Trump could nuke Toronto and BS would be on here explaining it away lol
You're on the wrong side of history, bro
If Trump nukes Toronto I'm sure he would have a good reason for it but in terms of history I just can't understand why the "wrong side" keeps voting the way it does.
When 7 military service personnel die in an accident... or in any way, frankly... I expect the POTUS to give a fucking statement. And not through Twitter like a 15 year old. Period.
I gotta agree with the first part...the POTUS needs to get in front of a camera on this.
However, if used appropriately, I could see him sending a twitter message first. It's just that he can't do that without being a 15 year old.
I don't have an issue with the president, any president, utilizing social media for official statements. the way trump uses it though, it's as if twitter is the official information supplier of the white house. it just seems so.....nontraditional. unofficial. however you want to put it.
Times change. Presidents used to use radio then TV.
So the question I have is, is trump cutting edge with his use of twitter....or am I just seeing his tweets more than Obama because of how stupid they are?
Cause if he is using it more, he is changing the political landscape moving forward. And it can be a very effective tool. Now we just need someone who isn't a tool using it as president!!
How he uses it is unprofessional, unethical, and an extension of his narcissism. I don't see it as cutting edge.
Let's cut out the bullshit. The way Trump uses Twitter, in his position, is fucking insane. Literally.
It is very much sane. It is essentially how he won the Presidency over the Clinton money machine. I don't like it either but whether politically it currently does him more harm then good is the open question. You were all wrong before...maybe you are wrong again? Maybe? Nah.
I don't see how that makes him sane. Every time he tweets something it almost always makes his job and the republicans job of getting shit done harder.
It allows him to maintain his outsider persona while keeping his base energized. He ran against the republican party not with it. His crossover/previous Obama voters aren't interested in what makes a republican's life harder.
I get that part....but what is more important? Getting re-elected in 3.5 years or being an effective president?
He is being effective...just not in the way that you would like.
How is he being effective? By what measure?
Conservative judges, pulled out of TPP, pulled out of Paris, drastic reduction in illegal immigration, energy exploration, reduction in government regulations, obamacare repeal/replace a third of the way to completion, economy generally doing well, and on and on. Most things are moving in the right direction as promised to his voters. In their eyes he is being effective in delivering what was promised and more is to come.
The first three things you listed are the only campaign promises he's followed through on so far.
And now that Handel won republicans will be more likely to support the Trump platform going forward. The GOP healthcare bill was not a drag on Handel and along with tax reform it will likely pass.
what bill? Haven't released it yet.
Not the senate version. The House version has been available for quite sometime now. Either way no democrat senator will vote for the bill no matter what is in it. They have said so already.
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
Doesn't make me choke on anything; I just feel that your hatred for all who associate with people who associate with Trump will leave you completely incapable of engaging in reasonable debate with them (which I thought was the purpose here - not just mocking each other). BS isn't Godfather, this is a person here who has agreed with Democrats and Republicans alike on various topic.
In any case, I'm not trying to be Jiminy Cricket, I would just like to see these discussions here amount to something other than vitriol.
Thanks. If Trump nukes Toronto you are invited to stay in my bunker. It's pretty cushy and aside from Binaural and Riot Act I have every piece of PJ on vinyl.
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
It's still bullshot what you claim, relying on a Scott Pelley interview from 11 years ago to make your point just illustrates how desperate you are to "otherize" the opposition and add to the toxic stew of discourse you claim to resent.
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
It's still bullshot what you claim, relying on a Scott Pelley interview from 11 years ago to make your point just illustrates how desperate you are to "otherize" the opposition and add to the toxic stew of discourse you claim to resent.
You: "denier!" Me: "That word has subtle negative connotations to otherize people and shut down debate" You: "How dare you otherize me by pointing out the effects of my speech!"
When 7 military service personnel die in an accident... or in any way, frankly... I expect the POTUS to give a fucking statement. And not through Twitter like a 15 year old. Period.
I gotta agree with the first part...the POTUS needs to get in front of a camera on this.
However, if used appropriately, I could see him sending a twitter message first. It's just that he can't do that without being a 15 year old.
I don't have an issue with the president, any president, utilizing social media for official statements. the way trump uses it though, it's as if twitter is the official information supplier of the white house. it just seems so.....nontraditional. unofficial. however you want to put it.
Times change. Presidents used to use radio then TV.
So the question I have is, is trump cutting edge with his use of twitter....or am I just seeing his tweets more than Obama because of how stupid they are?
Cause if he is using it more, he is changing the political landscape moving forward. And it can be a very effective tool. Now we just need someone who isn't a tool using it as president!!
How he uses it is unprofessional, unethical, and an extension of his narcissism. I don't see it as cutting edge.
Let's cut out the bullshit. The way Trump uses Twitter, in his position, is fucking insane. Literally.
It is very much sane. It is essentially how he won the Presidency over the Clinton money machine. I don't like it either but whether politically it currently does him more harm then good is the open question. You were all wrong before...maybe you are wrong again? Maybe? Nah.
I don't see how that makes him sane. Every time he tweets something it almost always makes his job and the republicans job of getting shit done harder.
It allows him to maintain his outsider persona while keeping his base energized. He ran against the republican party not with it. His crossover/previous Obama voters aren't interested in what makes a republican's life harder.
I get that part....but what is more important? Getting re-elected in 3.5 years or being an effective president?
He is being effective...just not in the way that you would like.
How is he being effective? By what measure?
Conservative judges, pulled out of TPP, pulled out of Paris, drastic reduction in illegal immigration, energy exploration, reduction in government regulations, obamacare repeal/replace a third of the way to completion, economy generally doing well, and on and on. Most things are moving in the right direction as promised to his voters. In their eyes he is being effective in delivering what was promised and more is to come.
The first three things you listed are the only campaign promises he's followed through on so far.
And now that Handel won republicans will be more likely to support the Trump platform going forward. The GOP healthcare bill was not a drag on Handel and along with tax reform it will likely pass.
what bill? Haven't released it yet.
Not the senate version. The House version has been available for quite sometime now. Either way no democrat senator will vote for the bill no matter what is in it. They have said so already.
So if the bill proposed universal care the dems won't vote for it? I don't think you have good information.
The house version doesn't matter. You surely realize that the bill is being changed and we have not been informed as to what those changes are?
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
So one scientist says it isn't so? Yea, he's a denier. But I don't associate the term denier as an attempt to "otherize" the opposition and bear responsibility for the congressmen's shooter. You saying that repeatedly doesn't make it so, even in your holier than thou tone. I hear your dog whistles BS, I just don't respond to them and I call them as I see them. Still believe in trickle down tax policy? How about those disappearing Russia headlines, are they going away soon? And that senate health care bill? Why would a dem vote for it? Trump called the house version cruel. Do you think it's going to be vastly different than the house version? You're constant taking us for fools is w
When 7 military service personnel die in an accident... or in any way, frankly... I expect the POTUS to give a fucking statement. And not through Twitter like a 15 year old. Period.
I gotta agree with the first part...the POTUS needs to get in front of a camera on this.
However, if used appropriately, I could see him sending a twitter message first. It's just that he can't do that without being a 15 year old.
I don't have an issue with the president, any president, utilizing social media for official statements. the way trump uses it though, it's as if twitter is the official information supplier of the white house. it just seems so.....nontraditional. unofficial. however you want to put it.
Times change. Presidents used to use radio then TV.
So the question I have is, is trump cutting edge with his use of twitter....or am I just seeing his tweets more than Obama because of how stupid they are?
Cause if he is using it more, he is changing the political landscape moving forward. And it can be a very effective tool. Now we just need someone who isn't a tool using it as president!!
How he uses it is unprofessional, unethical, and an extension of his narcissism. I don't see it as cutting edge.
Let's cut out the bullshit. The way Trump uses Twitter, in his position, is fucking insane. Literally.
It is very much sane. It is essentially how he won the Presidency over the Clinton money machine. I don't like it either but whether politically it currently does him more harm then good is the open question. You were all wrong before...maybe you are wrong again? Maybe? Nah.
I don't see how that makes him sane. Every time he tweets something it almost always makes his job and the republicans job of getting shit done harder.
It allows him to maintain his outsider persona while keeping his base energized. He ran against the republican party not with it. His crossover/previous Obama voters aren't interested in what makes a republican's life harder.
I get that part....but what is more important? Getting re-elected in 3.5 years or being an effective president?
He is being effective...just not in the way that you would like.
How is he being effective? By what measure?
Conservative judges, pulled out of TPP, pulled out of Paris, drastic reduction in illegal immigration, energy exploration, reduction in government regulations, obamacare repeal/replace a third of the way to completion, economy generally doing well, and on and on. Most things are moving in the right direction as promised to his voters. In their eyes he is being effective in delivering what was promised and more is to come.
The first three things you listed are the only campaign promises he's followed through on so far.
And now that Handel won republicans will be more likely to support the Trump platform going forward. The GOP healthcare bill was not a drag on Handel and along with tax reform it will likely pass.
what bill? Haven't released it yet.
Not the senate version. The House version has been available for quite sometime now. Either way no democrat senator will vote for the bill no matter what is in it. They have said so already.
So if the bill proposed universal care the dems won't vote for it? I don't think you have good information.
The house version doesn't matter. You surely realize that the bill is being changed and we have not been informed as to what those changes are?
Ha. Ok. Fine. If it had universal care they would vote for it. Now back to reality...the only bill that "matters" is the one that comes out of conference after the senate passes their own version.
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
So one scientist says it isn't so? Yea, he's a denier. But I don't associate the term denier as an attempt to "otherize" the opposition and bear responsibility for the congressmen's shooter. You saying that repeatedly doesn't make it so, even in your holier than thou tone. I hear your dog whistles BS, I just don't respond to them and I call them as I see them. Still believe in trickle down tax policy? How about those disappearing Russia headlines, are they going away soon? And that senate health care bill? Why would a dem vote for it? Trump called the house version cruel. Do you think it's going to be vastly different than the house version? You're constant taking us for fools is w
Holier than Thou? You just declared Benjamin Santer a "denier" and by doing so completely illustrated your total irrationality.
Game, set and match. How do I know? When your argument goes down the tubes you tend to ask a litany of unrelated questions. I'll have the Toxic stew with a side order of question marks.
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
It's still bullshot what you claim, relying on a Scott Pelley interview from 11 years ago to make your point just illustrates how desperate you are to "otherize" the opposition and add to the toxic stew of discourse you claim to resent.
You: "denier!" Me: "That word has subtle negative connotations to otherize people and shut down debate" You: "How dare you otherize me by pointing out the effects of my speech!"
Are you an Evergreen College grad?
According to who? The neocon mindset, that's who. Global warming can't be happening because there's a lot of snowflakes around today. Subtly, sure because when I read denier I immediately think the person using the term is trying to shut down debate.
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
It's still bullshot what you claim, relying on a Scott Pelley interview from 11 years ago to make your point just illustrates how desperate you are to "otherize" the opposition and add to the toxic stew of discourse you claim to resent.
You: "denier!" Me: "That word has subtle negative connotations to otherize people and shut down debate" You: "How dare you otherize me by pointing out the effects of my speech!"
Are you an Evergreen College grad?
According to who? The neocon mindset, that's who. Global warming can't be happening because there's a lot of snowflakes around today. Subtly, sure because when I read denier I immediately think the person using the term is trying to shut down debate.
You are spiralling The "neocon" mindset doesn't speak to whether global warming is happening or not. Also as previously discussed even conservatives accept the theory of global warming and recognize man's contribution to climate change. The argument is on degree of impact and whether current policy makes sense with respect to the degree debate. You keep avoiding this discussion of science again and again. Easier to just shout "neocon" I guess.
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
It's still bullshot what you claim, relying on a Scott Pelley interview from 11 years ago to make your point just illustrates how desperate you are to "otherize" the opposition and add to the toxic stew of discourse you claim to resent.
You: "denier!" Me: "That word has subtle negative connotations to otherize people and shut down debate" You: "How dare you otherize me by pointing out the effects of my speech!"
Are you an Evergreen College grad?
According to who? The neocon mindset, that's who. Global warming can't be happening because there's a lot of snowflakes around today. Subtly, sure because when I read denier I immediately think the person using the term is trying to shut down debate.
You are spiralling The "neocon" mindset doesn't speak to whether global warming is happening or not. Also as previously discussed even conservatives accept the theory of global warming and recognize man's contribution to climate change. The argument is on degree of impact and whether current policy makes sense with respect to the degree debate. You keep avoiding this discussion of science again and again. Easier to just shout "neocon" I guess.
Absolutely not true that "conservatives" as a whole accept the theory of climate change and humanity's role.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
It's still bullshot what you claim, relying on a Scott Pelley interview from 11 years ago to make your point just illustrates how desperate you are to "otherize" the opposition and add to the toxic stew of discourse you claim to resent.
You: "denier!" Me: "That word has subtle negative connotations to otherize people and shut down debate" You: "How dare you otherize me by pointing out the effects of my speech!"
Are you an Evergreen College grad?
According to who? The neocon mindset, that's who. Global warming can't be happening because there's a lot of snowflakes around today. Subtly, sure because when I read denier I immediately think the person using the term is trying to shut down debate.
You are spiralling The "neocon" mindset doesn't speak to whether global warming is happening or not. Also as previously discussed even conservatives accept the theory of global warming and recognize man's contribution to climate change. The argument is on degree of impact and whether current policy makes sense with respect to the degree debate. You keep avoiding this discussion of science again and again. Easier to just shout "neocon" I guess.
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
So one scientist says it isn't so? Yea, he's a denier. But I don't associate the term denier as an attempt to "otherize" the opposition and bear responsibility for the congressmen's shooter. You saying that repeatedly doesn't make it so, even in your holier than thou tone. I hear your dog whistles BS, I just don't respond to them and I call them as I see them. Still believe in trickle down tax policy? How about those disappearing Russia headlines, are they going away soon? And that senate health care bill? Why would a dem vote for it? Trump called the house version cruel. Do you think it's going to be vastly different than the house version? You're constant taking us for fools is w
Holier than Thou? You just declared Benjamin Santer a "denier" and by doing so completely illustrated your total irrationality.
Game, set and match. How do I know? When your argument goes down the tubes you tend to ask a litany of unrelated questions. I'll have the Toxic stew with a side order of question marks.
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
It's still bullshot what you claim, relying on a Scott Pelley interview from 11 years ago to make your point just illustrates how desperate you are to "otherize" the opposition and add to the toxic stew of discourse you claim to resent.
You: "denier!" Me: "That word has subtle negative connotations to otherize people and shut down debate" You: "How dare you otherize me by pointing out the effects of my speech!"
Are you an Evergreen College grad?
According to who? The neocon mindset, that's who. Global warming can't be happening because there's a lot of snowflakes around today. Subtly, sure because when I read denier I immediately think the person using the term is trying to shut down debate.
You are spiralling The "neocon" mindset doesn't speak to whether global warming is happening or not. Also as previously discussed even conservatives accept the theory of global warming and recognize man's contribution to climate change. The argument is on degree of impact and whether current policy makes sense with respect to the degree debate. You keep avoiding this discussion of science again and again. Easier to just shout "neocon" I guess.
Absolutely not true that "conservatives" as a whole accept the theory of climate change and humanity's role.
I guess that depends on how you want to define "a whole". You are right that the percentages of conservatives are lower then percentages of liberals. It also depends on how you define "humanity's role". Again a lot of the disagreement is on the issue of degree and whether the degree of human contribution is significant compared to other variables. With respect to the theory of global warming however it is generally accepted as a proper theory within a vacuum...it's just that we don't live in a vacuum.
When 7 military service personnel die in an accident... or in any way, frankly... I expect the POTUS to give a fucking statement. And not through Twitter like a 15 year old. Period.
I gotta agree with the first part...the POTUS needs to get in front of a camera on this.
However, if used appropriately, I could see him sending a twitter message first. It's just that he can't do that without being a 15 year old.
I don't have an issue with the president, any president, utilizing social media for official statements. the way trump uses it though, it's as if twitter is the official information supplier of the white house. it just seems so.....nontraditional. unofficial. however you want to put it.
Times change. Presidents used to use radio then TV.
So the question I have is, is trump cutting edge with his use of twitter....or am I just seeing his tweets more than Obama because of how stupid they are?
Cause if he is using it more, he is changing the political landscape moving forward. And it can be a very effective tool. Now we just need someone who isn't a tool using it as president!!
How he uses it is unprofessional, unethical, and an extension of his narcissism. I don't see it as cutting edge.
Let's cut out the bullshit. The way Trump uses Twitter, in his position, is fucking insane. Literally.
It is very much sane. It is essentially how he won the Presidency over the Clinton money machine. I don't like it either but whether politically it currently does him more harm then good is the open question. You were all wrong before...maybe you are wrong again? Maybe? Nah.
I think it's beyond obvious that it hurts him currently, and hurts the nation overall. Can you offer any concrete arguments for how it helps him personally or anyone else? As for sanity... even White House insiders are leaking that he's going batshit crazy.
See Georgia...
No, that doesn't demonstrate that his tweeting helps him or anyone else. Actually, those results demonstrate the opposite.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
At least we can all celebrate a woman defeating another white male. #I'mwithher
Lol, her just being a woman doesn't warrant a celebration. Only an idiot thinks that way. Someone being female can be a nice bonus if she brings other good things to the table, but it doesn't make a bigoted asshole any more acceptable.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,298
When 7 military service personnel die in an accident... or in any way, frankly... I expect the POTUS to give a fucking statement. And not through Twitter like a 15 year old. Period.
I gotta agree with the first part...the POTUS needs to get in front of a camera on this.
However, if used appropriately, I could see him sending a twitter message first. It's just that he can't do that without being a 15 year old.
I don't have an issue with the president, any president, utilizing social media for official statements. the way trump uses it though, it's as if twitter is the official information supplier of the white house. it just seems so.....nontraditional. unofficial. however you want to put it.
Times change. Presidents used to use radio then TV.
So the question I have is, is trump cutting edge with his use of twitter....or am I just seeing his tweets more than Obama because of how stupid they are?
Cause if he is using it more, he is changing the political landscape moving forward. And it can be a very effective tool. Now we just need someone who isn't a tool using it as president!!
How he uses it is unprofessional, unethical, and an extension of his narcissism. I don't see it as cutting edge.
Let's cut out the bullshit. The way Trump uses Twitter, in his position, is fucking insane. Literally.
It is very much sane. It is essentially how he won the Presidency over the Clinton money machine. I don't like it either but whether politically it currently does him more harm then good is the open question. You were all wrong before...maybe you are wrong again? Maybe? Nah.
I think it's beyond obvious that it hurts him currently, and hurts the nation overall. Can you offer any concrete arguments for how it helps him personally or anyone else? As for sanity... even White House insiders are leaking that he's going batshit crazy.
See Georgia...
No, that doesn't demonstrate that his tweeting helps him or anyone else. Actually, those results demonstrate the opposite.
Right. That district hasn't gone republican since the 70's. The fact that it was this close and that Handel barely mentioned Trump during the campaign should be an indicator of the opposite being true.
When 7 military service personnel die in an accident... or in any way, frankly... I expect the POTUS to give a fucking statement. And not through Twitter like a 15 year old. Period.
I gotta agree with the first part...the POTUS needs to get in front of a camera on this.
However, if used appropriately, I could see him sending a twitter message first. It's just that he can't do that without being a 15 year old.
I don't have an issue with the president, any president, utilizing social media for official statements. the way trump uses it though, it's as if twitter is the official information supplier of the white house. it just seems so.....nontraditional. unofficial. however you want to put it.
Times change. Presidents used to use radio then TV.
So the question I have is, is trump cutting edge with his use of twitter....or am I just seeing his tweets more than Obama because of how stupid they are?
Cause if he is using it more, he is changing the political landscape moving forward. And it can be a very effective tool. Now we just need someone who isn't a tool using it as president!!
How he uses it is unprofessional, unethical, and an extension of his narcissism. I don't see it as cutting edge.
Let's cut out the bullshit. The way Trump uses Twitter, in his position, is fucking insane. Literally.
It is very much sane. It is essentially how he won the Presidency over the Clinton money machine. I don't like it either but whether politically it currently does him more harm then good is the open question. You were all wrong before...maybe you are wrong again? Maybe? Nah.
I think it's beyond obvious that it hurts him currently, and hurts the nation overall. Can you offer any concrete arguments for how it helps him personally or anyone else? As for sanity... even White House insiders are leaking that he's going batshit crazy.
See Georgia...
No, that doesn't demonstrate that his tweeting helps him or anyone else. Actually, those results demonstrate the opposite.
Right. That district hasn't gone republican since the 70's. The fact that it was this close and that Handel barely mentioned Trump during the campaign should be an indicator of the opposite being true.
No. Sorry. If I am not mistaken the goal of the next congressional election is for democrats to flip red seats where Trump is unpopular. Georgia 6 is a Trump +1 district where his current approval rating is around 35% and yet an unknown Handel outperformed him with a +3. All I have been hearing on here for months is how Trump's tweets and unpopularity will be a weight around every Republican neck and this was the chance to prove it. Instead...failure. If anything Trump voters responded to the nationalization of the race and turned out in numbers not expected for a special election. So again...sorry...there is currently no evidence that Trump's tweets have a significant negative electoral effect and this is the only thing that matters. In two years Handel will be the incumbent and knowing that incumbents win ~ 95% off the time her victory margin will probably be substantially larger. If anything this is a sign that Nancy Pelosi and the #resistance are a far greater weight then Trump's twitter. Running around in black masks and p&ss^ hats is not exactly a winning look in swing districts. Never mind the smashing of windows and shooting of congressmen.
Social con? Are you saying prison inmates are social? Vote overwhelmingly Bernie Sanders? And there you go with your toxic discourse again, calling cons social. Everyone knows you're referring to the most disenfranchised among us.
Is this some kind of joke? Clearly BS means con as in conservative (just as neocon doesn't refer to new-age convicts). Can people you disagree with not say anything without having your anger rammed down their throat, no matter how reasonable?
As much of a joke as BS claiming that those who use #denier deny the holocaust or #resistance are denigrating the history of the Jewish struggle against the Nazis and as such bear responsibility for the shooting attack on the republican congressmen. Who's angry? I think anyone who supports Trump and his policies is a joke. I'm sorry if that makes you choke on my words.
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
It's still bullshot what you claim, relying on a Scott Pelley interview from 11 years ago to make your point just illustrates how desperate you are to "otherize" the opposition and add to the toxic stew of discourse you claim to resent.
You: "denier!" Me: "That word has subtle negative connotations to otherize people and shut down debate" You: "How dare you otherize me by pointing out the effects of my speech!"
Are you an Evergreen College grad?
According to who? The neocon mindset, that's who. Global warming can't be happening because there's a lot of snowflakes around today. Subtly, sure because when I read denier I immediately think the person using the term is trying to shut down debate.
You are spiralling The "neocon" mindset doesn't speak to whether global warming is happening or not. Also as previously discussed even conservatives accept the theory of global warming and recognize man's contribution to climate change. The argument is on degree of impact and whether current policy makes sense with respect to the degree debate. You keep avoiding this discussion of science again and again. Easier to just shout "neocon" I guess.
Unfortunately, our current Secretary of Energy disagrees with you.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry on Monday denied that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of climate change.
Asked in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” whether he believed that carbon dioxide was “the primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and for climate,” Perry said that “No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.”
Perry added that “the fact is this shouldn’t be a debate about, ‘Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?’ Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?”
Both men’s views contradict the conclusions of scientists at Pruitt’s own EPA as well as NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the IPCC said in a 2013 report. Citing the IPCC report, the EPA said on its website, now removed, that “recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century.” The EPA added, “it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.”
Just more deflection and confusion to lead people astray. Funny that you cited the Wikipedia reference but not the Daily Caller article or better yet, this from the Union of Concerned Scientists in defense of Santer:
Fifteen years later, the evidence that human activity is causing global warming is stronger than ever and accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. Our understanding of climate fingerprinting has also become far more sophisticated and now shows human causation in the measured changes in ocean temperatures, Arctic sea ice, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and many other aspects of climate change. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-benjamin-santer.html#.WUq6Sk0Um70
So, you make it sound like its a legitimate debate, that those who want to debate it, like Rick Perry, should be given serious consideration. Because now its a matter of "degree" and not whether humans have an impact or control? Please. Nice to see the neocons coming around.
When 7 military service personnel die in an accident... or in any way, frankly... I expect the POTUS to give a fucking statement. And not through Twitter like a 15 year old. Period.
I gotta agree with the first part...the POTUS needs to get in front of a camera on this.
However, if used appropriately, I could see him sending a twitter message first. It's just that he can't do that without being a 15 year old.
I don't have an issue with the president, any president, utilizing social media for official statements. the way trump uses it though, it's as if twitter is the official information supplier of the white house. it just seems so.....nontraditional. unofficial. however you want to put it.
Times change. Presidents used to use radio then TV.
So the question I have is, is trump cutting edge with his use of twitter....or am I just seeing his tweets more than Obama because of how stupid they are?
Cause if he is using it more, he is changing the political landscape moving forward. And it can be a very effective tool. Now we just need someone who isn't a tool using it as president!!
How he uses it is unprofessional, unethical, and an extension of his narcissism. I don't see it as cutting edge.
Let's cut out the bullshit. The way Trump uses Twitter, in his position, is fucking insane. Literally.
It is very much sane. It is essentially how he won the Presidency over the Clinton money machine. I don't like it either but whether politically it currently does him more harm then good is the open question. You were all wrong before...maybe you are wrong again? Maybe? Nah.
I think it's beyond obvious that it hurts him currently, and hurts the nation overall. Can you offer any concrete arguments for how it helps him personally or anyone else? As for sanity... even White House insiders are leaking that he's going batshit crazy.
See Georgia...
No, that doesn't demonstrate that his tweeting helps him or anyone else. Actually, those results demonstrate the opposite.
Right. That district hasn't gone republican since the 70's. The fact that it was this close and that Handel barely mentioned Trump during the campaign should be an indicator of the opposite being true.
An overwhelming avalanche of resounding victory with a 2.8% margin. In a red district, in a red state, in a red region of the country. Trump is the next Ronny Reagan don'tcha know.
^^ Holy crap. You really can't read. He literally agreed with everything I said.
"Perry added that “the fact is this shouldn’t be a debate about, ‘Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?’ Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?”
The debate on what is the "primary" driver is a legitimate one. Science doesn't have that answer yet. Human activity is a driver but anybody who states it is the "primary" driver is making an assertion that has yet to be proven.
^^ Holy crap. You really can't read. He literally agreed with everything I said.
"Perry added that “the fact is this shouldn’t be a debate about, ‘Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?’ Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?”
The debate on what is the "primary" driver is a legitimate one. Science doesn't have that answer yet. Human activity is a driver but anybody who states it is the "primary" driver is making an assertion that has yet to be proven.
I was just as baffled. Maybe we're missing something.
Comments
Not the senate version. The House version has been available for quite sometime now. Either way no democrat senator will vote for the bill no matter what is in it. They have said so already.
I would personally give the order lol
The only thing that makes me angry is your consistent failure to read and/or comprehend simple concepts. I didn't suggest that using the term "denier" with reference to climate change "denigrates the history of the Jewish struggle". I suggested the term "denier" is used to "otherize" political opponents and to shut down debate.
This is well illustrated in this Scott Pelley 2006 CBS interview:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scott-pelley-and-catherine-herrick-on-global-warming-coverage/
"Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?"
As you can see people who want to debate science are turned into the scum of the earth, destroyers of the planet. Taken to the extremes, as your subtle language often does, this leads people like the DC shooter to see their political opponents as enemies. This isn't about "jewish denigration" but about the toxic stew you participate in that poisons politics through and through.
Will Nature Geoscience and Benjamin Santer have to be targeted as "deniers" next? He is a big subscriber to the impacts of climate change and is now recognizing that the models are wrong as evidenced by the smaller warming trends.
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html
Is this science or denial?
www.headstonesband.com
Thanks. If Trump nukes Toronto you are invited to stay in my bunker. It's pretty cushy and aside from Binaural and Riot Act I have every piece of PJ on vinyl.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Me: "That word has subtle negative connotations to otherize people and shut down debate"
You: "How dare you otherize me by pointing out the effects of my speech!"
Are you an Evergreen College grad?
The house version doesn't matter. You surely realize that the bill is being changed and we have not been informed as to what those changes are?
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer
Game, set and match. How do I know? When your argument goes down the tubes you tend to ask a litany of unrelated questions. I'll have the Toxic stew with a side order of question marks.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Right. That district hasn't gone republican since the 70's. The fact that it was this close and that Handel barely mentioned Trump during the campaign should be an indicator of the opposite being true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/19/trumps-energy-secretary-just-denied-that-man-made-carbon-dioxide-is-the-main-driver-for-climate-change/?utm_term=.0f1457fdc282
Energy Secretary Rick Perry on Monday denied that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of climate change.
Asked in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” whether he believed that carbon dioxide was “the primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and for climate,” Perry said that “No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.”
Perry added that “the fact is this shouldn’t be a debate about, ‘Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?’ Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?”
[A bitter scientific debate just erupted over the future of the U.S. electric grid]
Perry’s comments fall in line with what Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt said in a March interview on the program. Pruitt said then that he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
Both men’s views contradict the conclusions of scientists at Pruitt’s own EPA as well as NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the IPCC said in a 2013 report. Citing the IPCC report, the EPA said on its website, now removed, that “recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century.” The EPA added, “it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.”
Just more deflection and confusion to lead people astray. Funny that you cited the Wikipedia reference but not the Daily Caller article or better yet, this from the Union of Concerned Scientists in defense of Santer:Fifteen years later, the evidence that human activity is causing global warming is stronger than ever and accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. Our understanding of climate fingerprinting has also become far more sophisticated and now shows human causation in the measured changes in ocean temperatures, Arctic sea ice, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and many other aspects of climate change.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-benjamin-santer.html#.WUq6Sk0Um70
So, you make it sound like its a legitimate debate, that those who want to debate it, like Rick Perry, should be given serious consideration. Because now its a matter of "degree" and not whether humans have an impact or control? Please. Nice to see the neocons coming around.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Holy crap. You really can't read. He literally agreed with everything I said.
"Perry added that “the fact is this shouldn’t be a debate about, ‘Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?’ Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?”
The debate on what is the "primary" driver is a legitimate one. Science doesn't have that answer yet. Human activity is a driver but anybody who states it is the "primary" driver is making an assertion that has yet to be proven.