Donald Trump

oftenreading

BS44325 said:

MayDay10 said:

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.

Actually, the wealthy tend to be conservative and far more likely to vote Republican than the average American, but nice try.

oftenreading

Alex Jones inexplicably seems to be suggesting violence against Wolf Blitzer, or at least not arguing against it. How could that be? I thought that was what the leftist extremists do?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alex-jones-blitzer-bullets_us_5943106ce4b06bb7d27214f8

RiotZact

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

MayDay10 said:

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.

Actually, the wealthy tend to be conservative and far more likely to vote Republican than the average American, but nice try.

Yeah I did some research on this and the best I could find was that people earning 250k+ voted 50/50. 

oftenreading

RiotZact said:

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

MayDay10 said:

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.

Actually, the wealthy tend to be conservative and far more likely to vote Republican than the average American, but nice try.

Yeah I did some research on this and the best I could find was that people earning 250k+ voted 50/50. 

From the reading I did, it looks like the higher the income, the higher the likelihood of voting for conservative platforms. Even if the ultra wealthy are socially liberal, they strongly tend to be economically conservative. And on a related note, sadly, plenty of research shows that lower income people tend to be
more generous. 

my2hands

oftenreading said:

Alex Jones inexplicably seems to be suggesting violence against Wolf Blitzer, or at least not arguing against it. How could that be? I thought that was what the leftist extremists do?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alex-jones-blitzer-bullets_us_5943106ce4b06bb7d27214f8

I can't wait to see this interview... Alex Jones is s scumbag

BS44325

HesCalledDyer said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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?

"Adolf Hitler was born in Austria."

Guess I'm a moron, too.

If you say so.

BS44325

my2hands said:

BS44325 said:

my2hands said:

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.

So your concern is economic impact?

It is a concern for sure. There is no such thing as an agreement free from economic ramifications...some positive and some negative. 

BS44325

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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?

Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think. 

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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?

Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think. 

Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."

Halifax2TheMax

my2hands said:

oftenreading said:

Alex Jones inexplicably seems to be suggesting violence against Wolf Blitzer, or at least not arguing against it. How could that be? I thought that was what the leftist extremists do?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alex-jones-blitzer-bullets_us_5943106ce4b06bb7d27214f8

I can't wait to see this interview... Alex Jones is s scumbag

Yes he is. I'd say he's evil.

NBC is still planning to air an interview between Megyn Kelly and Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who has said the devastating murders of our loved ones never happened.

This interview is indefensible. Already there are people who've made it their mission to harass our families with unbearable hate mail and threats. This interview would give Jones' dangerous, hateful lies the largest platform they've ever had. It would undeniably bolster him and his supporters, and make their harassment even worse. Jones' comments in the last 72 hours make it clear that he's already basking in the exposure.

78,132 supporters have already flooded NBC with demands to pull the interview and stop promoting this conspiracy theorist

But lets be concerned about comments on a band's fan club forum. And please show me the liberal equivalent of Alex Jones. Or the vast numbers of conservatives who have shouted him down and out. Oh wait, President Trump appeared on his program, thus endorsing his toxic stew of hate. Never mind.

oftenreading

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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?

Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think. 

Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."

I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict. 

Halifax2TheMax

oftenreading said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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?

Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think. 

Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."

I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict. 

It does if you want to add to the toxic stew of discourse you claim to be against without assuming responsibility for your words as you express your faux outrage.

dignin

oftenreading said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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?

Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think. 

Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."

I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict. 

I thought everyone knew that the words "denier" and "resist" didn't exist until WWII.

Go Beavers

oftenreading said:

RiotZact said:

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

MayDay10 said:

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.

Actually, the wealthy tend to be conservative and far more likely to vote Republican than the average American, but nice try.

Yeah I did some research on this and the best I could find was that people earning 250k+ voted 50/50. 

From the reading I did, it looks like the higher the income, the higher the likelihood of voting for conservative platforms. Even if the ultra wealthy are socially liberal, they strongly tend to be economically conservative. And on a related note, sadly, plenty of research shows that lower income people tend to be
more generous. 

I read an article, maybe it was Pew Research, that talked about wealthy people tend to vote Dem when they live in wealthy areas, and wealthy who live in poor areas tend to vote R. 

oftenreading

Go Beavers said:

oftenreading said:

RiotZact said:

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

MayDay10 said:

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.

Actually, the wealthy tend to be conservative and far more likely to vote Republican than the average American, but nice try.

Yeah I did some research on this and the best I could find was that people earning 250k+ voted 50/50. 

From the reading I did, it looks like the higher the income, the higher the likelihood of voting for conservative platforms. Even if the ultra wealthy are socially liberal, they strongly tend to be economically conservative. And on a related note, sadly, plenty of research shows that lower income people tend to be
more generous. 

I read an article, maybe it was Pew Research, that talked about wealthy people tend to vote Dem when they live in wealthy areas, and wealthy who live in poor areas tend to vote R. 

Interesting. Can you find it? What I read suggested just that the social policies may differ depending on region but not so much the economic beliefs. 

Also, there was an interesting observational study mentioned that looked at voting patterns prior to and after winning a major lottery. There was a clear shift to becoming registered Republicans after getting rich. 

HesCalledDyer

BS44325 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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?

"Adolf Hitler was born in Austria."

Guess I'm a moron, too.

If you say so.

You made the rule, not me.

cincybearcat

HesCalledDyer said:

BS44325 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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?

"Adolf Hitler was born in Austria."

Guess I'm a moron, too.

If you say so.

You made the rule, not me.

Thanks for the Friday laugh. This has to be the stupid argument on the train in a while.  Arguing something when really everyone knew the real intention of the comment. So yeah you seem like a .... I can't type it. Don't want Kat to ban me over this silly 5 year old like argument!!!

Go Beavers

oftenreading said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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?

Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think. 

Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."

I have to say it never occurred to me that "climate change denier" was meant to harken back to "Holocaust denier". And "resistance"?? People have been "resisting" for thousands of years. Resistance does no connote any specific conflict. 

It's a lame association by some individuals attempting another false equivalency. What I want to know from BS is how do I become a member of the resistance, what qualifications do I need, and how much will Soros pay me?

BS44325

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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?

Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think. 

Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."

I don't think I have ever listened to Alex Jones other then when he was on Howard Stern. 

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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?

Always the libs fault? No but the words they choose have consequences just like words chosen on the right have consequences. Words such as "denier" and "resistance" and "evil" are chosen ever so subtly for a reason and you wish to follow along and use them without being responsible for their consequences. The only thing toxic I do is counter AMT group think. 

Again, do you have a link to a study or survey that shows that when people see or hear the words "denier" or "resistance" they immediately associate the context in which the word is used with the holocaust or Nazis? Because you think it so and want to add to the toxic stew without assuming responsibility for your projection doesn't make it so. And you do fully subscribe to neocon group think I'm afraid. Funny but I don't think I've read you calling out Trump for his mocking of the epileptic reporter at his rally or Alex Jones as vociferously as you do posters on here for using the word "evil."

I don't think I have ever listened to Alex Jones other then when he was on Howard Stern. 

So you give him a pass? Makes sense. I've never read Mein Kampf. I guess it's okay then.