Trump supporters are yuge idiots. That wall could be paid for by using taxpayer money. The taxes that Americans are currently forced to pay Israel would cover it in 3-4 years. Add one year to buy all 60K homeless vets a home. I am far superior to all of you!
I'm not trying to fight, so I'm not attacking. I just want yalls take on a couple of things.
Bill Clinton wanted to deport illegals.....there is a video of him saying this
Senator Obama wanted to repair border fences.....there is a video
President Obama placed a temporary ban on refugees
President Obama constructed 700 miles of border fence
Is none of this true?
If it is, why was there no outrage then. What makes this time different?
my thought is, is that both of the former men were brilliant speakers. Brilliant speaking doesn't change the intent
and
media
thoughts?
Cliff, first I want to say thank you for being civil.
on your points:
>Bill Clinton wanted to deport illegals.....there is a video of him saying this
I agree with deporting illegals. That is not what trump has done. He has kept legal residents out, many with families. My next door neighbor is a great guy who travels to the middle east for business all the time. He was lucky he wasn't on travel yesterday or he wouldn't be allowed to come home to his family, where he has lived for 10 years. That is just plain wrong. It doesn't make us safer. plus keep in mind that their have been ZERO terrorist acts from people from those countries on the list in the US. Their have been a S%^T ton of terrorist attacks from Christian Americans in the US however.
>Senator Obama wanted to repair border fences.....there is a video
Repairing the fences where they are is logical. The fences reside in popular crossing points. Spending Billions of $ on a fence that is in the middle of nowhere that can be defeated by a $20 latter and some rope does not seem like a good use of our money.
>President Obama placed a temporary ban on refugees
This was in response to a specific incident with a specific country and it didn't affect current residents or green card holders.
>President Obama constructed 700 miles of border fence
The fence was built under Obama as the result of an order signed by George W Bush.
Trump supporters are yuge idiots. That wall could be paid for by using taxpayer money. The taxes that Americans are currently forced to pay Israel would cover it in 3-4 years. Add one year to buy all 60K homeless vets a home. I am far superior to all of you!
That I agree with. Execpt for the "far superior" part and the idea of spending 20 billion on a wall whose sole purpose will be to stimulate the economy of the $20 Mexican ladders and rope market.
Repairing the fences where they are is logical. The fences reside in popular crossing points. Spending Billions of $ on a fence that is in the middle of nowhere that can be defeated by a $20 latter and some rope does not seem like a good use of our money.
No doubt. Or a shovel. Seems employing more border patrol would go farther.
I'm not trying to fight, so I'm not attacking. I just want yalls take on a couple of things.
Bill Clinton wanted to deport illegals.....there is a video of him saying this
Senator Obama wanted to repair border fences.....there is a video
President Obama placed a temporary ban on refugees
President Obama constructed 700 miles of border fence
Is none of this true?
If it is, why was there no outrage then. What makes this time different?
my thought is, is that both of the former men were brilliant speakers. Brilliant speaking doesn't change the intent
and
media
thoughts?
The Obama ban is nothing like this. Breitbart or a rightwing news agency may want you to think this, but go read what actually happened and you see they are very different(partly due to the fact Obama was responding to an actual threat).
Yes Obama did build 700 miles of fence/wall along the border. What do you need Trumps wall for? Border control security has already stated it won't do anything. So I guess it is a crotch stuffer? Obama deported more illegals than Bush. The outrage from me is that were going to waste 15-20 billion building a wall that isn't going to do anything. You should be outraged by that as well as a conservative. Trump is destroying capitalism and you guys thought Bernie was bad.
So go read Obamas ban, sit on what I said and think if what you said really has much merit. I'll be the first to admit that Bill did some dumb sh*t. From his stance on prisons to other things such things and I still don't think it is wrong to deport illegal immigrants. But I don't think a wall is going to do that.
That I agree with. Execpt for the "far superior" part and the idea of spending 20 billion on a wall whose sole purpose will be to stimulate the economy of the $20 Mexican ladders and rope market.
Seems to me that it's pretty superior if you can come up with a way to build a useless wall and house all the homeless vets without a penny of taxpayer money that isn't already spent on something completely useless to the US, while not starting a trade war that would clearly cost the taxpayer even more.
Is it that people don't even like solutions that are next o magic now? Who else out of the 300M people in the US can tell you this but me?
Go fu** yourself Mark. No breakdown here, just no longer going to feign civility in the face of your assholishness and fake Christian hypocrisy. By all means keep gloating about an incredibly thin margin of victory as if it's some kind of statement and doesn't have a sh** ton of asterisks next to it. Glad to see the real Christians have stepped up and joined others in defying Trump's actions. Keep adding to the chit your grandchildren will be embarrassed to admit about you.
In other news white supremacist Bannon has trump put him on the NSC and remove the joint chiefs and director of natl intelligence. We all know Mark is a lost cause but I hope this gives some of you some pause. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...non-nsc-234329
Nice mouth. You can call me anything you want. Water off a duck's back. Enjoy the bed you and your party made for yourselves.
John, you have been the biggest supporter of restructuring trade agreements for years now. I'm confused as to why you are back tracking
Because I believe that trade negotiations would be based on logic not punishment. Renegotiating trade agreements make sense in light of the deficits and the disparity of rules governing domestic manufacturers and our trade partners. There are so many double edged swords that stand in the way that a brash bull in the china shop approach is likely to leave us impaled by our own audacity.
Also I question why you are not thrilled that I showed you how to accomplish what you are asking for without a penny of taxpayer risk? Why do you support making me pay taxes to Israel?
Heartening to see democratic protest in action and the outcry against these fascist moves.
Unfortunately much of it appears to be Bannon smokescreening his move into the national security council and his removal of the joint chiefs and director of natl intel. Scary that he has removed all non-political people from the council and that he - a white supremacist - will be running the show together with the unbalanced General Flynn.
"We fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism," McCain and Graham said in a joint statement, adding that Trump's executive order "may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security."
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker said Sunday the administration should immediately make revisions to the executive order.
"We all share a desire to protect the American people, but this executive order has been poorly implemented, especially with respect to green card holders," said Corker. "The administration should immediately make appropriate revisions, and it is my hope that following a thorough review and implementation of security enhancements that many of these programs will be improved and reinstated."
Turns out the lone Canadian mosque attacker is a pro-trump alt-right white supremacist christian. The other guy in custody was a witness, not an attacker.
In line with this, it turns out nearly twice as many people in the US have been killed by white supremacists and other anti-govt radicals than by muslims.
Turns out the lone Canadian mosque attacker is a pro-trump alt-right white supremacist christian. The other guy in custody was a witness, not an attacker.
In line with this, it turns out nearly twice as many people in the US have been killed by white supremacists and other anti-govt radicals than by muslims.
while I think this is a valid point to make, the article doesn't include Orlando or San Bernadino I don't think? Quite the line to walk there with what requirements meet the terror attacks they're referring to.
TheWakeIsReal
(pesos)Join Date: Oct 2001Location: Texas
01-30-2017, 2:50 PM
I think that's because that article came out in June, before the SB attack which was December?
Ahh I didn't notice it was an older article. My mistake. Your point is still very valid and I have said it many times that I don't understand the hysteria from the right on this subject. Isn't this what they all own guns for?
I think you meant "you're." Big mistake by the Don. She's served dems and repubs for 30 years and she'd be gone in 7-10 days anyway but now he makes her a martyr and further alienates repubs in congress. Not too good at this.
Sen. Johnny Isaakson (Republican-Georgia) said:
“Sally is a great hero of the state of Georgia for 25 years she’s been in the office of Northern District of Georgia prosecuting criminal on public integrity all kind of things like the Olympic Park bombing. For the last five years, she’s been the chief attorney, and she’s proved herself over and over and over again to be to be effective to be fair to be diligent and to be the kind of person that you would want representing you in the U.S. Attorney’s office.. She is a lady of impeccable taste, impeccable integrity and an impeccable record, and I’m proud to second her nomination..”
Sen. David Perdue (Republican-Georgia) said:
For years, she has prosecuted the most violate criminal organizations in Georgia, MS-13, and other notorious gangs, drug cartels, human smuggling, sex traffickers. The people in Georgia were fortunate to have benefited from Ms .Yates’s work in the service of justice for so many years.
Turns out the lone Canadian mosque attacker is a pro-trump alt-right white supremacist christian. The other guy in custody was a witness, not an attacker.
In line with this, it turns out nearly twice as many people in the US have been killed by white supremacists and other anti-govt radicals than by muslims.
Key words in the title are missing to slant readers views right from the get go.
TITLE :::::: Majority of fatal attacks on U.S. soil carried out by white supremacists, not terrorists
COMPLETE FABRICATION ::::What else would you expect from the Times
Actual wording in the article :::::::::White supremacists and anti-government radicals
Geee it would seem they actual took the stats of two deifferent groups in their accounting for the article , yet the title seems to make it one to spark hysteria .........Hmmmmmmmm where are the stats that say how many the white supremacists killed and how many the anti-government radicals killed? Suspiciously absent from the article are those exact numbers breaking it down . Yup some great reporting there. It boggles my mind how some people just can't get by the details and actually read the words in front of them.
If those numbers are so concerning why don't we take into account the number of killings reported by gang members in the USA . After all isn't a black gang such as the Gangster Diciples the black equivalent to a white supremist group? Let's add in the Latin Kings and all their tallies.
Better yet let's add up all the killings done by illegals and see where all those stats line up compared to the less than 48 by a white supremacist group. Then we can have a worthy discussion and an article with some meat instead of some bs propaganda.
The warped minds of the liberal media are so out of touch with reality and what actually matters. The borders of this country need to be secured end of story. Try and get into Canada , Try and get into any middle eastern country and attempt to cross a border into another . Germany comes to mind here . Take a look at what has happened to their country by allowing "refugees " .
in the misuse to make believe white Supremacists
Last edited by xstarrider; 01-30-2017 at 11:24 PM.
Acting Attorney General (Obama Appointed) Your Fired
Also Grant - and you could not make this isht up - the beautiful irony here is that when former Attorney General appointee Sally Yates was confirmed by the senate, she was questioned by Senator Jeff Sessions who I'm sure you're aware is Trump's pick for Attorney General who himself will be up for a confirmation vote very shortly.
Being the well educated fellow you are, I'm sure you're also aware that the Attorney General's job - like judges - is to uphold the law in *every* circumstance... This is why supreme court appointees get the job for life - to avoid fear of retribution for dissent.
Here is what Sessions said when questioning Yates:
"It tends to be a political world at the top of the Department of Justice and I guess my first question to follow up on is: Do you understand that in this political world, there will be people calling, demanding, pushing, insisting on things that they do not know what they're asking for, and could indeed be corrosive of the rule of law, could diminish the respect that the Department of Justice has, could diminish the rule of law in the United States...are you aware of that? ...
You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things that you just have to say "No" about. DO YOU THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY NO TO THE PRESIDENT IF HE ASKS FOR SOMETHING THAT IS IMPROPER?...A lot of people [say], "Well, he appoints somebody who is going to execute his views, what's wrong with that?" BUT IF THE VIEWS THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO EXECUTE ARE UNLAWFUL, should the Attorney General, or the deputy attorney general, say no?"
Her response was that she believed that "the AG or the deputy AG has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the President."
She was confirmed 84-12, and Sessions was one of the 12 that voted against her because he felt she was unwilling to tell the President "no."
Wonder if you think Sessions will now have the cajones to tell Trump "no" if he feels the law is being violated and if so, do you think Trump should again say "you're fired?"
key words in the title are missing to slant readers views right from the get go.
Title :::::: Majority of fatal attacks on u.s. Soil carried out by white supremacists, not terrorists
complete fabrication ::::what else would you expect from the times
actual wording in the article :::::::::white supremacists and anti-government radicals
geee it would seem they actual took the stats of two deifferent groups in their accounting for the article , yet the title seems to make it one to spark hysteria .........hmmmmmmmm where are the stats that say how many the white supremacists killed and how many the anti-government radicals killed? Suspiciously absent from the article are those exact numbers breaking it down . Yup some great reporting there. It boggles my mind how some people just can't get by the details and actually read the words in front of them.
If those numbers are so concerning why don't we take into account the number of killings reported by gang members in the usa . After all isn't a black gang such as the gangster diciples the black equivalent to a white supremist group? Let's add in the latin kings and all their tallies.
Better yet let's add up all the killings done by illegals and see where all those stats line up compared to the less than 48 by a white supremacist group. Then we can have a worthy discussion and an article with some meat instead of some bs propaganda.
The warped minds of the liberal media are so out of touch with reality and what actually matters. The borders of this country need to be secured end of story. Try and get into canada , try and get into any middle eastern country and attempt to cross a border into another . Germany comes to mind here . Take a look at what has happened to their country by allowing "refugees " .
I can't see Drumpf had much choice with Sally Yates, have her not tow the line is untenable. If it turns out she is correct about the legality of the Muslim ban then he is in bigly trouble.
Key words in the title are missing to slant readers views right from the get go.
TITLE :::::: Majority of fatal attacks on U.S. soil carried out by white supremacists, not terrorists
COMPLETE FABRICATION ::::What else would you expect from the Times
Actual wording in the article :::::::::White supremacists and anti-government radicals
Geee it would seem they actual took the stats of two deifferent groups in their accounting for the article , yet the title seems to make it one to spark hysteria .........Hmmmmmmmm where are the stats that say how many the white supremacists killed and how many the anti-government radicals killed? Suspiciously absent from the article are those exact numbers breaking it down . Yup some great reporting there. It boggles my mind how some people just can't get by the details and actually read the words in front of them.
If those numbers are so concerning why don't we take into account the number of killings reported by gang members in the USA . After all isn't a black gang such as the Gangster Diciples the black equivalent to a white supremist group? Let's add in the Latin Kings and all their tallies.
Better yet let's add up all the killings done by illegals and see where all those stats line up compared to the less than 48 by a white supremacist group. Then we can have a worthy discussion and an article with some meat instead of some bs propaganda.
The warped minds of the liberal media are so out of touch with reality and what actually matters. The borders of this country need to be secured end of story. Try and get into Canada , Try and get into any middle eastern country and attempt to cross a border into another . Germany comes to mind here . Take a look at what has happened to their country by allowing "refugees " .
in the misuse to make believe white Supremacists
I think you're confusing murder with terrorism. I highly doubt many gang related killings are for political motives. I agree with you that the article isn't the best, but the point stands that the hysteria over radical terrorists here is out of hand and the number of white, Christian terror attacks is just as high. But for some reason people usually tend to just say that's some crazy guy. But when a muslim does it then it is radical Islam taking over the world. Shut down the borders.
Try and get into Canada? Do you know how many refugees Canada has taken in? You should look it up.
Illegals killing? Again, you're confusing murder with terrorism. Considering there's only a couple states that let the data for criminal aliens be known, but Texas does and they have a high population of illegals so we will use that. Between 2011 and 2015 there were 344 deaths from illegals. Compared to the total of 4,571 it is a rather small amount. Again, just another way of people freaking out over a problem that is already happening. And I don't think any one of those illegals blew up a white Christian church for political motives.
Wow: Lame Stream media, Like other news outlets reported on all weekend you would think that the sky was falling about the "Travel Ban" then this morning they show this.
From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night's ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating what is known as a "shock event."
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.
When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night's Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one's interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won't like.
I don't know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses-- but because I know Bannon's ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from whatever it is.
If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.
A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln's strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.
Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it."
(I suspect it's to cover Bannon getting seated at the NSC. And to take attention away from Rex Tillerson's confirmation - goal being to lift Russian sanctions so that $500 billion Exxon deal can go through)
Regarding closing a border that has been breached, why is this such a huge problem?
Paying $15-25 Billion on a wall that is defeated by a $20 shovel or a $20 latter is a stupid waste of money. The Border patrol agents (the experts in this area) say that is won't make any difference. Its a huge problem because it is a huge amount that could be spent on the crumbling bridges in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddad
Regarding restricting visitors from dangerous countries, why is this such a huge problem?
The refugees that come into the US already go through some of the tightest screenings on the planet. Besides which they aren't just restricting visitors from "dangerous countries" they are restricting visitors from countries that have not done a single terrorist act on Americans and keeping the ones that flew into the twin towers on the OK list because Trump does business there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddad
Why are the liberals heads exploding over these common sense solutions?
These solutions are the opposite of common sense. They do nothing to protect US, its just smoke and mirrors to make fearful Americans feel better. We are persecuting people that have green cards and have lived here legally for ages and happen to have left the country on the day the Trump signed his piece of paper, and now they can't get back in.
The short answer is that if you can write up your "solution" in 5 words you are missing the nuance of reality and it will not work. If their was a 5 word solution do you not think that it would be implemented. These things are complicated and should be treated as such.
The polls were/are wrong on things "pro-trump" because the liberals will label you a xyz-ist.
Regarding closing a border that has been breached, why is this such a huge problem?
Regarding restricting visitors from dangerous countries, why is this such a huge problem?
Why are the liberals heads exploding over these common sense solutions?
Honestly I have no idea. Most of the people on here who oppose the wall live in a bubble. Illegal immigration is a HUGE problem. I don't understand why everyone equates border security with hate/racism/fascism.
Honestly I have no idea. Most of the people on here who oppose the wall live in a bubble. Illegal immigration is a HUGE problem. I don't understand why everyone equates border security with hate/racism/fascism.
Most of the people on here who support the wall live in a bubble.
Yes, it is a problem. So is drunk driving. So are a lot of things. There are approaches that make sense and approaches that don't.
No one here that I've seen is equating building a wall with hate/racism/fascism - merely with stupidity and waste.
Dane, I find it odd that someone as intelligent as you is not bothered by green card holders being sent back on 18 hour flights and losing thousands of dollars not to mention being kept from their families.
Bannon himself said: TRUMP IS A “BLUNT INSTRUMENT FOR US... I DON’T KNOW WHETHER HE REALLY GETS IT OR NOT.”
Wait, wait, wait, lemme get this straight. First you are going to say that we can't control the weather. Then you are going to say our irrigation is adding to the water vapor which is the driver of weather? You realize you have just completely argued yourself into a loop and now every argument you have brought up contradicts itself.
CO2 toxicity? WHO CARES. I'm not worried about CO2 poisoning me. CO2 has a direct affect on water vapor which yes of course it is a bigger greenhouse gas, but the reason it is an issue is due to the rise of CO2. I'm starting to doubt you Delta.
Romanticize away Delta! The oceans were over 100 feet up from where they are today, the population of anything was an absolute fraction of the amount of people it is today and it was on average 5-10 degrees higher(Fahrenheit ). If you don't think the oceans rising 100 feet and the temp going up 5-10 degrees wouldn't do anything to humans today then you are living in a fantasy land. It was still life sustainable, but not for 7.5 billion monkeys.
Logic obviously not a strong suit with you. The studies I have seen say that water vapor is a bigger issue than CO2 by a long shot, so why not try and limit watering plants if you believe in that garbage.
The earth went through those cycles without man and we had glaciers without man. So you mean to tell me that you can control those things? Go ahead and give up your rights and your country to third world parties who are trying to convince you to give them money for a environmental pass.
Don't forget that the current Trade deficit with Mexico is WAY smaller than it was in 1985 (the days that America was great before) as a percent of total imports+exports.
Considering CASH directly out of our local economies is actually Mexico's 3rd or 4th leading GNP device, I would say the import export numbers are skewed.
Dane, I find it odd that someone as intelligent as you is not bothered by green card holders being sent back on 18 hour flights and losing thousands of dollars not to mention being kept from their families.
I never said that. I am unhappy with the implementation. It was not introduced to the public/agencies properly. This is a legit beef.
I know, amazing right, you won't have anymore people like this taking all your privileges. Yippie. Don't worry, you will still be able to arm those who are blowing up their houses.
awe... bless your little heart. You are learning all the leftist buzz words. The power of the internet amazes me.
deltahoosier
(pesos)Join Date: Oct 2001Location: Texas
01-31-2017, 2:49 PM
When the Syrian crisis hit initially the Governent said that our allotment was sufficient and it was better to look after people properly than take more and not integrate them properly. There was a public outcry and the number was doubled for the short term. We don't seem to have the same climate of fear here that you do there. I don't care if they move in next door to me, on the most part i think people are inherently good and i don't fear people i don't know in general.
Ask the Shia Muslims what they think when the patrols roll around in Syria and ask if they are Shia or Sunni. If they answer Shia, they get shot on the spot. You really should look into the world more. You ever accept that a little funny talking art school drop out murder millions of Jews or why Stalin murders millions of his own people because their political views on communism? Evil exists and to believe otherwise is ........ I really can not find the words.......
deltahoosier
(pesos)Join Date: Oct 2001Location: Texas
01-31-2017, 2:51 PM
I'm a self proclaimed Reaganite. It was a great time in life for me.
The problem with Reagan's comment, is that they don't follow our rules. Even if more visas were offered, they don't all wait to get one.
I vote restricting the border access. I'm okay with amnesty for the non criminal segment, but then determine a # and a process moving forward, and only let that number from each country in each year.....period
and absolutely remove the automatic citizenship for someone born on US soil. I hope Trump removes this soon
That was supposed to be the agreement under Reagan and we see how that went.
deltahoosier
(pesos)Join Date: Oct 2001Location: Texas
01-31-2017, 2:56 PM
Looks like that evil might end up being kicked back out of the council, seeing as how it was illegally introduced and I doubt even Trump is stupid enough to put his satan-worshipping chief advisor in front of a congressional confirmation hearing:
I find it funny that ya'll were pitching a fit about whether or not Obama was born on US soil, and now you turn around and argue that it shouldn't confer citizenship anyway. So I guess your feeling then, Cliff, is that it doesn't matter where you were born as long as one of your parents is a US citizen at the time you're born?
Let's talk about hypocrisy.
If you voted for Trump because of Hillary's email "problem" but are not upset that the Trump administration is using a private email server and unsecured phones, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe Jesus was a persecuted refugee fleeing Herod, but support the ban on Syrian refugees, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe life begins at conception, but support defunding the country's number one source of prenatal care, Planned Parenthood, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe the mainstream media lies but believe Trump when he spouts verifiable lies, that is hypocrisy.
If you dismiss the AP, Reuters or NPR as biased media but accept everything Fox News says, that is hypocrisy.
If you think all life is sacred, but do not support reasonable gun control, that is hypocrisy.
If you think children are the future, but support reducing funds for SNAP, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe in education, but dismiss evolution or climate change as hoax, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe in the sovereignty of the United States, but support forced incursions on Native American lands, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe that we need to drain the swamp in Washington but support Trump's cabinet picks, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe in the Constitution, but support indiscriminate detainment and torture, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe our troops lives have worth, but support Trump's claims to foreign countries natural resources, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe that unborn black babies lives matter, but black lives don't matter, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe that we deserve life, liberty and happiness, but support taking away healthcare from millions of American, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe that the practice of your religion is more important than the practice of no religion or a different religion, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe in equal rights under the law, but don't support marriage equality and non discrimination for LGBTQ+ Americans, that is hypocrisy.
If you are glad that California or New York do not decide national policy for you, but insist on forcing your red state policies on others, that is hypocrisy.
If you believe in the first amendment, but call people who peacefully protest the President hooligans, that is hypocrisy.
If you are an American but think dissent is disrespectful, that is hypocrisy.
If you think that anything that has happened over the last week is normal or acceptable, then you have not been paying attention.
(**Not written by me. Sharing is encouraged.**)
Haha.. you are striking out on every one of those things. Who wrote that for you?
Logic obviously not a strong suit with you. The studies I have seen say that water vapor is a bigger issue than CO2 by a long shot, so why not try and limit watering plants if you believe in that garbage.
The earth went through those cycles without man and we had glaciers without man. So you mean to tell me that you can control those things? Go ahead and give up your rights and your country to third world parties who are trying to convince you to give them money for a environmental pass.
You literally said earlier that MAN CANNOT CONTROL WEATHER. But your argument is that me watering plants is going to contribute to water vapor? That isn't even close to logical.
Again, you science is showing. Water vapor is THE LARGEST GREENHOUSE GAS CONTRIBUTOR. But do you understand why water vapor is an issue? I'll give you a hint. It's CO2.
I'm going to guess you got into your job through a trade or apprenticeship.
Evil absolutely exists, and now it does on the national security council.
Are they going to roll up on you soon and ask if you are democrat or republican and shoot you if you answer wrong?
If you look at your protesting democrat friends, they are not far from it. Beating up Trump supports yet again. At which point of violence do we have to see from democrats to determine who they are?
deltahoosier
(pesos)Join Date: Oct 2001Location: Texas
01-31-2017, 3:09 PM
You literally said earlier that MAN CANNOT CONTROL WEATHER. But your argument is that me watering plants is going to contribute to water vapor? That isn't even close to logical.
Again, you science is showing. Water vapor is THE LARGEST GREENHOUSE GAS CONTRIBUTOR. But do you understand why water vapor is an issue? I'll give you a hint. It's CO2.
I'm going to guess you got into your job through a trade or apprenticeship.
I went to college for it and was recruited to come move across country for my position and then add years of service in the multiple sectors.
I don't think you know the difference in my trolling you. I don't care about water vapor or CO2. Neither is going to change the answer no matter what you believe.
Some even believe that if not for the CO2 that it is actually preventing an ice age due to solar activity. Many believe the solar activity is the biggest factor.
Again, has humans been healthier during warm times or cold times?
Point is, there are many many ideas and thoughts on this subject. People make models every day and hope to do experiments that prove them right or they adjust them. Climate science does not have a tight little bench top experiment to validate models. It takes millions of data points and with more data, the variables expand with it. It is all based on what people believe they are looking for. You almost have to go into such a study with bias because it is so large a field they have to pick a direction.
You know how people do science? Many advanced degree people pick a topic to study for their thesis. That is biased already. They have to try and prove something or have some general point of view to start looking at a topic. They have to get sponsored and then ultimately peer reviewed for their work.
Same happens when scientist want to apply for funding. They have to pick topics that are interesting to the powers that are dealing out the money. If the money is politically motivated, guess what they work on?
I have literally been to discussions and persentations where groups of scientists have an idea on what an experiment will do. They adjusted their models and think such and such will do this. Nope. Something different happened. They have to go back and try and figure out more experiments to isolate the suspected factor. They do it over and over again and designing experiments and repeating. They enlist the engineers and technicians to build what they need and take the data. That is the nature of science and that is in a nice labs with world class instruments.
Now you are trying to tell me that a few scientists have it all figured out with the whole earth as the test study? I call BS. It does not work that way. There is much much more indication that the global warming science is about control than it is facts. It is propaganda. Everything from crony environmentalism to UN share the wealth schemes. This is where you need to pay attention to who do scientists ultimately work for? Do you think that the father of rocketry would end up working for Hitler? No. He did not and neither would most people. The smartest people end up working for someone at some point and it is usually politicians. Politicians have agendas and so does much of the science.
Last edited by deltahoosier; 01-31-2017 at 3:31 PM.
When your counter argument is "no it isn't" I can't help but think you have no argument and are just a hypocrite.
Well, when you grow up, you will learn that being an adult is full of hypocrisy.
I really don't want to go one by one with your list. You would not understand anyway and are really not interested in understanding the answer so why go through it?
You are a fool if you think physical violence is the only kind. Nice deflection though. I'd like to see you posit any kind of defense of Bannon.
You mean intemidation by burning buildings, showing up in mass and yelling and screaming at people, blocking bridges, and so on? Oh how 1930's Germany the democrats have become.
I don't care about Bannon.
How about the list the Trump used was actually made by Obama's team. Is that the list you care about?
You mean intemidation by burning buildings, showing up in mass and yelling and screaming at people, blocking bridges, and so on? Oh how 1930's Germany the democrats have become.
I don't care about Bannon.
How about the list the Trump used was actually made by Obama's team. Is that the list you care about?
Dude they should use you for examples of informal fallacies. This is hysterical.
TheWakeIsReal
(pesos)Join Date: Oct 2001Location: Texas
01-31-2017, 3:43 PM
Par for the course with Rod. Flips out because Ayers held a fundraiser for Obama - couldn't care less that a white supremacist political hack replaces the joint chiefs and natl intel director on the national security council.
Also thinks you're a hypocrite if you support gay rights without participating in gay sex.
You didn't have to take chemistry for your degree?
You love the strawman fallacy. Build something else up as an argument that has nothing to do with what we're talking about and then knock that down.
I took Chemistry. Mainly optical physics and studied exitation in laser gases.
Tell me I am wrong on how science is funded and politics behind it? Take me through how a laboratory as big as the earth that such a grand experiment can be nailed down to such simple terms that you are willing to put your freedom on the line for it?
Par for the course with Rod. Flips out because Ayers held a fundraiser for Obama - couldn't care less that a white supremacist political hack replaces the joint chiefs and natl intel director on the national security council.
Also thinks you're a hypocrite if you support gay rights without participating in gay sex.
Didn't Obama do the same thing? Where was your outrage. Trump also fired the AG for saying she won't follow the law. Good for him.
You are triggered as hell. You should just stop. Keep doubling down. Only people who have done anything to the general public are democrats and I take it they have your full support for their violence?
I took Chemistry. Mainly optical physics and studied exitation in laser gases.
Tell me I am wrong on how science is funded and politics behind it? Take me through how a laboratory as big as the earth that such a grand experiment can be nailed down to such simple terms that you are willing to put your freedom on the line for it?
After chemistry you can't explain how CO2 affects water vapor? I'm so lost.
science by its very nature doesn't know all the answers. Therefore it's bogus. That's why God wrote the King James Bible. duh.
Well it is settled then. We will rewrite our laws to be that of the old testament. Sound similar to your environmental scam and way better than your support for Muslims who would shoot you in a second if you did not convert and certainly chuck gay people off the rooftops. Of course, the women's marchers were to dumb to realize that one of the main march organizers is also championing Sharia Law to be the law of the United States.
deltahoosier
(pesos)Join Date: Oct 2001Location: Texas
01-31-2017, 3:53 PM
Didn't Obama do the same thing? Where was your outrage. Trump also fired the AG for saying she won't follow the law. Good for him.
You are triggered as hell. You should just stop. Keep doubling down. Only people who have done anything to the general public are democrats and I take it they have your full support for their violence?
What are you even going on about? You guys and your triggers and play doh - don't even know what these terms mean.
Obama did not do the same thing - you are misinformed. Trump didn't fire the AG for following the law. The opposite in fact. He fired her for refusing the defend an EO she found to violate the law. Did you not read what Senator Sessions said above? He spelled it out for you.
Your last sentence makes no sense; maybe you can clarify.
The science is not settled on water vapor either. Water vapor leads to clouds and clouds to general cooling except in winter where it can help insulate. Who says that the vast expansion of crop growing has not cause water vapor in the air. We irrigate extremely large portions of the earth and we have massive reseviors that did not exist prior to the industrial revolution either. Ever think about that?
Last edited by deltahoosier; 01-31-2017 at 4:06 PM.
What are you even going on about? You guys and your triggers and play doh - don't even know what these terms mean.
Obama did not do the same thing - you are misinformed. Trump didn't fire the AG for following the law. The opposite in fact. He fired her for refusing the defend an EO she found to violate the law. Did you not read what Senator Sessions said above? He spelled it out for you.
Your last sentence makes no sense; maybe you can clarify.
Triggered is an emotional hijack.
I thought I wrote that he fired her for not following the law. She is a political hack like all the Obama's AG's.
deltahoosier
(pesos)Join Date: Oct 2001Location: Texas
01-31-2017, 4:09 PM
Dane, you and I agree about Harris. The End of Faith is great. Western religion is one of the most dangerous tools in the world and Islam, for a number of reasons, is the worst.
I thought I wrote that he fired her for not following the law.
Boy, sure hope we get a strict constructionist on SCOTUS, so they can be sure to tell the AG that the President's executive orders trump (haha) the Constitution.
So is Harris right about liberals but wrong about Christians?
He covers both. Both are dangerous, but in different ways with different approaches and different proximities. The latter is what makes radical Christians so dangerous.
His follow up book Letters from a Christian Nation is great... goes over the lovely notes he received from "christians" like Mark who read his book salivating at his takedown of Islam only to discover the later chapters on other religions.
The science is not settled on water vapor either. Water vapor leads to clouds and clouds to general cooling except in winter where it can help insulate. Who says that the vast expansion of crop growing has not cause water vapor in the air. We irrigate extremely large portions of the earth and we have massive reseviors that did not exist prior to the industrial revolution either. Ever think about that?
Thank you for that. I didn't know where clouds came from.
Yes, and again I question you, didn't you say it was impossible for man to control or contribute to weather? Where's your logic? And the studies of surface lakes/water besides the ocean have concluded that it is next to null.
Not that anyone asked but my take on global warming is, I'm not sure if we can effect the planets weather or not but i see no reason to make efforts to be good custodians of the planet and do more with less in a responsible sustainable way. Polluting and depleting planet is self defeating and in the end it makes us unhappy to live this way. In the end the planet will be fine, it will repair itself and find balance after we are gone. So arguing about the climate and its drivers isn't super relevent, warming is only part of the puzzel, pollution, raping the environment for resources and filling it up with waste is also critical. We can do much much better, Enviromentalism starts at home, you don't have to wait for the government to force green choices, start making better decisions now.
Does everyone think all of these refugees are warm and fuzzy? I get it if your family is affected, that would be pretty difficult. I don't see it as unconstitutional as nothing in the constitution says we need to allow anyone into our country. I don't see it as racial because not everyone from those countries are the same race and i don't see it as religion as not everyone is the same religion either. All 7 of these countries ban israeli jews from entering their country and would probably kill them if they entered. Has anyone heard an opinion from a jewish Israeli immigrant?(serious question not rhetorical) Is it not possible to think theres some of that coming into this country with them? Is rethinking the screening process and who we let in and out so bad? I know the argument is people that lived here and left can't get back in... There has been terrorists in this country who didn't start out that way left to another country to join terrorists and came back terrorists. Women rights in those countries? women in 1900 had more rights... Gays over there? ha! probably killed. I've dealt with some "refugees" who came from yemen lemme tell you nobody protesting would run up and hug a single one of them. I really don't care if this is anything like obama did or not. Other than the fact he passed the bill through congress that outlined these same 7 countries i'm not convinced that something better isn't going to come from this and its purely speculation so far that nothing will, right? Pretty over hearing about this tbh but feel free to let me know if anything is inaccurate. I just don't think 90 days to revamp immigration or screening is out of line if the potential to improve it is there. The biggest challenge obama had to overcome was the economy so he focused on it. The biggest challenge facing the entire world moving forward is terrorism and how do we stop it, as its progressively expanded and gotten worse.
Last edited by bass10after; 01-31-2017 at 9:32 PM.
Linear Mode
