markc Loc: Tennessee

Not name calling, that’s your president evidently. And I agree that tax and spend is no the solution, but on the reverse end the Republican flat out steal the tax money, thinking of the Savings and Loan scandals in the 80’s. Which is worse?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Notice he doesn't listen to a thing any one else says. Just repeats his talking points. I keep getting an image of some dufus sitting on a perch with a newspaper under him saying polly want a talking point.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Get some education. So hard to debate ignorant people.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SavingsandLoanCrisis.html

markc Loc: Tennessee

Educated like the Gipper when he signed the Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 and stated,”I think we’ve hit the jackpot?”
I don’t need that type of degree to spend other people’s money.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1990-07-18-9002280541-story,amp.html

https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/research/speeches/101582b

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Got news for you beaver. That's all any politicians ever do. Spend other peoples money. The only thing they are truly bi-partisan on.

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

I thought those guilty parties should have went to prison. I wanted no bail outs. When that Fanny Mae thing came out I was against any bail outs. When the car companies flopped, I said ' "Let 'em sink!" Some foreign company would have bought them out and life would have went on. What if the feds had given all that bail out money to every American citizen? We could have bought Japanese cars, ( they're assembled here anyway), we could have paid off our houses, started a business, etc. We could have done SO many good things with that money, but as soon as the crisis was over for the American companies, what did they do? Started planning on shipping even MORE of their manufacturing to foreign countries while closing American plants.
Social security? It has been robbed so many times it's pathetic! The first one I remember hearing about was Bush Sr., who took a huge amount out of it to apply to the national debt, to make it look better for his re-election. I didn't like republicans back then and I mostly sill don't. Anyway, every politician from here to there has taken money paid into SS by US, the working population, for their pet projects. That's why SS will cease to work one day soon. There will not be enough money, due to the politicians robbing the coffer.
Democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, I'm against ANY and ALL forms of corruption by whoever in our governments, city, county, state, and Federal, that steals money that is supposed to be for US when we retire, or for any other designated purpose.
I apologize for the remark about name calling, as I'm seeing it from both sides.

Richard94611

Then you don’t know the physics and data involved. Suit yourself

Richard94611

I think that taking several college-level courses on aspects of the subject, as I have, makes me enormously more qualified to evaluate the data than you are. And I don’t have your bias

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Just like all those genius scientists who said we would have global cooling in the seventies and when that didn’t work they changed it to global warming and the coasts all flooded by 2000. That didn’t work so now it’s climate change. Take some more courses. You wasted your money.

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

You do know, that colleges are predominately Liberal!!~As are the professors teaching the classes so of Course you have Bias... of the Liberal variety, and the Green new deal, what a crock of Crap!!... peddle it somewhere else, it's been debunked so many times it's rediculous... Cyclic, learn the word!

Richard94611

So without knowing any of the curcumstances, you condemn college courses. Ignoramus you ! I will tell you something: the reason you see colleges as being predominantly liberal (with the definite exception of religious colleges) is because liberals are a hell of a lot more tuned into facts, and you conservatives find facts a nuisance that impedes your backward thinking.. FACTS, Larasi, facts. Something heavily into facts that doesn't accept your fantasies you then call "Liberal."

Cuda2020

Unfortunately, until deniers get directly impacted, you'll never change their minds and it seems they choose to be environmentally completely irresponsible.

Cuda2020

Funny, her talking about your bias while stating most professors are liberals, well whether or not she knows it she is saying something, Liberals are educated! LOL. If you'll also notice they're not democratic, it's all just Liberals now, what a joke.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Just when I was beginning to believe you aren't a crackpot liberal you go and say some things that could be interpreted this way, "...liberals are...a lot more turned into facts and you conservatives find facts a nuisance that impedes you backward thinking..." This is the sort of thing someone with imprecise thinking would say. How can it impede backward thinking? I think you probably meant to say it "promotes or advances" backward thinking.

Liberals can never adequately argue an issue because they are driven by emotion and have to resort to virtue signaling, implying that they are smarter than everyone and the rest of us don't know what we are talking about, "I think that taking several college-level courses on aspects of the subject, as I have, makes me enormously more qualified to evaluate the data than you are. And I don’t have your bias." You are right you don't have our bias. Yours are much worst and are the elitist kind that thumbs your nose at everyone else because you think they are inferior to your superior intellect.

Make no mistake about it, you think conservatives are inferior. Do you even know a real conservative? You probably never met one teaching at your university where you were so well indoctrinated into liberalism. So you think you've taken more courses and that makes you eminently more qualified to speak about the subject. Another elitist assumption on your part. I not a doctor but I can tell when I'm sick. I'm not an accountant but I can balance my checkbook and file my own tax return. I'm not an auto mechanic but I can fix my car. Maybe not as efficiently, but the work is as effective. An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less.

How do you know you've taken more courses on the subject? Many of the scientists who question the science of global warming have studied and researched this topic in much more detail than you have with your " a few more classes" than the hoi polloi you disdain with such contempt.

Here's an example of something you said, "By the way, the arctic is melting at a rate previously unheard of. The amount of ice in the Arctic Ocean is rapidly diminishing." So what? Ice in the Arctic Ocean that is melting will not raise the sea level one drop higher, even if every bit of ice in the Arctic Ocean melted! I want to see if you can explain to me in your own words why you believe the previous statement is true or is not true in your view.

You said, "You would prefer to have Miami and a lot of other cities just sink beneath the waves?" No one wants that to happen. Well, maybe the Greenies do so that they can stand and announce, "See, we told you so!" That would make them ecstatic.

At the beginning of this thread, I gave you several links that are easy to understand, even for someone with your intelligence. I'll bet you never looked at any of them or if you looked at one you discounted the rest as more propaganda because it doesn't support your conclusion. Why don't you go back and read, with an open mind, all the previous threads posted on OPP about global warming, which has been discussed ad infinitum? Then come back and rebuke some of the arguments presented. So far, all you have done is to bully anyone who disagrees with your thesis. You have not presented any evidence to show this is what is happening.

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

Here are some "other" facts;

https://thefreedomarticles.com/scientists-refute-manmade-global-warming/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

https://principia-scientific.org/empirical-evidence-refutes-greenhouse-gas-theory/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

https://www.wnd.com/2007/09/43489/

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/nasa-scientists-rebel-against-global-warming-hysteria.php

https://ricochet.com/194291/archives/50-nasa-scientists-against-global-warming/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

If you take the time to read these articles, which you probably won't, you might just see why some of us just don't believe the climate change theory that seems to be firmly entrenched in the liberal mind.

It seems that the computer models are wrong and have predicted much higher temps than we are seeing. Except for the Russians...they seem to have gotten it right. What was predicted by 90 different climate models, 95 percent of models overestimated actual temperatures. Nothing says science like predicting stuff incorrectly over and over and over again. The consensus is instead of discussing real science, the naysayers would rather berate those who disagree with their faulty computers models. If they're going to convince me, then they have to be accurate, NOT inaccurate. So far, they have failed miserably.