Discussion about hot topics trending today

[aretood2]

or you can try reading what I actually write instead of going off knee-jerk

nowhere did I say that EVERY farmer was a good one, but by and large most of those that own farms tend to have better kept land and cleaner air than the office parks the likes of AOC and Creepy Joe do their elitist lecturing from

You certainly implied it...see below.

willful ignorance of the fact that by and large, farmers in flyover country take better care of their land than the so-called "green crowd" also confirmed.....there are village idiots abound...and they tend to reside in the blue areas of the electoral map

Here you provided nothing to indicate that you don't mean all. You simply said farmers in flyover country. That is, the group itself. But that's not true as history has shown. Just because you think something is rational, doesn't mean that it is true. Humans are by nature irrational...and read below for more information!

As I said, the fact that they rely on that land for farming year after year would indicate that they are doing an ok job of taking care of it.

Sure. The fact that they are continuing, year after year. Nothing proves success quite like doing it.

Nope. It seems that the American agriculture industry creates more pollution than others. (See link below) and that's not even taking into account the various unsustainable practices that many farmers continue to have throughout the country. The second link below goes into water pollution. The Britanica link is much more comprehensive.

https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/ucs-...al-agriculture
https://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3281
https://www.britannica.com/technolog...s-of-pollution

Everything we do pollutes. Some more than others. The thing is farmers aren't doing as much to minimize it as you seem to assume. You are the ones claiming the farmers are "greener" so prove it. If not? Why make up crap?

Don't get me wrong, many farmers do work hard to be sustainable, but that doesn't mean that they work as a whole any more than any other industry by default.

[Chaka-Z0]

Don't get me wrong, many farmers do work hard to be sustainable, but that doesn't mean that they work as a whole any more than any other industry by default.[/COLOR]

The issue is that the agriculture industrialized itself very rapidly in the late 20th century and moved away from the smaller scale model. The majority of the farmers work for those industries and they are given the tools (seeds and equipment on loan) but got to work around the rules to pull a profit.

I don't know about the US but here it's next to impossible to acquire a farm and land unless you get a small loan of one million dollar.

There was a slow decrease in that trend with the arrival of bio products but the industry adapted itself and is now back on mass-producing bio. It's bio by the book but lacks the actual purpose of bio (local sustainable agriculture).

[Gatefan1976]

How many years of recorded history say that climate change has been ongoing since long before we were here?

Climate DOES change, you are quite right in saying so. What the issue is, is that the CLIMATE has changed far more dramatically in the last 200 years and the only scientific, viable reason is human intervention. We are not due for natural heating or cooling period for CENTURIES, yet here we are, with climatic changes that cause massive floods, droughts, tornado's and hail.

And you're quite mistaken about the burden of proof. You have to PROVE your claim, I don't have to disprove it. And I don't care how many "scientists" have bought into the politically correct theories that dominate the day. That's all they are, theories.

No, he is not.
You are outnumbered, it's up to you to prove any facts in your position, that's how science works. I'll throw you out of a window to prove the "theory" of gravity, or do you want to claim that's a theory as well (BTW, gravity is still considered a scientific theory)

I demand PROOF, down to 15 decimal places. You are making the claim, PROVE IT.

[/quote]
You claim climate change does not exist, prove it. We have Science, you have "it costs me money"
Yeah, which one is self serving?
I have 10 well trained scientists, you have your feels.
Piss off.

[Annoyed]

You are outnumbered, it's up to you to prove any facts in your position, that's how science works. I'll throw you out of a window to prove the "theory" of gravity, or do you want to claim that's a theory as well (BTW, gravity is still considered a scientific theory)

And if 15 people jump off a bridge, are you going to follow them?

[jelgate]

You're moving goalposts again

[Gatefan1976]

And if 15 people jump off a bridge, are you going to follow them?

Well, gravity is only a theory, and theories can't be facts according to you.

[Chaka-Z0]

I refuse that theory, some could bounce back. Prove me wrong.

[Gatefan1976]

I have 97% of people saying the theory functions, but I guess that's not enough.
Go Jump

[jelgate]

Can I push him?

[Chaka-Z0]

I have 97% of people saying the theory functions, but I guess that's not enough.
Go Jump

Nice try I'm not going to listen to the main stream GF and besides illegal immigration has been a problem for over 40 years and it's by time we fix it.

Can I push him?

*Scratches Jelgate name of my will*

Guess my bacon-action figures collection is going to someone else

[Gatefan1976]

Nice try I'm not going to listen to the main stream GF and besides illegal immigration has been a problem for over 40 years and it's by time we fix it.

Notice how no one argues FOR illegal immigration?
Annoyed has a valid point there, ILLEGAL immigration IS an issue for the USA, and they can deal with it how they like.
People argue AGAINST the measures used by this administration as they are inhumane, not because the US has no right to police it's boarders.
AU policies on immigration are just as inhumane, we "police" outside our territorial boarders, we stick them on an Island, and we send the worst people to deal with them. When it comes to immigration, Australia is a ****hole country, we are positively inhumane, and I don't like, nor agree with our political policies by any party on this issue.
When it's worse is when they are refugee's and we treat them as bad as boarder hoppers.

[jelgate]

I also argue for ineffective as well is inhumane. It baffles the mind why we should be paying for a border wall that will do little for illegal immigration.

Now, I have bacon action figures to eat

[Gatefan1976]

I also argue for ineffective as well is inhumane. It baffles the mind why we should be paying for a border wall that will do little for illegal immigration.

Now, I have bacon action figures to eat

Draconian policies do work, but they must be universal. Not just boats or border crossings, but airports, and follow up checks as well.
I don't endorse such behaviour, but if zero migration is your goal, it includes overstays from "Norway" as well.

[Annoyed]

Notice how no one argues FOR illegal immigration?
Annoyed has a valid point there, ILLEGAL immigration IS an issue for the USA, and they can deal with it how they like.
People argue AGAINST the measures used by this administration as they are inhumane, not because the US has no right to police it's boarders.
AU policies on immigration are just as inhumane, we "police" outside our territorial boarders, we stick them on an Island, and we send the worst people to deal with them. When it comes to immigration, Australia is a ****hole country, we are positively inhumane, and I don't like, nor agree with our political policies by any party on this issue.
When it's worse is when they are refugee's and we treat them as bad as boarder hoppers.

This is where what is apparently a lost art among you youngsters comes into play. Don't pay attention to what they're SAYING, pay attention to what they're DOING and figure out what their intent is.

Have the Democrats put forth ANY effective proposal to stop illegal immigration? No
Have the Democrats opposed every plan put forth by anyone that will effectively stop it? Yes.
Do the Democrats think they stand to gain politically from increased or continuing illegal immigration? Yes.
Do business owners benefit from a high level of illegal (and to a lesser extent legal) immigration? Yes.

There are other points as well, but this should be sufficient.

Now, without any babbling bubble-headed bleach-blond talking head getting on the TV and telling you what to think, think about that and draw your own conclusion on their intent. Remember, don't pay attention to what they say, pay attention to what they do.

[Annoyed]

Draconian policies do work, but they must be universal. Not just boats or border crossings, but airports, and follow up checks as well.
I don't endorse such behaviour, but if zero migration is your goal, it includes overstays from "Norway" as well.

Absolutely. I don't care where someone comes from, either come up to the front door, knock politely and apply for admittance, or stay the hell out.

Haven't I said in the past that "proper immigration reform" begins with rounding up and deporting anyone in the country illegally back to their point of entry into the US. After that, what they do is their problem. They would then be free to re-apply for legal entry, but of course, their record of sneaking in or overstaying, or whatever other means they used to be here illegally would be considered in evaluating that application.

The law ought to be applied uniformly, across the board, no special enforcement or exceptions for anyone, regardless of their origin.