Discussion about hot topics trending today

[jelgate]

There certainly is climate change. There has always been climate change, and always will be climate change. It's a natural process.

Where I disagree is that mankind is the cause of it. I do not think we are, and you will have to prove it for me to believe it. The fact that there has always been climate change is going to make that exceedingly difficult.

Its impossible. You have already demonstrated you will ignore facts or information that contradicts your POV

[Annoyed]

Its impossible. You have already demonstrated you will ignore facts or information that contradicts your POV

All I have ever said is "Prove mankind is the cause", which they cannot do. Not theories, ideas, speculation or anything else.

Proof is all I require.

[Chaka-Z0]

All I have ever said is "Prove mankind is the cause", which they cannot do. Not theories, ideas, speculation or anything else.

Proof is all I require.

Problem with you Annoyed is that what you consider ''Proof'' is impossible to produce. Nothing can be ultimately, absolutely proven, that includes science and scientific hypothesis. It's all based on observations and assumptions correlated with repetition. I gave you proof, GF gave you proof, Tood gave you proof, Jelgate gave you his flavor of truth, you still don't accept it.

Your logic: The example you gave about the glaciation and geography of NY lakes ... I don't believe it. Were you there when it happened? Any video footage or manuscript left from prehistoric men with degrees in geology that studied the movement of the ice sheet? All we got is theories proposed by geologists, so they don't know any better than I do.

I refuse your theory. Just give me proof man, that's all I want.

[jelgate]

Problem with you Annoyed is that what you consider ''Proof'' is impossible to produce. Nothing can be ultimately, absolutely proven, that includes science and scientific hypothesis. It's all based on observations and assumptions correlated with repetition. I gave you proof, GF gave you proof, Tood gave you proof, Jelgate gave you his flavor of truth, you still don't accept it.

Your logic: The example you gave about the glaciation and geography of NY lakes ... I don't believe it. Were you there when it happened? Any video footage or manuscript left from prehistoric men with degrees in geology that studied the movement of the ice sheet? All we got is theories proposed by geologists, so they don't know any better than I do.

I refuse your theory. Just give me proof man, that's all I want.

Don't confuse him. He still struggles with the difference between hypothesis and theory

[Annoyed]

Problem with you Annoyed is that what you consider ''Proof'' is impossible to produce. Nothing can be ultimately, absolutely proven, that includes science and scientific hypothesis. It's all based on observations and assumptions correlated with repetition. I gave you proof, GF gave you proof, Tood gave you proof, Jelgate gave you his flavor of truth, you still don't accept it.

Your logic: The example you gave about the glaciation and geography of NY lakes ... I don't believe it. Were you there when it happened? Any video footage or manuscript left from prehistoric men with degrees in geology that studied the movement of the ice sheet? All we got is theories proposed by geologists, so they don't know any better than I do.

I refuse your theory. Just give me proof man, that's all I want.

Big difference here. The people who put forth the theory that glaciers formed the Finger Lakes aren't demanding that we make drastic changes to our way of life, impose new taxes on United States energy users (who gets that financial windfall?), increasing the cost of just about everything and quite possibly tanking our economy along the way as a result of their theory, are they?

Compare that to the situation regarding climate change. The advocates of that theory demand that we do all of those things in response to their theories. And they are damned specific about who they want to pay these fees, specifically, the U.S. and its citizens. They are fine with giving passes to China, India and a number of other very heavy energy users.

Isn't it also funny that a large number of people from that side of the political spectrum have also stated that want to raise taxes in order to pay for their pie in the sky pipe dreams. We've also has UN environmental officials state plainly that they use climate policy to redistribute wealth according to their ideas of how it should be distributed. The UN would love to have the authority to levy taxes on us, but they don't have it. They've all but admitted that, and this is a backdoor way of obtaining that authority.

The obvious (to me, anyway) conclusion to all of this is that the whole thing is a sham, built on the idea of somehow extracting more money from the US and its citizens.

Maybe you can use this as an example of an apparently lost art among the young; looking at all the information and deciding for yourself what is going on, rather that just taking whatever the talking heads in the media are telling you at face value. Maybe you can start to figure out what you're not being told.

If there's one recent pleasant surprise in this arena, it is the French, whose citizens appear to see right through this fogbank of BS.

[SoulReaver]

yo Annoyed since you like to confuse climate & weather lemme explain it in a way even elite-worshippers can understand

- this is Trump being nice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJlnxbO5N2g&t=153s
= weather

- this is Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYqKx1GuZGg&t=40s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY3hpZVZ7pk&t=20s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZzwPBlPweo
= climate


capice?

[aretood2]

There certainly is climate change. There has always been climate change, and always will be climate change. It's a natural process.

Where I disagree is that mankind is the cause of it. I do not think we are, and you will have to prove it for me to believe it. The fact that there has always been climate change is going to make that exceedingly difficult.

Except the article made no claim of anthropomorphic climate change. It simply stated that the polar vortex (which is proven and observed to exist) is behaving differently (a proven and observed claim) and some are putting forth how changes in climate (which you say do happen) may be interacting to bring about this change in behavior. Yet paradoxically you call this BS not because you have a different theory, but because they mentioned climate change. THe disagreement in the article is the exact process that causes the polar vortex to spill out. There's nothing BS here as you claimed. It's a discussion about observed weather patterns. Your knee jerk reaction just goes to show how blinded you are to anything that remotely challenges what you believe.

Big difference here. The people who put forth the theory that glaciers formed the Finger Lakes aren't demanding that we make drastic changes to our way of life, impose new taxes on United States energy users (who gets that financial windfall?), increasing the cost of just about everything and quite possibly tanking our economy along the way as a result of their theory, are they?

Compare that to the situation regarding climate change. The advocates of that theory demand that we do all of those things in response to their theories. And they are damned specific about who they want to pay these fees, specifically, the U.S. and its citizens. They are fine with giving passes to China, India and a number of other very heavy energy users.

Isn't it also funny that a large number of people from that side of the political spectrum have also stated that want to raise taxes in order to pay for their pie in the sky pipe dreams. We've also has UN environmental officials state plainly that they use climate policy to redistribute wealth according to their ideas of how it should be distributed. The UN would love to have the authority to levy taxes on us, but they don't have it. They've all but admitted that, and this is a backdoor way of obtaining that authority.

The obvious (to me, anyway) conclusion to all of this is that the whole thing is a sham, built on the idea of somehow extracting more money from the US and its citizens.

Maybe you can use this as an example of an apparently lost art among the young; looking at all the information and deciding for yourself what is going on, rather that just taking whatever the talking heads in the media are telling you at face value. Maybe you can start to figure out what you're not being told.

If there's one recent pleasant surprise in this arena, it is the French, whose citizens appear to see right through this fogbank of BS.

Yeah, just ignore the polar ice studies and geological studies and other similar observations....we have no evidence whatsoever...as long as you don't count the evidence as evidence. Oh, and since you brought up the UN thing again...

Since to you a few officials saying something like that is enough to cast doubt on the entire theory itself and all the research, data, evidence, and the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists on the subject then I should be allowed to use this logic when it comes to republicans.

Some republican officials have mentioned that the goal of voter ID laws is to reduce the number of minority and other potential democrat voters so therefore any argument in favor of voter ID laws or other similar policies are purposeful voter suppression tactics with only a self interested political agenda in mind no matter what any other argument or evidence shows and no matter what anyone else says even if said official sare a minority.

Not to mention some in the GOP also mentioned that all of those investigations into Hillary were meant to ruin her political chances in an election so we can go ahead and say that those investigations are without merit and based on nothing but a political agenda on behalf of the GOP no matter how much evidence there actually is and no matter how many GOP officials were honest about it. The words of a few officials is enough to override all of that.

[Annoyed]

This is just so much fun, watching the Democrats' hypocrisy.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...airfax-1148291

RICHMOND, Va. — Democrats couldn’t react fast enough to the racist photo in Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s old yearbook showing one man dressed as a Klansman and another in blackface.

But a newly surfaced sexual assault allegation against the man who would replace Northam if he resigns — Justin Fairfax, the state’s African-American lieutenant governor and a rising star in the party — has left Democratic national figures and Virginia lawmakers at a loss for words.

The back-to-back stunners in Richmond exposed fault lines in the Democratic Party coalition that were unimaginable just five days ago. And with the state’s political hierarchy in the balance, the stories triggered a potential collision of two powerful forces in Democratic politics — the battle to combat racism and the movement to stop sexual harassment.

Swift to condemn Northam on Friday, Democratic presidential hopefuls ducked for cover on Tuesday. Sen. Bernie Sanders clung to an apparent cellphone call in the Capitol to avoid a reporter’s questions about Fairfax. Other Democratic senators — who both condemned Northam and said it was imperative to “believe the woman” when Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual harassment — have gone silent, too.

So have activists.

[SoulReaver]

This is just so much fun, watching the Democrats' hypocrisy.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...airfax-1148291

what hypocrisy? in the end Kav's victim was not believed (instead she was threatened & he was rewarded) therefore the Dems are being consistent: if Kav's victim wasn't believed then the other accuser shouldn't be believed either QED

[Annoyed]

And, in this episode of "Liberals Gone Wild"..

NY AG James Proposes Bill Protecting Undocumented Employees From Exposure

New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking state lawmakers to pass legislation that would make it illegal for employers to retaliate against an undocumented worker by contacting federal immigration officers about their immigration status.

This is the top law enforcement official in NY proposing to make it illegal to report criminals!

1: Illegals should not be in the country, period.
2 It is illegal for employers to hire illegals.

And in other areas of lunacy...

Lawmakers Seek Higher Minimum Wage For Prison Inmates

Yep. You heard that right. A pay raise for prison inmates.

This place is nuts.

And on the federal level, I just read that the Kindergartner wants to abolish air travel.

If the Democrats don't shut her up soon, they're going to guarantee Congress flips back to the Republicans and Trump gets another four years.

You go, girl!

[jelgate]

I doubt it. Her ideas while crazy are not crazier than some of Trumps. I see them very similar just different political sides

[SoulReaver]

And in other areas of lunacy...

Lawmakers Seek Higher Minimum Wage For Prison Inmates

Yep. You heard that right. A pay raise for prison inmates.

lunacy for Government worshippers maybe
you forget that in your country commoners can end up in jail for next to nothing (and that's leaving aside all those who were wrongfully convicted)

[Gatefan1976]

lunacy for Government worshippers maybe
you forget that in your country commoners can end up in jail for next to nothing (and that's leaving aside all those who were wrongfully convicted)

And they cost around 30-50k per year to keep.
They are positively middle class!!

[Chaka-Z0]

And they cost around 30-50k per year to keep.
They are positively middle class!!

Rehabilitation and integration are two terms that were removed from the Replicant Lexicon. Best to pay incredible sums to keep them locked in (for possession of weed or booze under 21). Logic at its finest.

[Annoyed]

Rehabilitation and integration are two terms that were removed from the Replicant Lexicon. Best to pay incredible sums to keep them locked in (for possession of weed or booze under 21). Logic at its finest.

In the vast majority of cases, rehab & reintegration is a pipe dream.
Our criminal justice system is incredibly forgiving at first. Unless a first offense is a particularly heinous crime which demands punishment, no one is incarcerated on their first offense. Or even after several subsequent offenses after that.

By the time someone is sentenced to prison, that person has pretty much said by their actions that they have no intention of abiding by the law. how many chances should they get?

By the time they earn a prison term, there is no point in considering them to be anything besides free labor for the state.