Climate Change getting worse, and so are the Republican excuses - article from Esquire.

[Sleepless_in_Jefferson_County]

Keep in mind millerbleach that the "Sun Worshippers" need (2) names for their religion to be right 99% of the time...
Climate Change & Global Warming

To be right 100% of the time their Climate Summit has come up with a "third" term...
Galactic Meltdown

And to think the silly Republicans are still worried about the JV Team...

The Republicans ARE the JV team...you don't get anything done, just obstruct any actual progress that could be made.

 

[Scout 4u]

The Republicans ARE the JV team...you don't get anything done, just obstruct any actual progress that could be made.

So I guess you are saying that if the Republicans win the White House and control Congress, Democrats will give "their" new president anything he wants?
I never thought of that!

"You and US" could work together as a "TEAM"!!!.

Why did these Republican idiots not think of this first !?!?!?

I will start with the dismemberment of Obama Care, you start with the dissection of Plan Parenthood.

-------------------------------------------------

You are either immensely naïve or a typical hypocrite from the Far Left Democrat Party, you choose.

 

[Sleepless_in_Jefferson_County]

So I guess you are saying that if the Republicans win the White House and control Congress, Democrats will give "their" new president anything he wants?
I never thought of that!

"You and US" could work together as a "TEAM"!!!.

Why did these Republican idiots not think of this first !?!?!?

I will start with the dismemberment of Obama Care, you start with the dissection of Plan Parenthood.

-------------------------------------------------

You are either immensely naïve or a typical hypocrite from the Far Left Democrat Party, you choose.

I'm not sure you know what hypocrite means...

 

[Scout 4u]

I'm not sure you know what hypocrite means...

Your "actual progress" is my "Far Left Liberalism".

Why would "I" or "you" do anything different?

I am assuming of course you are not a RINO Republican that would "compromise" our country away for a $.

 

[Sleepless_in_Jefferson_County]

Your "actual progress" is my "Far Left Liberalism".

Why would "I" or "you" do anything different?

I am assuming of course you are not a RINO Republican that would "compromise" our country away for a $.

You're ridiculous. America isn't Democrats vs. Republicans, that's just the rhetoric being fed 24/7 to the feeble minded by news networks.

I want limits on campaign contributions and campaign spending, so that MAYBE Americans can get actual representation and not just the candidate the Koch's throw money behind.

 

[ag-man]

You're ridiculous. America isn't Democrats vs. Republicans, that's just the rhetoric being fed 24/7 to the feeble minded by news networks.

I want limits on campaign contributions and campaign spending, so that MAYBE Americans can get actual representation and not just the candidate the Koch's throw money behind.

Or Soros ?

 

[Sleepless_in_Jefferson_County]

Or Soros ?

Sure, what part of campaign spending limits was unclear? This is part of the problem, I mention a conservative puppet master and the conservatives get all butthurt and take it personally. Campaign finance limits for ALL. Is that better?

 

[ag-man]

Sure, what part of campaign spending limits was unclear? This is part of the problem, I mention a conservative puppet master and the conservatives get all butthurt and take it personally. Campaign finance limits for ALL. Is that better?

Yes

 

[Scout 4u]

You're ridiculous. America isn't Democrats vs. Republicans, that's just the rhetoric being fed 24/7 to the feeble minded by news networks.

I want limits on campaign contributions and campaign spending, so that MAYBE Americans can get actual representation and not just the candidate the Koch's throw money behind.

Believe it or not, some of us actually have things that we place in front of Party Affiliation. In my case it starts with National Sovereignty which is a bi-product of Immigration.

"True Conservatives" are the "base" of the Republican Party and no longer feel represented by its leadership.

They have left us with no choice but to walk away from them if they can no longer lead on the issues we care about.

Trump though a loud mouth, care about me first, Billionaire, Liberal Democrat, RINO Republican does at least "act" like he cares about boarder security.

It is for that main reason and many other lesser that we have left our allegiance to the GOP.

Is Donald Trump the person who can deliver on Immigration to our satisfaction?... probably not but he at least acts like he can and for now that's all we have to work with.

As for "one" leader who we have followed for years, RUSH ...

The Kochs, not so much.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Believe it or not, some of us actually have things that we place in front of Party Affiliation. In my case it starts with National Sovereignty which is a bi-product of Immigration.

"True Conservatives" are the "base" of the Republican Party and no longer feel represented by its leadership.

They have left us with no choice but to walk away from them if they can no longer lead on the issues we care about.

Trump though a loud mouth, care about me first, Billionaire, Liberal Democrat, RINO Republican does at least "act" like he cares about boarder security.

It is for that main reason and many other lesser that we have left our allegiance to the GOP.

Is Donald Trump the person who can deliver on Immigration to our satisfaction?... probably not but he at least acts like he can and for now that's all we have to work with.

As for "one" leader who we have followed for years, RUSH ...

The Kochs, not so much.

Trump is showing that the base of the R party isn't "conservative" in the way that the Ted Cruzes of the world would like to pretend that it is. Trump is a big government candidate and probably the least overtly religious person with a prayer at the nomination in a long time.

 

[Sleepless_in_Jefferson_County]

Believe it or not, some of us actually have things that we place in front of Party Affiliation. In my case it starts with National Sovereignty which is a bi-product of Immigration.

"True Conservatives" are the "base" of the Republican Party and no longer feel represented by its leadership.

They have left us with no choice but to walk away from them if they can no longer lead on the issues we care about.

Trump though a loud mouth, care about me first, Billionaire, Liberal Democrat, RINO Republican does at least "act" like he cares about boarder security.

It is for that main reason and many other lesser that we have left our allegiance to the GOP.

Is Donald Trump the person who can deliver on Immigration to our satisfaction?... probably not but he at least acts like he can and for now that's all we have to work with.

As for "one" leader who we have followed for years, RUSH ...

The Kochs, not so much.

You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can one man by appealing to his logic.

Trump voters in a nutshell. He just giggled the racists and the feeble minded. Luckily for him that is the majority of the Republican base.

 

[millerbleach]

Campaign finance limits for ALL. Is that better?

If that includes unions, then go for it.
I just believe anyone has the right to spend anything they want on a candidate. Trump and Sanders aren't bringing in big donors and seem to be doing OK. Do you think Hillary is getting the black vote because of her corporate contributions? How can Jeb spend 100 million and not get a sniff if elections are being bought

 

[ag-man]

You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can one man by appealing to his logic.

Trump voters in a nutshell. He just giggled the racists and the feeble minded. Luckily for him that is the majority of the Republican base.

If you want to use racism as a barometer , the dims should be doing awesome. I have never seen a party hold down one race, and feed them a line of crap, like the dims do the blacks.

 

[Scout 4u]

You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can one man by appealing to his logic.

Trump voters in a nutshell. He just giggled the racists and the feeble minded. Luckily for him that is the majority of the Republican base.

Define prejudices...

Is it prejudice to stand up for "legal" immigrants who sacrificed everything to come here "legally"?

Is it prejudice to stand up for the "unborn child" whose life was extinguished by "choice"?

Is it prejudice to believe that "all lives matter" , not just "Black" ones?

Is it prejudice to "stand by the Constitution" as it was "written" (vs) how we "want it to be" today?

Is it prejudice to "not own a fire arm" yet stand up for the "2nd Amendment" for those who do?

Is it prejudice to "not be rich" but still support "those who are"?

Is it prejudice to think that each individual "State" has the "Right to govern itself" rather than "others governing it"?

Is it prejudice to believe in "God" first, "Country" second?

Is it prejudice to believe in "Climate Change" but differ on how "best to deal with it"?

Is it prejudice to "fight for your country" when you see "others taking it away" ?

 

[The Rumor]

If you want to use racism as a barometer , the dims should be doing awesome. I have never seen a party hold down one race, and feed them a line of crap, like the dims do the blacks.

This argument is incredibly brain dead. What is the R alternative?

 

[The Rumor]

If that includes unions, then go for it.
I just believe anyone has the right to spend anything they want on a candidate. Trump and Sanders aren't bringing in big donors and seem to be doing OK. Do you think Hillary is getting the black vote because of her corporate contributions? How can Jeb spend 100 million and not get a sniff if elections are being bought

Trump is changing the dynamic on this. But you're only looking at the presidency. Someone has to fun all of those congressional races. And we are getting closer to a 1 on 1 general election where both sides are going to spend a ton of money hammering the negatives of their opponent via lots of ad spending.

 

[ag-man]

This argument is incredibly brain dead. What is the R alternative?

State your argument then,

Show me that blacks are better off after voting dim the last 45 years..... I will wait.

 

[Scout 4u]

State your argument then,

Show me that blacks are better off after voting dim the last 45 years..... I will wait.

The Democrats produced a welfare state in the South, a corrupt city in the North and a LGBT community in the West.

What have the Republican created, outside of the chance to free the World from liberal oppression?

Nothing !

 

[vbsideout]

State your argument then,

Show me that blacks are better off after voting dim the last 45 years..... I will wait.

The fact that they are still able to vote would be a good starting point.

 

[Neutron Monster]

State your argument then,

Show me that blacks are better off after voting dim the last 45 years..... I will wait.

They are better off than they would be if they voted for the R party, which is the relevant standard.

 

[Dr.Jekyll]

State your argument then,

Show me that blacks are better off after voting dim the last 45 years..... I will wait.

or show us where the blacks are better off when the pubs where in office.

 

[ag-man]

They are better off than they would be if they voted for the R party, which is the relevant standard.

Pure speculation

 

[Neutron Monster]

Pure speculation

Not when you look at the policy proposals of the R party once it took in the Southern rump of the D party.

 

[ag-man]

Not when you look at the policy proposals of the R party once it took in the Southern rump of the D party.

Since around 1965, when the democrats started to buy, whoops, I meant court the black vote, let us see how much they have improved the black's quality of life.

Unemployment rate twice as high as whites.

In 1965, 8% of black children were born out of wedlock
Today it is 72%

Blacks going to prison 40 years ago, 9%
Today, 16%

Not saying these figures are all the dims fault, but it's not like the black person's life is all rosy for voting dim. We really don't know how blacks would fare under R policy since the dims have duped them into believing they can't succeed on their own.

 

[Dr.Jekyll]

Since around 1965, when the democrats started to buy, whoops, I meant court the black vote, let us see how much they have improved the black's quality of life.

Unemployment rate twice as high as whites.

In 1965, 8% of black children were born out of wedlock
Today it is 72%

Blacks going to prison 40 years ago, 9%
Today, 16%

Not saying these figures are all the dims fault, but it's not like the black person's life is all rosy for voting dim. We really don't know how blacks would fare under R policy since the dims have dooped them into believing they can't succeed on their own.

Please think about what you are saying. For all of that to hold true and make any sense, the democrats would have to have been in office and controlled both the senate and the house since 1965. So it doesn't make any difference in your stats who they voted for.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Please think about what you are saying. For all of that to hold true and make any sense, the democrats would have to have been in office and controlled both the senate and the house since 1965. So it doesn't make any difference in your stats who they voted for.

And the D and R parties of 1965 are very different from what they are in 2015 - Southern white voters moved over time, not en masse in 1965.

Further, you could cite the same stats for white people and draw the same conclusion about the R party having failed them. The out of wedlock birth rate and incarceration rate are up for everyone over the last fifty years.

Those sorts of things are pretty meaningless to evaluate without context and discussion of policy...you could pick cherry stats that look great or terrible. For example, life expectancy is up an awful lot for black and white Americans over that time frame, and infant mortality is way down (moreso for blacks than for whites.) Does that mean the Ds or Rs were awesome for either group? Not necessarily, but it suggests programs like Medicare and Medicaid have had a substantive difference in improving outcomes.

 

[Scout 4u]

And the D and R parties of 1965 are very different from what they are in 2015 - Southern white voters moved over time, not en masse in 1965.

Further, you could cite the same stats for white people and draw the same conclusion about the R party having failed them. The out of wedlock birth rate and incarceration rate are up for everyone over the last fifty years.

Those sorts of things are pretty meaningless to evaluate without context and discussion of policy...you could pick cherry stats that look great or terrible. For example, life expectancy is up an awful lot for black and white Americans over that time frame, and infant mortality is way down (moreso for blacks than for whites.) Does that mean the Ds or Rs were awesome for either group? Not necessarily, but it suggests programs like Medicare and Medicaid have had a substantive difference in improving outcomes.

To summarize...

A. Blacks will vote for us because we give them more "stuff".

B. They can not think for themselves so we will think for them.

C. If they can speak more than (5) languages you need not apply.

D. If they have to teach, make it kindergarten.

E. If they do play, make not a piano.

F. If they have to vote, make it for a Democrat.

By the way...
The concert pianist, multi-language speaker, Stanford professor type like Condoleezza Rice are not welcome .

And any other minority that is not Black or Hispanic, need not apply if they can not carry our party to victory.

 

[Sleepless_in_Jefferson_County]

To summarize...

A. Blacks will vote for us because we give them more "stuff".

B. They can not think for themselves so we will think for them.

C. If they can speak more than (5) languages you need not apply.

D. If they have to teach, make it kindergarten.

E. If they do play, make not a piano.

F. If they have to vote, make it for a Democrat.

By the way...
The concert pianist, multi-language speaker, Stanford professor type like Condoleezza Rice are not welcome .

And any other minority that is not Black or Hispanic, need not apply if they can not carry our party to victory.

Thanks for moving the conversation forward...oh wait...you did the opposite of that with this unintelligible garbage.

 

[Scout 4u]

Thanks for moving the conversation forward...oh wait...you did the opposite of that with this unintelligible garbage.

So I guess you are saying that Condoleezza Rice is a great American?

Yea, we agree on something...

 

[Sleepless_in_Jefferson_County]

So I guess you are saying that Condoleezza Rice is a great American?

Yea, we agree on something...

English MFer, do you speak it?

 

[Scout 4u]

Do you even know who the 66th US Secretary of State was?

I think I know now why you are the only one with decoding issues...

 

[Sleepless_in_Jefferson_County]

Do you even know who the 66th US Secretary of State was?

I think I know now why you are the only one with decoding issues...

What does it have to do with climate change?

 

[Scout 4u]

What does it have to do with climate change?

Absolutely nothing...
I think I made my point clear on that issue. Will paraphrase again....

Climate Change is real. How best to deal with it is up for "debate".

The Kyoto Treaty was a mistake.

Following "International Law" to set a "World Agenda" based on the "ideas" of a "few" was a mistake.

The UNFCCC was a mistake.
Saying that the United Nations version of the Kyoto Treaty which sets Climate Change mandates on said "states" is preposterous. The United States Constitution when followed as the founders indented says "nothing" about letting outside bodies dictate "Protocol" over our own form of government.

The Far Left was losing the political fight in the 90s and early 2000s on what then was called "Global Warming". Rather than use "our" own form of government and "go through Congress", they chose "International Law" to go around it....
hence the reference to the "Helsinki Accords".

The "talking point" that Republicans do not follow "science" is a left wing slogan that began in the 80s, obviously while you were still in "high school". The purpose was to make Conservatives to be "idiots" while Liberals would be seen as "geniuses".
When someone attacks "Conservatism" with terms that reference that talking point I respond back with "Sun Worshiper".
I do not have a "CODE" or "English MFer language that I speak. I do however have knowledge of history and without writing a book on each post I assume everyone else does as well...
I was wrong...