The General Election

[huskerfan2000]

 

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.

[huskerfan2000]

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

[knapplc]

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/

[BigRedBuster]

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/

I don't think switching will hurt the economy.

 

All I ask for is that how we switch and what we switch to is actually economically feasible and worth the switch.

 

I'm not totally sold on wind energy being the answer long term unless some major advancements are made in technology. I'm expecting at some point in the future, we will have all these ugly things around the country just standing their rusting away while the country has moved on to a much more efficient answer. At that point, the people out here in rural America is going to be stuck with these ugly things that everyone else wanted but didn't want in their back yard.

[knapplc]

I like the wind turbines. But I agree, they're probably not the future.

 

We'll probably perfect solar, or salt, or something. We need to invest more in that, and stop with the tens of billions in fossil fuel subsidies.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[Danny Bateman]

 

Tell me again why Trump has nothing to do with these people.

[ZRod]

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/

This can also be seen in the steel industry right now. They are facing the reality that Aluminum is becoming a strong alternative. Look at Chevy commercials. "Higher strength steel". "Which cage would you rather be in if a bear were released in the room?" Rather than adapt, they try to scare the public.

 

 

 

Just so we're clear, this is what it looks like when you remove those unneeded regulations...

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[huskerfan2000]

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

[Danny Bateman]

Good. About time this made some hay. The double standard for foundations in this race was pathetic.

 

One actually bribed a government official. Republicans beat the drum on the Clinton Foundation long enough. I hope this gets some traction. Let's see what they say now.

 

[knapplc]

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.

[ZRod]

Just wow.... I can't believe we've had Alex Jones and now the heritage foundation used to try to justify arguments...

[Danny Bateman]

We should just be clear:

1. Alex Jones is an unashamed conspiracy theorist.

2. The Heritage Foundation gives zero ****s about protecting the environment, and thus, doesn't address that at all.

If you're ok with those two undeniable premises, then you have to decide for yourself if those are justifiable sources.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Just for fun, go back and see how wrong the conservative braniacs in the Project for a New American Century were about virtually everything.

 

And they are light years ahead of Alex Jones and the Heritage Foundation.

 

You know what weak-kneed, Capitalist-hating tree-huggers bought into the Global Warming hoax? The Pentagon. Looking at the available facts from a global security standpoint, they consider it the biggest threat to the way of life we supposedly want to defend.