Here's the Republican front runner...

[Kaos]

Waste of time to talk further about Trump.  He's going to be the choice on the Republican side.

Waste of time to talk further about Gary Johnson, Bleep Bloop Bork or any other fringe candidate who has as much chance of winning as dallas does. 

So let's talk about the democratic side. 

Hillary is so repulsive, even to her own base that she can't put away a raving lunatic.  Bernie Sanders is an absolute moron.  Against anybody else but that wildebeest shrew he'd be laughed off the stage. 

Tomi - she's amazing - gets it.  She gets all of it. 

[AUChizad]

(Skip to 2:30)

This is a case study in Trump's idiocy. Where to begin.

1) He's pandering to the coal miners by saying "SEE?!? FUCK SCIENCE! I DON'T GIVE ONE FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT! I'M IGNORANT AS SHIT, VOTE FOR ME!"

2) Does he understand how houses work? Does he think it's hermetically sealed? What kind of mutant are we running for the GOP nominee that doesn't breathe oxygen in his hermetically sealed layer?

3) He's talking about something that no one has even talked about in 30 years. He might as well be up there bitching about New Coke or Crystal Pepsi.

4) The reason no one has talked about CFCs destroying the ozone in 30 years is because it's settled science. We figured it out, cut out the CFCs, and the ozone regenerated. We fixed it, because science. In case you forgot, scientists figured out that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were floating into the stratosphere, reacting with UV rays, breaking off one of the chlorine atoms, which reacted with the ozone molecules and broke them down. In the 80s, the rate of ozone being broken down outpaced the rate of ozone being produced. That was a problem. It wasn't hippie mumbo jumbo bullshit. We stopped producing CFCs, and the ozone was able to replenish appropriately. That's just scientific fact.

And just like scientists knew that then, while you people probably bitched about it being hippie nonsense, we now know that the use of coal is releasing too much CO2 (and methane, both greenhouse gases) into the environment, causing a heating effect. We know that exactly like we knew CFCs were depleting the ozone layer. Except they don't believe the CO2 problem is as quickly reversible as the ozone was.

I don't want to go too deep into my personal stance on this, because it'll be ignored anyway as "know-it-all, elitist snobbery" as it has in the past. But while I don't think we have to 100% panic and cut out coal completely, I think we need to be reducing that shit and looking at transitioning to other cleaner forms of energy, and making those as efficient and economical as coal currently is. Fracking for natural gas and using nuclear energy (two things leftist hippies are averse to) are not excluded from this.


(PS I like this version better)


Others:

[AUChizad]

[AUChizad]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-the-conservative-hope-1462833870

Hillary: The Conservative Hope
The right can survive liberal presidents. Trump will kill its best ideas for a generation.
 
By BRET STEPHENS
May 9, 2016 6:44 p.m. ET

The best hope for what’s left of a serious conservative movement in America is the election in November of a Democratic president, held in check by a Republican Congress. Conservatives can survive liberal administrations, especially those whose predictable failures lead to healthy restorations—think Carter, then Reagan. What isn’t survivable is a Republican president who is part Know Nothing, part Smoot-Hawley and part John Birch. The stain of a Trump administration would cripple the conservative cause for a generation.

This is the reality that wavering Republicans need to understand before casting their lot with a presumptive nominee they abhor only slightly less than his likely opponent. If the next presidency is going to be a disaster, why should the GOP want to own it?

In the 1990s, when another Clinton was president, conservatives became fond of the phrase “character counts.” This was a way of scoring points against Bill Clinton for his sexual predations and rhetorical misdirections, as well as a statement that Americans expected honor and dignity in the Oval Office. I’ll never forget the family friend, circa 1998, who wondered how she was supposed to explain the meaning of a euphemism for oral sex to her then 10-year-old daughter.

Conservatives still play the character card against Hillary Clinton, citing her disdain for other people’s rules, her Marie Antoinette airs and her potential law breaking. It’s a fair card to play, if only the presumptive Republican nominee weren’t himself a serial fabulist, an incorrigible self-mythologizer, a brash vulgarian, and, when it comes to his tax returns, a determined obfuscator. Endorsing Mr. Trump means permanently laying to rest any claim conservatives might ever again make on the character issue.

Conservatives are also supposed to believe that it’s folly to put hope before experience; that leopards never change their spots. So what’s with the magical thinking that, nomination in hand, Mr. Trump will suddenly pivot to magnanimity and statesmanship? Where’s the evidence that, as president, Mr. Trump will endorse conservative ideas on tax, trade, regulation, welfare, social, judicial or foreign policy, much less personal comportment?

On Monday, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who savaged Mr. Trump during the campaign, published an op-ed in these pages on why he plans to cast his vote for the real-estate developer as “the second-worst thing we could do this November.” Too much is at stake, Mr. Jindal said, on everything from curbing the regulatory excesses of the Obama administration to appointing a conservative judge to the Supreme Court, to risk another Democratic administration.

Mr. Jindal holds out the hope that Mr. Trump, who admires the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision on eminent domain (the one in which Susette Kelo’s little pink house was seized by the city of New London for the intended benefit of private developers), might yet appoint strict constructionists to the bench. Mr. Jindal also seems to think that a man whose preferred style of argument is the threatened lawsuit and the Twittertantrum, can be trusted with the vast investigative apparatus of the federal government.

The deeper mistake that Mr. Jindal and other lukewarm Trump supporters make is to assume that policy counts for more than ideas—that is, that the policy disasters he anticipates from a Clinton administration will be indelible, while Trumpism poses no real threat to the conservative ideas he has spent a political career championing. This belief stems from a failure to take Trumpism seriously, or to realize just how fragile modern conservatism is as a vital political movement.

But Trumpism isn’t just a triumph of marketing or the excrescence of a personality cult. It is a regression to the conservatism of blood and soil, of ethnic polarization and bullying nationalism. Modern conservatives sought to bury this rubbish with a politics that strikes a balance between respect for tradition and faith in the dynamic and culture-shifting possibilities of open markets. When that balance collapses—under a Republican president, no less—it may never again be restored, at least in our lifetimes.

For liberals, all this may seem like so much manna from heaven. Mr. Trump’s nomination not only gives his Democratic opponent the best possible shot at winning the election (with big down-ballot gains, too), but of permanently discrediting the conservative movement as a serious ideological challenger. They should be careful what they wish for. Mr. Trump could yet win, or one of his epigones might in four or eight years. This will lead to its own left-wing counter-reactions, putting America on the road to Weimar.

For conservatives, a Democratic victory in November means the loss of another election, with all the policy reversals that entails. That may be dispiriting, but elections will come again. A Trump presidency means losing the Republican Party. Conservatives need to accept that most conservative of wisdoms—sometimes, losing is winning, especially when it offers an education in the importance of political hygiene.

[CCTAU]

4) The reason no one has talked about CFCs destroying the ozone in 30 years is because it's settled science. We figured it out, cut out the CFCs, and the ozone regenerated. We fixed it, because science. In case you forgot, scientists figured out that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were floating into the stratosphere, reacting with UV rays, breaking off one of the chlorine atoms, which reacted with the ozone molecules and broke them down. In the 80s, the rate of ozone being broken down outpaced the rate of ozone being produced. That was a problem. It wasn't hippie mumbo jumbo bullshit. We stopped producing CFCs, and the ozone was able to replenish appropriately. That's just scientific fact.

So you are saying the since we dumped R12 for R134A and R22 for R410A, that we saved the ozone?

And that it is a scientific fact?

[GH2001]

Show of hands just so we're straight....who wants the coal mines shut down? Who wants them to remain? Not as a predominate or solitary fuel source. Just as an option.

What I have issue with the dems on with this - whether you believe coal and gas are causing climate change or not, is that they want it gone. They want it shutdown. And they want to force people on the green energies. I don't like that. That's authoritarian. But they aren't doing it for the sake of Mother Earth. They do it because they are lobbied hard by environmental radicals and these companies like solyndra who make green products. The left always talks about how bad the gun lobby is but the epa and environmental loons are just as bad if not worse but are talked about far less.

People that care about the earth are conservationists. People who claim to but only use it for political reasons are environmentalists. Big difference.

[AUTailgatingRules]

(Skip to 2:30)

This is a case study in Trump's idiocy. Where to begin.

1) He's pandering to the coal miners by saying "SEE?!? FUCK SCIENCE! I DON'T GIVE ONE FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT! I'M IGNORANT AS SHIT, VOTE FOR ME!"

2) Does he understand how houses work? Does he think it's hermetically sealed? What kind of mutant are we running for the GOP nominee that doesn't breathe oxygen in his hermetically sealed layer?

3) He's talking about something that no one has even talked about in 30 years. He might as well be up there bitching about New Coke or Crystal Pepsi.

4) The reason no one has talked about CFCs destroying the ozone in 30 years is because it's settled science. We figured it out, cut out the CFCs, and the ozone regenerated. We fixed it, because science. In case you forgot, scientists figured out that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were floating into the stratosphere, reacting with UV rays, breaking off one of the chlorine atoms, which reacted with the ozone molecules and broke them down. In the 80s, the rate of ozone being broken down outpaced the rate of ozone being produced. That was a problem. It wasn't hippie mumbo jumbo bullshit. We stopped producing CFCs, and the ozone was able to replenish appropriately. That's just scientific fact.

And just like scientists knew that then, while you people probably bitched about it being hippie nonsense, we now know that the use of coal is releasing too much CO2 (and methane, both greenhouse gases) into the environment, causing a heating effect. We know that exactly like we knew CFCs were depleting the ozone layer. Except they don't believe the CO2 problem is as quickly reversible as the ozone was.

I don't want to go too deep into my personal stance on this, because it'll be ignored anyway as "know-it-all, elitist snobbery" as it has in the past. But while I don't think we have to 100% panic and cut out coal completely, I think we need to be reducing that shit and looking at transitioning to other cleaner forms of energy, and making those as efficient and economical as coal currently is. Fracking for natural gas and using nuclear energy (two things leftist hippies are averse to) are not excluded from this.


(PS I like this version better)


Others:

You do realize that the hockey stick has been flat for the past 20 years, right?  According to all your "experts", we should already be under water, there should be no ice at the poles, no Polar bears, no food, etc.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/

[CCTAU]

You do realize that the hockey stick has been flat for the past 20 years, right?  According to all your "experts", we should already be under water, there should be no ice at the poles, no Polar bears, no food, etc.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/

Damn you. He has personal experience that you are wrong. Science save the ozone layer.

Coal is a viable fuel source that no more harms the environment than any other waste emission manufacturing process. But I guess we could shut them all down and get everything from China...

[GH2001]

[AUChizad]

So you are saying the since we dumped R12 for R134A and R22 for R410A, that we saved the ozone?

And that it is a scientific fact?

Yes. I just explained how we know this and how the problem ceased when we switched. I'm sorry you didn't understand.

Show of hands just so we're straight....who wants the coal mines shut down? Who wants them to remain? Not as a predominate or solitary fuel source. Just as an option.

What I have issue with the dems on with this - whether you believe coal and gas are causing climate change or not, is that they want it gone. They want it shutdown. And they want to force people on the green energies. I don't like that. That's authoritarian. But they aren't doing it for the sake of Mother Earth. They do it because they are lobbied hard by environmental radicals and these companies like solyndra who make green products. The left always talks about how bad the gun lobby is but the epa and environmental loons are just as bad if not worse but are talked about far less.

People that care about the earth are conservationists. People who claim to but only use it for political reasons are environmentalists. Big difference.

Not raising my hand. I guess I'm a conservationist then by your definition. What I'm not is someone who thinks all scientists are making nonsense up to fuck with you and your way of life. Dismissing scientific facts on carbon emissions (and CFCs, which apparently Trump and CCTAU still dispute in the face of even the tangible evidence that we FIXED the problem by cutting them out) is nothing but pure ignorance.

I said in my post, even though it was straying off topic, that I'm not an alarmist and don't think we have to cut coal use out ENTIRELY and IMMEDIATELY. But we do need to start looking to the future now. This is the conversation we should be having. WE KNOW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL. Now what do we do about it? The problem is, knuckle draggers won't let us get to that point in the conversation. I'd probably agree with most of you once we were finally able to get there.

You do realize that the hockey stick has been flat for the past 20 years, right?  According to all your "experts", we should already be under water, there should be no ice at the poles, no Polar bears, no food, etc.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/

I'm not going to debunk that piece line by line, but it's idiotic. The bottom line on why it's ignorant is that THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY FLUCTUATIONS in temperature.

That's like saying this person didn't lose weight at all because there were pauses in the pounds lost.

"THE DIET HAS NO EFFECT BECAUSE YOU DID NOT LOSE WEIGHT CONTINUOUSLY!"

Surely, you see why that is stupid. Apply it to climate change.

Also, your link did not include anything about the hockey stick. It is not flat. I don't know where you got that bullshit, but it isn't true.

Here is a history on the misfiring against the hockey stick theory. Don't worry, I'm aware no one will read it, because you'd rather be ignorant than wrong.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-hockey-stick-the-most-controversial-chart-in-science-explained/275753/

[AUChizad]

Damn you. He has personal experience that you are wrong. Science save the ozone layer.

Coal is a viable fuel source that no more harms the environment than any other waste emission manufacturing process. But I guess we could shut them all down and get everything from China...

I didn't say shut them all down. I said it three times now. You are incapable of making arguments without attributing strawman arguments to me.

And what do you think fixed the ozone? My mind is blown that you can continue to deny this.

[dallaswareagle]

, Bleep Bloop Bork or any other fringe candidate who has as much chance of winning as dallas does. 

So today I have been called a fag, and I have a slight chance of winning the presidency.  All in all not my best day but could be worst.

[Kaos]

(Skip to 2:30)

This is a case study in Trump's idiocy. Where to begin.

1) He's pandering to the coal miners by saying "SEE?!? FUCK SCIENCE! I DON'T GIVE ONE FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT! I'M IGNORANT AS SHIT, VOTE FOR ME!"

2) Does he understand how houses work? Does he think it's hermetically sealed? What kind of mutant are we running for the GOP nominee that doesn't breathe oxygen in his hermetically sealed layer?

3) He's talking about something that no one has even talked about in 30 years. He might as well be up there bitching about New Coke or Crystal Pepsi.

4) The reason no one has talked about CFCs destroying the ozone in 30 years is because it's settled science. We figured it out, cut out the CFCs, and the ozone regenerated. We fixed it, because science. In case you forgot, scientists figured out that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were floating into the stratosphere, reacting with UV rays, breaking off one of the chlorine atoms, which reacted with the ozone molecules and broke them down. In the 80s, the rate of ozone being broken down outpaced the rate of ozone being produced. That was a problem. It wasn't hippie mumbo jumbo bullshit. We stopped producing CFCs, and the ozone was able to replenish appropriately. That's just scientific fact.

And just like scientists knew that then, while you people probably bitched about it being hippie nonsense, we now know that the use of coal is releasing too much CO2 (and methane, both greenhouse gases) into the environment, causing a heating effect. We know that exactly like we knew CFCs were depleting the ozone layer. Except they don't believe the CO2 problem is as quickly reversible as the ozone was.

I don't want to go too deep into my personal stance on this, because it'll be ignored anyway as "know-it-all, elitist snobbery" as it has in the past. But while I don't think we have to 100% panic and cut out coal completely, I think we need to be reducing that shit and looking at transitioning to other cleaner forms of energy, and making those as efficient and economical as coal currently is. Fracking for natural gas and using nuclear energy (two things leftist hippies are averse to) are not excluded from this.


(PS I like this version better)


Others:

Fuck YES! 

Thanks.  Everything you posted makes me like him more. 

[Kaos]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-the-conservative-hope-1462833870

Fuck them too. 

Crybaby bitches.

[AUChizad]

Fuck YES! 

Thanks.  Everything you posted makes me like him more.

[Kaos]

Yes. I just explained how we know this and how the problem ceased when we switched. I'm sorry you didn't understand.
Not raising my hand. I guess I'm a conservationist then by your definition. What I'm not is someone who thinks all scientists are making nonsense up to fuck with you and your way of life. Dismissing scientific facts on carbon emissions (and CFCs, which apparently Trump and CCTAU still dispute in the face of even the tangible evidence that we FIXED the problem by cutting them out) is nothing but pure ignorance.

I said in my post, even though it was straying off topic, that I'm not an alarmist and don't think we have to cut coal use out ENTIRELY and IMMEDIATELY. But we do need to start looking to the future now. This is the conversation we should be having. WE KNOW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL. Now what do we do about it? The problem is, knuckle draggers won't let us get to that point in the conversation. I'd probably agree with most of you once we were finally able to get there.
I'm not going to debunk that piece line by line, but it's idiotic. The bottom line on why it's ignorant is that THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY FLUCTUATIONS in temperature.

That's like saying this person didn't lose weight at all because there were pauses in the pounds lost.

"THE DIET HAS NO EFFECT BECAUSE YOU DID NOT LOSE WEIGHT CONTINUOUSLY!"

Surely, you see why that is stupid. Apply it to climate change.

Also, your link did not include anything about the hockey stick. It is not flat. I don't know where you got that bullshit, but it isn't true.

Here is a history on the misfiring against the hockey stick theory. Don't worry, I'm aware no one will read it, because you'd rather be ignorant than wrong.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-hockey-stick-the-most-controversial-chart-in-science-explained/275753/

Climate change is a fucking hoax.  Proven.  Things go up and down over time.  It's cyclical. 

Pretending otherwise is the height of snowflake misplaced outrage.

[AUChizad]

Climate change is a fucking hoax.  Proven.  Things go up and down over time.  It's cyclical. 

Pretending otherwise is the height of snowflake misplaced outrage.

Dieting is a fucking hoax.  Proven.  Things go up and down over time.  It's cyclical. 

Pretending otherwise is the height of snowflake misplaced outrage.

[Kaos]

Dieting is a fucking hoax.  Proven.  Things go up and down over time.  It's cyclical. 

Pretending otherwise is the height of snowflake misplaced outrage.

There is proof that for some people dieting shows results.

There is ZERO proof that this, that or the other impacts "climate change".


Forty years ago we were headed to an ice age.  Now it's a heat wave.  Twenty years from now it will be an ice age again.  Thank god a diet works so I can still wear my parka from before. 

[AUChizad]

There is proof that for some people dieting shows results.

There is ZERO proof that this, that or the other impacts "climate change".


Forty years ago we were headed to an ice age.  Now it's a heat wave.  Twenty years from now it will be an ice age again.  Thank god a diet works so I can still wear my parka from before.

This is stupid.

I don't know what else to say, but if you believe this, you are stupid. Willfully ignorant is still ignorant.

ZERO proof that "this, that or the other" impacts climate change, except the hundreds of thousands of studies and scholarly journals and a vast, vast, vast majority consensus of the scientific community. But you, Kaos of TigersX.com say there's no proof, so there's no proof. Fuck's sake, do you dispute the earth is round too?

[AUTailgatingRules]

Please explain temperature fluctuations, better known as "Climate Change" that occurred prior to the industrial revolution. 

Did we burn too many candles?  too many farting cows?  Too many farting Dinosaurs?