What's the matter, no mirrors in your house?
How so? He was a member of the #resistance. Nobody who knew him said he was mentally ill...just somebody outraged by the President who decided to take action.
Nobody who knew Chris Cornell thought he was suicidal, either.
Mental illness does not come with a billboard.
You are absolutely right but this doesn't necessarily mean the shooter had a mental illness...unless you are suggesting that Trump Derangement Syndrome should be officially declared a mental illness.
There is certainly way too much division, and it goes both ways.... I will say though that the "Right" started it and also are the ones who have taken it too far, which is why we are here in the first place with a reality star sitting as POTUS.
There was your typical back and forth fights in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, but for the most part people worked together and so did politicians.
Bush was in office and had like an 85% approval rate on the heels of 911. The handling of the military action, and some other gaffes such as Katrina and tanking the economy on the back of deregulation brought on a lot of justified criticism. The Republicans couldnt even bring him out on the campaign trail.
Then Obama takes over, and Republicans felt the need to 'get even' and the criticism was there from day 1, even though, most of the time, there was nothing to criticize. He did a pretty good job and was dignified as President, even navigating an extremely partisan and venomous Republican congress.
Now we have Donald fucking Trump in there. He deserves criticism. People I know who are Republicans hated him until he got the nomination, and suddenly support him because he is on 'their team'. I also know R's who still are true and cant stand him. They have invented something called "fake news", which gives them license to deny any fact they please, and people buy in. That is scary. They deny science and progress. They are pushing an extreme-right agenda, in the face of a "mandate" of not even winning the popular vote. It is safe to say, most people do not want this swing in climate change, health care, planned parenthood, de-regulation, etc... Just show a little bit of moderation. His inauguration speech basically amounted to "neener-neener I won". He appears to have mental illness, which is also scary.
If this were John Kasich in there, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Romney.... and people and media were acting this way, sure... it is not good. Donald Trump is president though. It makes our country an international disgrace.
I love how you gloss over Bush and Cheney being compared to Hitler...followed by McCain/Palin...followed by Romney/Ryan. Every conservative candidate since 2000 has been compared to hitler at some point, has been called a racist, has been accused of pushing granny over a cliff. This rhetoric extends down to the republican voter as well...the tea-party is labelled racist, the deplorable are labelled racist. This is done over and over again and not once do any of you demonstrate the self-awareness in realizing how destructive it is. Repealing and replacing Obamacare is not seen as an attempt to improve the system but is seen as stripping health care away and the literal killing of people. People who want to debate science are accused of "denying science"...the word denier is specifically chosen to compare it to holocaust denial which is understood to be an ultimate evil. Everything you have written is absolute nonsense and you really need to look in the mirror. No previous education secretary needed a 1 million dollar per month security detail but Betsy DeVos for some reason does.
When all these Joe Yahoos are 'debating' science than yes they are denying science. I don't debate nuclear science with nuclear scientists. But when 99% of atmospheric scientists doing independent research and coming up with the same conclusion than I can go with it.
When the other 1% are sponsored by Exxon some red flags go up. When the politicians on the right, who also still believe in Adam and Eve and not evolution, also call climate change a hoax i get angry because they are denying science
And on the other topic. This kind of of crap gets PUT ON FOX NEWS.
So you probably call those folks deniers and link them to Hitler? You're responsible for Scalise's being shot. See, you don't need a Glen Beck chalkboard to draw that conclusion.
Yes. The term "denier" is specifically used to dehumanize and shut down somebody who thinks differently. It allows one to "otherize" the denier as someone who is beneath contempt. It is why people have even suggested jailing those among the deniers. Deniers are destroyers of the planet after all for selfish means. This is your toxic stew.
Pence hired a private attorney. Why would he need to do that? At least he's hired a seasoned financial crimes attorney who was a former federal AG.Experienced via Iran-Contra no less.
I thought I read that Mueller was bringing in the trial lawyer. Pence just lawyered up.
There is certainly way too much division, and it goes both ways.... I will say though that the "Right" started it and also are the ones who have taken it too far, which is why we are here in the first place with a reality star sitting as POTUS.
There was your typical back and forth fights in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, but for the most part people worked together and so did politicians.
Bush was in office and had like an 85% approval rate on the heels of 911. The handling of the military action, and some other gaffes such as Katrina and tanking the economy on the back of deregulation brought on a lot of justified criticism. The Republicans couldnt even bring him out on the campaign trail.
Then Obama takes over, and Republicans felt the need to 'get even' and the criticism was there from day 1, even though, most of the time, there was nothing to criticize. He did a pretty good job and was dignified as President, even navigating an extremely partisan and venomous Republican congress.
Now we have Donald fucking Trump in there. He deserves criticism. People I know who are Republicans hated him until he got the nomination, and suddenly support him because he is on 'their team'. I also know R's who still are true and cant stand him. They have invented something called "fake news", which gives them license to deny any fact they please, and people buy in. That is scary. They deny science and progress. They are pushing an extreme-right agenda, in the face of a "mandate" of not even winning the popular vote. It is safe to say, most people do not want this swing in climate change, health care, planned parenthood, de-regulation, etc... Just show a little bit of moderation. His inauguration speech basically amounted to "neener-neener I won". He appears to have mental illness, which is also scary.
If this were John Kasich in there, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Romney.... and people and media were acting this way, sure... it is not good. Donald Trump is president though. It makes our country an international disgrace.
I love how you gloss over Bush and Cheney being compared to Hitler...followed by McCain/Palin...followed by Romney/Ryan. Every conservative candidate since 2000 has been compared to hitler at some point, has been called a racist, has been accused of pushing granny over a cliff. This rhetoric extends down to the republican voter as well...the tea-party is labelled racist, the deplorable are labelled racist. This is done over and over again and not once do any of you demonstrate the self-awareness in realizing how destructive it is. Repealing and replacing Obamacare is not seen as an attempt to improve the system but is seen as stripping health care away and the literal killing of people. People who want to debate science are accused of "denying science"...the word denier is specifically chosen to compare it to holocaust denial which is understood to be an ultimate evil. Everything you have written is absolute nonsense and you really need to look in the mirror. No previous education secretary needed a 1 million dollar per month security detail but Betsy DeVos for some reason does.
When all these Joe Yahoos are 'debating' science than yes they are denying science. I don't debate nuclear science with nuclear scientists. But when 99% of atmospheric scientists doing independent research and coming up with the same conclusion than I can go with it.
When the other 1% are sponsored by Exxon some red flags go up. When the politicians on the right, who also still believe in Adam and Eve and not evolution, also call climate change a hoax i get angry because they are denying science
And on the other topic. This kind of of crap gets PUT ON FOX NEWS.
Scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that man contributes to that change. That is all they agree on. Beyond that there is no agreement. None. But what do I know...I'm just a Joe Yahoo with an MSc degree...interested in science but lumped in with all the other "deniers" for suggesting that there are "things we don't know" and that the science isn't exactly settled.
Isn't that agreement enough to enact change to try and stem the tide?
BS44325 said: Scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that man contributes to that change. That is all they agree on. Beyond that there is no agreement. None. But what do I know...I'm just a Joe Yahoo with an MSc degree...interested in science but lumped in with all the other "deniers" for suggesting that there are "things we don't know" and that the science isn't exactly settled.
What other "agreement" needs to me made in your opinion? What science isn't "exactly settled"?
There is certainly way too much division, and it goes both ways.... I will say though that the "Right" started it and also are the ones who have taken it too far, which is why we are here in the first place with a reality star sitting as POTUS.
There was your typical back and forth fights in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, but for the most part people worked together and so did politicians.
Bush was in office and had like an 85% approval rate on the heels of 911. The handling of the military action, and some other gaffes such as Katrina and tanking the economy on the back of deregulation brought on a lot of justified criticism. The Republicans couldnt even bring him out on the campaign trail.
Then Obama takes over, and Republicans felt the need to 'get even' and the criticism was there from day 1, even though, most of the time, there was nothing to criticize. He did a pretty good job and was dignified as President, even navigating an extremely partisan and venomous Republican congress.
Now we have Donald fucking Trump in there. He deserves criticism. People I know who are Republicans hated him until he got the nomination, and suddenly support him because he is on 'their team'. I also know R's who still are true and cant stand him. They have invented something called "fake news", which gives them license to deny any fact they please, and people buy in. That is scary. They deny science and progress. They are pushing an extreme-right agenda, in the face of a "mandate" of not even winning the popular vote. It is safe to say, most people do not want this swing in climate change, health care, planned parenthood, de-regulation, etc... Just show a little bit of moderation. His inauguration speech basically amounted to "neener-neener I won". He appears to have mental illness, which is also scary.
If this were John Kasich in there, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Romney.... and people and media were acting this way, sure... it is not good. Donald Trump is president though. It makes our country an international disgrace.
I love how you gloss over Bush and Cheney being compared to Hitler...followed by McCain/Palin...followed by Romney/Ryan. Every conservative candidate since 2000 has been compared to hitler at some point, has been called a racist, has been accused of pushing granny over a cliff. This rhetoric extends down to the republican voter as well...the tea-party is labelled racist, the deplorable are labelled racist. This is done over and over again and not once do any of you demonstrate the self-awareness in realizing how destructive it is. Repealing and replacing Obamacare is not seen as an attempt to improve the system but is seen as stripping health care away and the literal killing of people. People who want to debate science are accused of "denying science"...the word denier is specifically chosen to compare it to holocaust denial which is understood to be an ultimate evil. Everything you have written is absolute nonsense and you really need to look in the mirror. No previous education secretary needed a 1 million dollar per month security detail but Betsy DeVos for some reason does.
Latest tweet. Truth or Propaganda? Why is that Hillary Clintons family and Dems dealings with Russia are not looked at, but my non-dealings are? Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, 'bleached' emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?
Latest tweet. Truth or Propaganda? Why is that Hillary Clintons family and Dems dealings with Russia are not looked at, but my non-dealings are? Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, 'bleached' emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?
He really needs to stop this nonsense and actually go after Russia for their interference into the election.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Forget everything else, he is failing at job #1....although it does say "best of my ability" .... maybe he just isn't able? Either way - this is what I currently want him removed from office for, failing to protect the US against foreign government hostile attacks.
Latest tweet. Truth or Propaganda? Why is that Hillary Clintons family and Dems dealings with Russia are not looked at, but my non-dealings are? Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, 'bleached' emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?
He really needs to stop this nonsense and actually go after Russia for their interference into the election.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Forget everything else, he is failing at job #1....although it does say "best of my ability" .... maybe he just isn't able? Either way - this is what I currently want him removed from office for, failing to protect the US against foreign government hostile attacks.
my boy Cincy!!! You are spot on reading between his BS
Cincy is a long time conservative poster here... it's good to see not everyone drinks the Kool Aid just because their side won
When someone continues to accept the marching orders of their ultra wealthy overlords and deny something, despite overwhelming data.... in order to blindly support their "team".... yes, it is being a "denier". Cry about it.
There is certainly way too much division, and it goes both ways.... I will say though that the "Right" started it and also are the ones who have taken it too far, which is why we are here in the first place with a reality star sitting as POTUS.
There was your typical back and forth fights in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, but for the most part people worked together and so did politicians.
Bush was in office and had like an 85% approval rate on the heels of 911. The handling of the military action, and some other gaffes such as Katrina and tanking the economy on the back of deregulation brought on a lot of justified criticism. The Republicans couldnt even bring him out on the campaign trail.
Then Obama takes over, and Republicans felt the need to 'get even' and the criticism was there from day 1, even though, most of the time, there was nothing to criticize. He did a pretty good job and was dignified as President, even navigating an extremely partisan and venomous Republican congress.
Now we have Donald fucking Trump in there. He deserves criticism. People I know who are Republicans hated him until he got the nomination, and suddenly support him because he is on 'their team'. I also know R's who still are true and cant stand him. They have invented something called "fake news", which gives them license to deny any fact they please, and people buy in. That is scary. They deny science and progress. They are pushing an extreme-right agenda, in the face of a "mandate" of not even winning the popular vote. It is safe to say, most people do not want this swing in climate change, health care, planned parenthood, de-regulation, etc... Just show a little bit of moderation. His inauguration speech basically amounted to "neener-neener I won". He appears to have mental illness, which is also scary.
If this were John Kasich in there, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Romney.... and people and media were acting this way, sure... it is not good. Donald Trump is president though. It makes our country an international disgrace.
I love how you gloss over Bush and Cheney being compared to Hitler...followed by McCain/Palin...followed by Romney/Ryan. Every conservative candidate since 2000 has been compared to hitler at some point, has been called a racist, has been accused of pushing granny over a cliff. This rhetoric extends down to the republican voter as well...the tea-party is labelled racist, the deplorable are labelled racist. This is done over and over again and not once do any of you demonstrate the self-awareness in realizing how destructive it is. Repealing and replacing Obamacare is not seen as an attempt to improve the system but is seen as stripping health care away and the literal killing of people. People who want to debate science are accused of "denying science"...the word denier is specifically chosen to compare it to holocaust denial which is understood to be an ultimate evil. Everything you have written is absolute nonsense and you really need to look in the mirror. No previous education secretary needed a 1 million dollar per month security detail but Betsy DeVos for some reason does.
Didn't Trump's son just say (a few days ago) that democrats criticizing his dad weren't even human?
Yeah. He was wrong to say that. The shooter was clearly human. Not even mentally ill. Just a normal member of the #resistance.
There you go again, doing exactly what you're criticizing libs for. What's the matter, no mirrors in your house?
How so? He was a member of the #resistance. Nobody who knew him said he was mentally ill...just somebody outraged by the President who decided to take action.
You wouldn't begin to understand how inflammatory this is. Yes, the tea party is racist.
Oh? It's inflammatory to point out that a #resistance member did this? The word "resistance" is in it if itself inflammatory. What is it that the word is actually alluding too? Used in this way it is supposed to allude to the French who "resisted" the Nazis in occupied France. The word again is used to compare Trump and the current GOP congress Nazis. It is your terminology that is inflammatory. Add to this your insistence that the Tea Party is racist. This is the toxic stew that the shooter has been bathing in. A stew that you participate in. Once again...sorry if it makes you uncomfortable.
Doesn't make me uncomfortable at all as I'm not the one who immediately associates "denier" with the holocaust nor "resistance" with French freedom fighters and Nazis. Did you see where 68% of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows? Yea, they're thinking what you postulate. Is everything about Israel for you? My god, your world view is toxic.
There is certainly way too much division, and it goes both ways.... I will say though that the "Right" started it and also are the ones who have taken it too far, which is why we are here in the first place with a reality star sitting as POTUS.
There was your typical back and forth fights in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, but for the most part people worked together and so did politicians.
Bush was in office and had like an 85% approval rate on the heels of 911. The handling of the military action, and some other gaffes such as Katrina and tanking the economy on the back of deregulation brought on a lot of justified criticism. The Republicans couldnt even bring him out on the campaign trail.
Then Obama takes over, and Republicans felt the need to 'get even' and the criticism was there from day 1, even though, most of the time, there was nothing to criticize. He did a pretty good job and was dignified as President, even navigating an extremely partisan and venomous Republican congress.
Now we have Donald fucking Trump in there. He deserves criticism. People I know who are Republicans hated him until he got the nomination, and suddenly support him because he is on 'their team'. I also know R's who still are true and cant stand him. They have invented something called "fake news", which gives them license to deny any fact they please, and people buy in. That is scary. They deny science and progress. They are pushing an extreme-right agenda, in the face of a "mandate" of not even winning the popular vote. It is safe to say, most people do not want this swing in climate change, health care, planned parenthood, de-regulation, etc... Just show a little bit of moderation. His inauguration speech basically amounted to "neener-neener I won". He appears to have mental illness, which is also scary.
If this were John Kasich in there, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Romney.... and people and media were acting this way, sure... it is not good. Donald Trump is president though. It makes our country an international disgrace.
I love how you gloss over Bush and Cheney being compared to Hitler...followed by McCain/Palin...followed by Romney/Ryan. Every conservative candidate since 2000 has been compared to hitler at some point, has been called a racist, has been accused of pushing granny over a cliff. This rhetoric extends down to the republican voter as well...the tea-party is labelled racist, the deplorable are labelled racist. This is done over and over again and not once do any of you demonstrate the self-awareness in realizing how destructive it is. Repealing and replacing Obamacare is not seen as an attempt to improve the system but is seen as stripping health care away and the literal killing of people. People who want to debate science are accused of "denying science"...the word denier is specifically chosen to compare it to holocaust denial which is understood to be an ultimate evil. Everything you have written is absolute nonsense and you really need to look in the mirror. No previous education secretary needed a 1 million dollar per month security detail but Betsy DeVos for some reason does.
When all these Joe Yahoos are 'debating' science than yes they are denying science. I don't debate nuclear science with nuclear scientists. But when 99% of atmospheric scientists doing independent research and coming up with the same conclusion than I can go with it.
When the other 1% are sponsored by Exxon some red flags go up. When the politicians on the right, who also still believe in Adam and Eve and not evolution, also call climate change a hoax i get angry because they are denying science
And on the other topic. This kind of of crap gets PUT ON FOX NEWS.
Scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that man contributes to that change. That is all they agree on. Beyond that there is no agreement. None. But what do I know...I'm just a Joe Yahoo with an MSc degree...interested in science but lumped in with all the other "deniers" for suggesting that there are "things we don't know" and that the science isn't exactly settled.
Isn't that agreement enough to enact change to try and stem the tide?
Sure but it depends what that "change" is. What I mean by this is that even though we are unsure of the significance (it is the significance that is being debated) of man's contribution it would still be a good idea to push industry towards less emissions where possible. This push however needs to be reasonable and shouldn't harm economies. If the push is too drastic then you might actually cause more harm then good as costs (both through taxes and direct) get sent on to the consumer which almost always harms the poor and small business. Emissions have actually been on the decrease in the US without participation in a giant global accord such as Paris and they can continue to decrease. It is not an all or none proposition that if you think Paris is a "bad deal" that you are against any emission reductions.
BS44325 said: Scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that man contributes to that change. That is all they agree on. Beyond that there is no agreement. None. But what do I know...I'm just a Joe Yahoo with an MSc degree...interested in science but lumped in with all the other "deniers" for suggesting that there are "things we don't know" and that the science isn't exactly settled.
What other "agreement" needs to me made in your opinion? What science isn't "exactly settled"?
The science that isn't settled is the "significance" of man's contribution. The theory of man-made global warming makes absolute sense within a vacuum but climate change is a multi-variable dynamic where man's actions is only a part of. Science knows many of the variables but also concedes that there might be variables contributing that we are completely unaware of. When you add all of these variables together it is hard to know what portion of climate change is directly attributable to man and to be clear even most "deniers" do not believe man's contribution is zero...the argument is over whether the contribution is small or large. Lastly we do not completely understands the Earth's own biofeedback mechanisms. Similar to the body being able to regulate temperatures the earth may have it's own ability to do the same which possibly "offsets" man's contribution. Science doesn't yet have the answers to all of this and is still studying. These things are important to figure out before enacting major behaviour changing policy. The concept of "the consequences of good intentions" is real and therefore it is important to not just study man's industrial action but also to study the effects of significant over-regulation of industry for the sake of minor reductions in climate impact.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
When someone continues to accept the marching orders of their ultra wealthy overlords and deny something, despite overwhelming data.... in order to blindly support their "team".... yes, it is being a "denier". Cry about it.
The ultra wealthy all voted democrat. They want the Paris Accords. They are the only ones who can afford it.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
You literally (in the correct use of the word) said "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron." What's not to understand, or pretended not to be understood?
Hitler was an evil man. Am I moron or am I creating a toxic stew for liberal resisters to go on shooting rampages? I've never read a more toxic garbage of a statement by a poster than, "anybody who uses Hitler in a sentence is a moron."
Yes you create a toxic stew. This post is an example. You pretend not to know what I mean. I assume you are pretending. I will not claim you didn't understand. I will not call you a moron.
Sure, whatever professor. I create a toxic stew and your posts and rehtoric are civil in their discourse and never "toxic" nor contributing to the hate or ridicule? It's always the libs fault, isn't it? Still believe those headlines are going to disappear, professor? It's normal for you to jump to such a conclusion that using the word "resistance" or "denier" are automatically holocaust and Nazi related and claim that the use of such adds to this toxic stew you claim to hate so much. Do you have an academic study sponsored by the Heritage Foundation that proves this that you can link to or are you just making shit up again?
BS44325 said: Scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that man contributes to that change. That is all they agree on. Beyond that there is no agreement. None. But what do I know...I'm just a Joe Yahoo with an MSc degree...interested in science but lumped in with all the other "deniers" for suggesting that there are "things we don't know" and that the science isn't exactly settled.
What other "agreement" needs to me made in your opinion? What science isn't "exactly settled"?
The science that isn't settled is the "significance" of man's contribution. The theory of man-made global warming makes absolute sense within a vacuum but climate change is a multi-variable dynamic where man's actions is only a part of. Science knows many of the variables but also concedes that there might be variables contributing that we are completely unaware of. When you add all of these variables together it is hard to know what portion of climate change is directly attributable to man and to be clear even most "deniers" do not believe man's contribution is zero...the argument is over whether the contribution is small or large. Lastly we do not completely understands the Earth's own biofeedback mechanisms. Similar to the body being able to regulate temperatures the earth may have it's own ability to do the same which possibly "offsets" man's contribution. Science doesn't yet have the answers to all of this and is still studying. These things are important to figure out before enacting major behaviour changing policy. The concept of "the consequences of good intentions" is real and therefore it is important to not just study man's industrial action but also to study the effects of significant over-regulation of industry for the sake of minor reductions in climate impact.
Comments
So the shooter is not guilty for reasons of insanity?
Maybe that was Obamas fault too lol
Of course our POTUS is a coward only concerned about his business in Turkey...
I would love to be a fly on the wall though... I imagine pure insanity!
Why is that Hillary Clintons family and Dems dealings with Russia are not looked at, but my non-dealings are?
Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, 'bleached' emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Forget everything else, he is failing at job #1....although it does say "best of my ability" .... maybe he just isn't able? Either way - this is what I currently want him removed from office for, failing to protect the US against foreign government hostile attacks.
Cincy is a long time conservative poster here... it's good to see not everyone drinks the Kool Aid just because their side won
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The science that isn't settled is the "significance" of man's contribution. The theory of man-made global warming makes absolute sense within a vacuum but climate change is a multi-variable dynamic where man's actions is only a part of. Science knows many of the variables but also concedes that there might be variables contributing that we are completely unaware of. When you add all of these variables together it is hard to know what portion of climate change is directly attributable to man and to be clear even most "deniers" do not believe man's contribution is zero...the argument is over whether the contribution is small or large. Lastly we do not completely understands the Earth's own biofeedback mechanisms. Similar to the body being able to regulate temperatures the earth may have it's own ability to do the same which possibly "offsets" man's contribution. Science doesn't yet have the answers to all of this and is still studying. These things are important to figure out before enacting major behaviour changing policy. The concept of "the consequences of good intentions" is real and therefore it is important to not just study man's industrial action but also to study the effects of significant over-regulation of industry for the sake of minor reductions in climate impact.
A couple have just been arrested and they are on the hunt for more.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It would be The Interview but even funnier!
The ultra wealthy all voted democrat. They want the Paris Accords. They are the only ones who can afford it.
"Adolf Hitler was born in Austria."
Guess I'm a moron, too.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©