huskerfan2000

https://www.rt.com/usa/332226-climate-change-sea-level-rise/

Climate is changing, always has and always will, but it isn't man made.

Give me regulations and a planet our kids can live in rather than cash for the wealthy and

 

The Heritage Foundation? Are you kidding?

 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/heritage-foundation

 

"The Heritage Foundation will continue to be a key element in the phalanx of rightist groups with an agenda of austerity for the poor, hostility to minorities and women, upward distribution of wealth for the rich, economic domination of the Third World, with repression and bloodletting for those who rebel."

 

You complain about people using skewed facts, but you use Heritage.org as a source of information.

 

You can't write comedy like this. You just can't.

 

how about usnews.. is that a rightist group?

 

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/08/27/regulations-cost-the-us-economy-trillions-of-dollars

 

Business insider?

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/ridiculous-regulations-big-government-2010-11

 

USA Today?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/02/economy-washington-congress-column/2124083/

 

Forbes?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2013/03/29/regulations-are-very-expensive-but-their-economic-value-is-negative/#2311c6b111a4

 

What site would you believe? Let me guess, a liberal site that pushes more regulations?

 

 

Wait. You're moving the goalposts here. We're talking about climate change being a hoax. Now you're off on some tangent about ANY regulation being bad.

 

We're not talking about all regulations. We can agree that some are implemented ham-handedly and have bad economic impacts. But let's not pretend that because some are bad, ALL are bad.

 

And let's not use articles like these in defense of global warming being a "hoax." None of them say that - and they can't, because it isn't.

 

Climate change could cost trillions of dollars due to rising sea levels alone. You want to debate which costs more, regulations or climate damage, that's a different conversation. But for certain the shorelines of every major city moving inward by several dozen feet will be a problem.

 

Well, strict government regulations are bad for the economy, I think most understand that would include EPA regulations as well. No moving goalpost.. regulations are regulations... be it because of climate or anything else. Shall we look at what is happening to VW right now?

because of stricter EPA regulations, VW is in a world of hurt and has decided to stop selling diesel cars in the US.

There is zero proof the sea levels are rising.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/24/alarmists-are-in-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/

 

Fred, it’s obvious that the IPCC has got lots of ‘splainin’ to do about how their previous global warming doomsday predictions based upon hypothetical computer models they claimed to have confidence in got it so wrong . That won’t be easy. Political operatives at their upcoming damage-control meeting in Stockholm this week will have to figure out how to spin evidence of a 17 year “pause” in global temperature rise and the expanding Arctic ice mass despite what they love to describe as “record high” atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.

Fred is a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and directs the Science & Environment Policy Project which has produced a series of scientific Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NICPP) report studies which often take issue with IPCC conclusions. NICPP’s new publication “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science” is available at no cost on-line.

is this site bad?

http://www.economist.com/node/21547789

Honestly, I have no clue what site you would give favor too, but I have my suspicions.

EDIT: Would you agree more regulations actually give the government more control?

The Heritage Foundation? Are you kidding?

 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/heritage-foundation

 

"The Heritage Foundation will continue to be a key element in the phalanx of rightist groups with an agenda of austerity for the poor, hostility to minorities and women, upward distribution of wealth for the rich, economic domination of the Third World, with repression and bloodletting for those who rebel."

 

You complain about people using skewed facts, but you use Heritage.org as a source of information.

 

You can't write comedy like this. You just can't.

how about usnews.. is that a rightist group?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/08/27/regulations-cost-the-us-economy-trillions-of-dollars

Business insider?

http://www.businessinsider.com/ridiculous-regulations-big-government-2010-11

USA Today?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/02/economy-washington-congress-column/2124083/

Forbes?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2013/03/29/regulations-are-very-expensive-but-their-economic-value-is-negative/#2311c6b111a4

What site would you believe? Let me guess, a liberal site that pushes more regulations?

Switching to renewable energy will not hurt the economy. That's misinformation put out by fossil fuel conglomerates.

 

It is in big business' self-interest to promote paranoia about "regulations" and "government control." Those things do NOT go hand-in-hand with reducing CO2 emissions. Anyone who tells you that is lying to you.

 

http://www.business.com/entrepreneurship/the-impact-of-green-energy-on-the-economy/

Who said that, because I sure didn't? I said regulations based on man made climate change are crippling the economy. That isn't misinformation, that is fact.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/epas-climate-regulations-will-harm-american-manufacturing

 

 

 

 

 

 

Skipped the speech. I guess he's still angry? And still doesn't understand tunnels. Or ladders. Or catapults. Or how to throw something.

 

Ahhh, why watch Fox News when bnil summarizes everything so neatly for me?

 

Overall the speech was strong and tough, and I think he laid out the "why" immigration is such an important issue, whether its from a security perspective and protecting American citizens, or from an economic perspective to ensure illegals do not drive down wages and freeload on our society. With that said, I would have recommended 2 changes:

 

1. I would have brought the Angel moms out at the beginning to set the tone on why this issue is so important. He waited til the end and may have lost viewers by that time.

 

2. I would have spent more time discussing the final step (of allowing non-violent illegals to not be broken up).

 

Now if you look at most of the left-leaning media that you subscribe too, they claimed it was an awful day for Trump because he and the Mexican President did not agree on their discussion about building the wall. But that's the typical media approach to anything he does.

 

 

I said the Fox News thing in jest. We just get our media from completely separate sources, and that's fine. For what it's worth, about the red, you were wrong, that's just what you assumed they'd say. I caught only a bit of CNN but they covered it pretty fairly and didn't deride Trump. There's not really a way to spin that day as a bad day for him. I don't know about MSNBC or anybody else.

 

Agree to disagree about the blue. I think you're dead wrong. I'll try to find some stuff later tonight regarding this, but I believe that illegal immigrants are easily a net positive for the US economy as a whole. They DO pay into taxes, they don't get benefits. So they DON'T freeload. They may decrease wages in specific unskilled sectors, I'll have to look into that.

 

Also, they do NOT make America less safe. For every grieving parent who had a kid killed by illegal immigrant, I could probably turn out 5 parents who lost their kid to violence by an American citizen. There are studies to back up that illegals are LESS likely to commit crime, not MORE.

 

Frankly, I think it's utterly disgusting that Trump and his ilk try to paint undocumented Americans as dangerous murderers posing a safety risk. They don't do it because they care about fixing that "problem" or helping those parents or making America "safe again." They do it specifically because they're trying to scapegoat a group of people and manipulate the electorate emotionally for their own gain.

 

Just like Trump's Mexico or Louisiana visits. Do you think he did those because he truly wants to improve his own relations with Mexico or race to help Louisianans? Or did he want votes? I sure as hell know which option I'm going with.

 

 

lol, the PC attitude has gone to your head. They are not Americans, they are illegals.

 

 

It's not PC anything. Don't give me that garbage. I grew up with plenty of illegals. They're good people trying to make a better life for themselves, largely. They're not some violent criminals running around murdering and raping and leeching off the government.

 

I'm not for turning those people into a political football and treating them as subhuman.

 

 

By the very nature of being here illegal they are criminals, in that aspect, and are hurting real Americans by taking jobs.. yes, the company is also hurting real Americans by hiring them.

 

Regardless, they are not Americans, period.

 

 

They should be Americans. They contribute to our society. If we didn't have a bunch of pompous, white privileged asses howling to deport them (not you, specifically), we'd pull our heads out and find a way to make them Americans.

 

Not arguing for or against, just saying they are not Americans and by not follow the law (on how to become Americans), that makes them criminals.

i also know they are getting special treatment over real Americans.. Things like getting special loans. See, I have friends who are Mexican and who are here legally.

I'm done, I high jacked this long enough.

 

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby agrees it isn't man (confirmed by Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom). Like I said, in time we will find this was a huge hoax.. IMO

 

 

So you've found a scientist that thinks it's not man-caused.

 

NASA and 97% of the rest of scientists agree that man is tipping the balance.

 

Interesting that you believe man's 4% contribution to the climate is not a big deal, but you think the 3% of climate scientists who deny man's role are a big deal.

 

That's a very selective view of the facts.

 

The two are totally different situations, one is hurting the economy via needless regulations, giving the government more control over the people, which is based on false data, and the other is trying to get out the truth.

Not even close to the same thing.

 

 

 

 

Skipped the speech. I guess he's still angry? And still doesn't understand tunnels. Or ladders. Or catapults. Or how to throw something.

 

Ahhh, why watch Fox News when bnil summarizes everything so neatly for me?

 

Overall the speech was strong and tough, and I think he laid out the "why" immigration is such an important issue, whether its from a security perspective and protecting American citizens, or from an economic perspective to ensure illegals do not drive down wages and freeload on our society. With that said, I would have recommended 2 changes:

 

1. I would have brought the Angel moms out at the beginning to set the tone on why this issue is so important. He waited til the end and may have lost viewers by that time.

 

2. I would have spent more time discussing the final step (of allowing non-violent illegals to not be broken up).

 

Now if you look at most of the left-leaning media that you subscribe too, they claimed it was an awful day for Trump because he and the Mexican President did not agree on their discussion about building the wall. But that's the typical media approach to anything he does.

 

 

I said the Fox News thing in jest. We just get our media from completely separate sources, and that's fine. For what it's worth, about the red, you were wrong, that's just what you assumed they'd say. I caught only a bit of CNN but they covered it pretty fairly and didn't deride Trump. There's not really a way to spin that day as a bad day for him. I don't know about MSNBC or anybody else.

 

Agree to disagree about the blue. I think you're dead wrong. I'll try to find some stuff later tonight regarding this, but I believe that illegal immigrants are easily a net positive for the US economy as a whole. They DO pay into taxes, they don't get benefits. So they DON'T freeload. They may decrease wages in specific unskilled sectors, I'll have to look into that.

 

Also, they do NOT make America less safe. For every grieving parent who had a kid killed by illegal immigrant, I could probably turn out 5 parents who lost their kid to violence by an American citizen. There are studies to back up that illegals are LESS likely to commit crime, not MORE.

 

Frankly, I think it's utterly disgusting that Trump and his ilk try to paint undocumented Americans as dangerous murderers posing a safety risk. They don't do it because they care about fixing that "problem" or helping those parents or making America "safe again." They do it specifically because they're trying to scapegoat a group of people and manipulate the electorate emotionally for their own gain.

 

Just like Trump's Mexico or Louisiana visits. Do you think he did those because he truly wants to improve his own relations with Mexico or race to help Louisianans? Or did he want votes? I sure as hell know which option I'm going with.

 

 

lol, the PC attitude has gone to your head. They are not Americans, they are illegals.

 

 

It's not PC anything. Don't give me that garbage. I grew up with plenty of illegals. They're good people trying to make a better life for themselves, largely. They're not some violent criminals running around murdering and raping and leeching off the government.

 

I'm not for turning those people into a political football and treating them as subhuman.

 

By the very nature of being here illegal they are criminals, in that aspect, and are hurting real Americans by taking jobs.. yes, the company is also hurting real Americans by hiring them.

Regardless, they are not Americans, period.

 

 

 

Take man made global warming for instance.. I believe the consensus is man is putting out 4% of the C02 levels, that they say is causing climate change.. Well, how can 4% wag the tail and the other 96% has nothing to do with it?

 

That was just an example..

Presuming your numbers are even accurate, is anyone saying the other 96% has nothing to do with it and man is causing it all? Or is that a strawman? Should be not be concerned with the 4% we are contributing to and not try to improve?

 

 

 

I don't want to side track this thread much further. They are saying man is the cause, right? From what I have seen 4% is the number given.

 

Time will show this was a scam.. and all those conspiracy nuts will be correct, but viewed at the time as nut jobs. In time..

 

The bold is a strawman!!

Man is a cause.

 

You are claiming it is a scam, so I assume you are not concerned or want to do anything. That's not a strawman.

 

The Straw Man is committed when a person ignores a person's position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I never made any claim, nor does saying man made is false mean, we shouldn't do things we can. Man made is actually economic crippling crap via unnecessary regulations.

edited post, sorry doing too many things

 

Take man made global warming for instance.. I believe the consensus is man is putting out 4% of the C02 levels, that they say is causing climate change.. Well, how can 4% wag the tail and the other 96% has nothing to do with it?

Nature is all about balance. The other 96% of CO2 is accounted for by nature. If you add an unaccounted-for 4% to one side of the scale, it tips. If you don't correct it, it tips further.

 

Man doesn't have to be the SOLE source of CO2 emissions for man to cause a problem. All man has to do is upset the balance. Man is upsetting the balance.

 

Yeah, I understand that, but that is the skewed facts I was talking about. it ignores other outside influences.

Ok, I don't want to high jack this anymore. Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby agrees it isn't man (confirmed by Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom). Like I said, in time we will find this was a huge hoax.. IMO

 

Take man made global warming for instance.. I believe the consensus is man is putting out 4% of the C02 levels, that they say is causing climate change.. Well, how can 4% wag the tail and the other 96% has nothing to do with it?

 

That was just an example..

Presuming your numbers are even accurate, is anyone saying the other 96% has nothing to do with it and man is causing it all? Or is that a strawman? Should be not be concerned with the 4% we are contributing to and not try to improve?

 

I don't want to side track this thread much further. They are saying man is the cause, right? From what I have seen 4% is the number given.

Time will show this was a scam.. and all those conspiracy nuts will be correct, but viewed at the time as nut jobs. In time..

The bold is a strawman!!

 

 

Skipped the speech. I guess he's still angry? And still doesn't understand tunnels. Or ladders. Or catapults. Or how to throw something.

 

Ahhh, why watch Fox News when bnil summarizes everything so neatly for me?

 

Overall the speech was strong and tough, and I think he laid out the "why" immigration is such an important issue, whether its from a security perspective and protecting American citizens, or from an economic perspective to ensure illegals do not drive down wages and freeload on our society. With that said, I would have recommended 2 changes:

 

1. I would have brought the Angel moms out at the beginning to set the tone on why this issue is so important. He waited til the end and may have lost viewers by that time.

 

2. I would have spent more time discussing the final step (of allowing non-violent illegals to not be broken up).

 

Now if you look at most of the left-leaning media that you subscribe too, they claimed it was an awful day for Trump because he and the Mexican President did not agree on their discussion about building the wall. But that's the typical media approach to anything he does.

 

 

I said the Fox News thing in jest. We just get our media from completely separate sources, and that's fine. For what it's worth, about the red, you were wrong, that's just what you assumed they'd say. I caught only a bit of CNN but they covered it pretty fairly and didn't deride Trump. There's not really a way to spin that day as a bad day for him. I don't know about MSNBC or anybody else.

 

Agree to disagree about the blue. I think you're dead wrong. I'll try to find some stuff later tonight regarding this, but I believe that illegal immigrants are easily a net positive for the US economy as a whole. They DO pay into taxes, they don't get benefits. So they DON'T freeload. They may decrease wages in specific unskilled sectors, I'll have to look into that.

 

Also, they do NOT make America less safe. For every grieving parent who had a kid killed by illegal immigrant, I could probably turn out 5 parents who lost their kid to violence by an American citizen. There are studies to back up that illegals are LESS likely to commit crime, not MORE.

 

Frankly, I think it's utterly disgusting that Trump and his ilk try to paint undocumented Americans as dangerous murderers posing a safety risk. They don't do it because they care about fixing that "problem" or helping those parents or making America "safe again." They do it specifically because they're trying to scapegoat a group of people and manipulate the electorate emotionally for their own gain.

 

Just like Trump's Mexico or Louisiana visits. Do you think he did those because he truly wants to improve his own relations with Mexico or race to help Louisianans? Or did he want votes? I sure as hell know which option I'm going with.

 

lol, the PC attitude has gone to your head. They are not Americans, they are illegals.

Actually BRB, I know there are false things said on the internet, and I am not saying this because I support Trump in anyway. I am saying this because, regardless of whether you (each of us) will admit it, you decide what is true and what isn't. Even so called facts are skewed to produce the lie you want to portray..

Take man made global warming for instance.. I believe the consensus is man is putting out 4% of the C02 levels, that they say is causing climate change.. Well, how can 4% wag the tail and the other 96% has nothing to do with it?

That was just an example..

Point is lies are everywhere, even in so called trusted sites.

 

 

 

 

Dude.....you first used Alex Jones. Then you use a site almost as bad.

 

Then you actually talk about how horrible CNN is.

 

Do you have any credible site that can even come close to verifying anything you say?

 

 

This comment should go in that thread about phrases used.... Anyway, who is going to decide what is credible? Each of us do on our own.. like zoogs constantly using Vox (undeniable liberal slant). He thinks that one is good, while others believe it is biased.

 

Having a credible source is not important? Crap....at least use someone whose purpose in life isn't to actually make up stories and conspiracy theories.

 

Here's a hint. If you google someone's name and the internet spits out a description including...."conspiracy theorist"....it's a pretty good sign he's full of crap.

 

 

 

lol, not what I meant, but you can go with that if you want.

 

So, you think the internet is right about everything?

 

Ummm....no.....that's my point.

 

but didn't you just say this?

 

If you google someone's name and the internet spits out a description including...."conspiracy theorist"....it's a pretty good sign he's full of crap.

How do you know this is right?

 

 

Dude.....you first used Alex Jones. Then you use a site almost as bad.

 

Then you actually talk about how horrible CNN is.

 

Do you have any credible site that can even come close to verifying anything you say?

 

 

This comment should go in that thread about phrases used.... Anyway, who is going to decide what is credible? Each of us do on our own.. like zoogs constantly using Vox (undeniable liberal slant). He thinks that one is good, while others believe it is biased.

 

Having a credible source is not important? Crap....at least use someone whose purpose in life isn't to actually make up stories and conspiracy theories.

 

Here's a hint. If you google someone's name and the internet spits out a description including...."conspiracy theorist"....it's a pretty good sign he's full of crap.

 

lol, not what I meant, but you can go with that if you want.

So, you think the internet is right about everything?

Dude.....you first used Alex Jones. Then you use a site almost as bad.

 

Then you actually talk about how horrible CNN is.

 

Do you have any credible site that can even come close to verifying anything you say?

This comment should go in that thread about phrases used.... Anyway, who is going to decide what is credible? Each of us do on our own.. like zoogs constantly using Vox (undeniable liberal slant). He thinks that one is good, while others believe it is biased.

Liberalism is actually bad in many way but the most important way is they believe in bigger government, which of course takes away from the individual and individual rights, while giving the government more say over your life.

So, how does this relate? Depends on what you think is better for everyone.. I believe in individual rights, which pulls me to conservative websites.

Don't get me wrong, I think our government as a whole, republicans and democrats, are destroying this country. PUBs are not doing what they stand for, or use to stand for, and dems are doing, well their usual.. more government power.

Is my way of thinking warped? Hardly, and there is plenty of evidence bigger government fails every time.

I know there are some here that still think CNN is not biased, but their Headline News just demonstrated once again that bias. A retired police officer who is a Trump supporter saved a baby who was left in a hot car on a 90-degree day. In the interview he was asked questions and had a Trump shirt on, and when CNN replayed that interview, they blocked out his t-shirt. This is probably the most blatant example of bias I have seen in a long-time, yet I'm sure some will continue to claim on here that CNN is not biased.

 

http://www.wxxv25.com/2016/09/01/bias-alert-hln-blurs-out-retired-officer039s-trump-2016-shirt/

This morning they were interviewing someone from the Trump camp, and the lady from CNN kept trying to site polls from 2 weeks ago while telling the guy Trump was behind in this specific poll. The guy was trying to tell her his poll was the same one, but from the last couple days, which showed Trump ahead.

She just kept with her failed argument.. trying hard to ignore his updated poll.

 

This has been an attempt at your part to equate Rush, Breitbart, et. al. with the continued myth of a dangerous "MSM", the topic of the OP. A false equivalency that has been routinely criticized by many, and defended by you.

 

There's not that much mystery to this; please stop attempting to obfuscate.

 

I could care less if the groupthink going on in here matters. If you don't think there is any liberal bias in the MSM, that is naive, but you can continue to believe that. As I said above, they do not create the liberal bias in the MSM but simply call it out. I have said the MSM does a better job disguising their bias, but a bias is still there.

 

There most certainly is bias, some more so than others.. Like that Vox site that is continually used.

 

 

 

I wear our labels and assumptions with pride at times and tend to feed into the "where's the donuts" stuff and "pigs" stuff because you can't take yourself too seriously in life. He's not doing this tongue-in-cheek, he's doing it to be derogatory in nature which isn't any better than the stuff he's supposedly speaking out against. He's being a hypocrite and it's making him look stupid and weakening his position which is fine by me. The fact that the NFL won't stop this, but won't allow the Dallas Cowboys to wear helmet stickers showing support to the police just shows me why I prefer college football over the NFL. Where's the line to freedom of speech? I think when you're wearing the uniform of your employer that's where your freedom of speech tends to get limited as you are now acting as an employee of your employer and making it appear you are speaking for them. You had a chance to use your status as a platform young man...........you failed miserably.

Can't read about it now but did he wear the socks during a game? I really doubt they would let him. Or continue to let him after they notice.

 

No, he wore those during practice the other day after he spoke to the press about his position.

 

 

That's probably why the NFL allows it then. If they didn't it'd open a whole can of worms for other things players wear to practice.

 

Anyhow, I saw his explanation for the socks. He said he has police friends and relatives and the socks represent the jerks not all of the police. Kinda reminded me of Trump saying he has Black friends.

 

The NFL is dead to me.. They told the Cowboys they couldn't wear a sticker on their helmet that was in support of police.

sigh, that reminds me of my mom's.. she passed not long ago.

 

 

Do we think Trump is being graded on a curve here? He went down there, had an hour or two meeting (that their country HATED) with an extremely unpopular president, and managed to release a coherent statement afterwards.

That is suddenly how low the bar is for him to be "presidential"?

 

Or going to LA to pass out Play-Doh when they specifically asked him not to do so? And then ripping into Obama for complying with that request as "not caring"?

 

Of course, this conveniently omits the fact that he straight-up lied about whether they discussed financing the wall. And why Vicente Fox invited him to Mexico.

 

That's twice in the span of maybe an hour he's lied about things. But somehow Clinton is the liar in the race and polls lower on honest and trustworthy.

 

I can't even...

Wow, you will spin anything. Let's face it...Trump took a risk and it's paying off big-time. Hillary and many in the media were predicting this trip would be a disaster for him, and it was a success. First, he beat Hillary to it (as he did in Louisiana) by accepting the invitation. Second, he appeared on the world stage and showed statesmenship and that he is "Presidential" which completely refutes Hillary's argument that nobody can imagine him as President. On top of that, it sounds like he and the Mexican President had good discussions on immigration, guns, and trade. Meanwhile, Hillary still has not given a press conference in 270 days, and has spent most of her time raising money and taking it easy. The imagery of Trump working his butt off going all over the country represents what he has done all his life...work hard, and if your opponent is still winning, work even harder.

Wow....that post was impressive.

 

No different than the Hillary backers

IT'S GAME WEEK!

 

 

 

 

Perfect video to start things off! I sure hope Dr Pepper guy is right!

 

 

 

 

 

Great topic. I believe in God but also consider myself a hard science type. I'm certainly not aware of any scientific facts that disprove God. I'm not even aware of any scientific facts that make God's creation of the universe any less likely than the Big Bang Theory and eons of random occurrences.

 

As for gender, I've learned recently that this is an incredibly sensitive topic. Some people who claim to be in favor of equal rights are incredibly thin skinned when you speak about women in frank, matter of fact terms as you would about men. It gets them all worked up and hurts their feelings. Go figure. :

 

Edit: As I re-read the OP, I see that my post is a bit off topic. I am speaking more in terms of feelings/science regarding topics such as the existence of God and women's rights. I wasn't really thinking in terms of gender identity.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about?

 

 

First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights.

 

So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post.

 

 

You need professional help.

 

 

NOTE: This post of StPaul's is not intended to carry on a conversation or make a point relevant to the thread. It's just flaming. This is his 5th warning in the past year. StPaulHusker is on vacation from HB for a while. Carry on.

 

 

You brought it over from another thread, NUance. And even as you strive to clarify your position, you invite legitimate criticism.

 

I may have been one of the posters on the Phillips thread you mention here. I continue to find you on very shaky ground with your assertions.

 

If holding your feet to the fire is flaming, toss me in with StPaul.

 

Thin-skinned moderation and personally-driven banishments can be a real buzzkill.

 

I have one that has decided to go after me as well, not that I think that is what is happening here. I get a trolling violation for responding to a trolling comment which resulted in me getting the post removed and a warning point. The other guy.. nothing.

THEN that mod sends me a trolling message.

 

 

Let me get this straight 2000... at no point in our history has man evolved. That's what you want to claim?

Yep, at no time in mans history has man evolved from any other animal.

In the "evolution happened . . . but not for humans" version of creationism, how old is planet earth?

 

It's hard to keep all these fictional stories straight because they all seem to move the goalposts in different directions.

 

I have no idea!