CDZ Are Your Political Leanings Ruled by Feelings or Facts?

Wait.

You think fossils are bones, don't you?

LEAVES have fossils, you flaming moron.

Leaves have imprints, keep the insults to a minimum please this is the CDZ..

Out of my league? I gave you facts Cooks 97 percent number was bogus and clearly debunked..

All you gave me were your "feelings" your "belief" of the AGW cult...

Look at the thread title it's obvious you vote your "feelings" regardless of facts.

No, it was not "clearly debunked", it was "clarified" by the authors. You're choosing to read "debunked" because you have an emotional reaction to anyone who mentions climate change and attributes human activity as a cause.

Clarified by its authors, What the heck are you talking about have a link?

Yeah, yours. They took issue with the core theme of their own research, not whether or not they "believed" in human-caused climate change. Moreover, the study proved that the more expertise each paper contained regarding climate science, the more likely they were to agree that humans cause the vast majority of it.


Seriously you are making stuff up as you go.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
 
LOL facts are ALWAYS true. Interpretation of facts can of course lead to trouble, but that doesn't change the truth. Facts are facts.

How about global climate change, and man's effects on it? What's your "feeling" there? What are the facts?

I don't do feelings. I do facts

The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"

LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.

Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?

See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.

And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE

Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.

And WTF does evolution have to do with any of this? Earth itself will be fine, and no one ever said it wouldn't. It's human beings and other animals on the planet that will likely die off in huge numbers precisely because we CAN'T adapt to the change in climate.

Sounds like you don't even know how evolution works. "Earth" is not an organism.

OF COURSE Earth is not an organism, however it does have an atmosphere that relies on organisms to maintain it.

You appear to hate science.
 
How about global climate change, and man's effects on it? What's your "feeling" there? What are the facts?

I don't do feelings. I do facts

The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"

LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.

Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?

See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.

And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE

Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.

And WTF does evolution have to do with any of this? Earth itself will be fine, and no one ever said it wouldn't. It's human beings and other animals on the planet that will likely die off in huge numbers precisely because we CAN'T adapt to the change in climate.

Sounds like you don't even know how evolution works. "Earth" is not an organism.

OF COURSE Earth is not an organism, however it does have an atmosphere that relies on organisms to maintain it.

You appear to hate science.

Huh?
 
I don't do feelings. I do facts

The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"

LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.

Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?

See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.

And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE

Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.

And WTF does evolution have to do with any of this? Earth itself will be fine, and no one ever said it wouldn't. It's human beings and other animals on the planet that will likely die off in huge numbers precisely because we CAN'T adapt to the change in climate.

Sounds like you don't even know how evolution works. "Earth" is not an organism.

OF COURSE Earth is not an organism, however it does have an atmosphere that relies on organisms to maintain it.

You appear to hate science.

Huh?

Trees for one thing, our atmosphere would poof without them. Just for starters.
 
LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.

Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?

See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.

And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE

Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.

And WTF does evolution have to do with any of this? Earth itself will be fine, and no one ever said it wouldn't. It's human beings and other animals on the planet that will likely die off in huge numbers precisely because we CAN'T adapt to the change in climate.

Sounds like you don't even know how evolution works. "Earth" is not an organism.

OF COURSE Earth is not an organism, however it does have an atmosphere that relies on organisms to maintain it.

You appear to hate science.

Huh?

Trees for one thing, our atmosphere would poof without them. Just for starters.

Holy shit, you just said that, didn't you?
 
Leaves have imprints, keep the insults to a minimum please this is the CDZ..

Out of my league? I gave you facts Cooks 97 percent number was bogus and clearly debunked..

All you gave me were your "feelings" your "belief" of the AGW cult...

Look at the thread title it's obvious you vote your "feelings" regardless of facts.

No, it was not "clearly debunked", it was "clarified" by the authors. You're choosing to read "debunked" because you have an emotional reaction to anyone who mentions climate change and attributes human activity as a cause.

Clarified by its authors, What the heck are you talking about have a link?

Yeah, yours. They took issue with the core theme of their own research, not whether or not they "believed" in human-caused climate change. Moreover, the study proved that the more expertise each paper contained regarding climate science, the more likely they were to agree that humans cause the vast majority of it.


Seriously you are making stuff up as you go.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims


"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been ..."


Oh FFS, is this a guy you're relying on???
 
So....you aren't a democrat then....considering their disaster at running anything...right?
Every Dem and every Rep is unique. Saying (all) dems are a "disaster at running anything" is just as stupid as being a racist. All blacks are not the same any more than all whites are the same.

I also cringe whenever I hear a conservative describe what liberals believe (and vice versa) like every liberal believes the same things. The only thing it accomplishes is demonizing your "enemy" so you can dismiss them out of hand. Again that is just plain stupid. Liberals have some very good and effective policies that have made the US a better place and denying it nuts. Does anyone want to go back to the days of child labor. They also have some very screwy ideas which will never work. Communism has shown that quite effectively
 
Out of my league? I gave you facts Cooks 97 percent number was bogus and clearly debunked..

All you gave me were your "feelings" your "belief" of the AGW cult...

Look at the thread title it's obvious you vote your "feelings" regardless of facts.

No, it was not "clearly debunked", it was "clarified" by the authors. You're choosing to read "debunked" because you have an emotional reaction to anyone who mentions climate change and attributes human activity as a cause.

Clarified by its authors, What the heck are you talking about have a link?

Yeah, yours. They took issue with the core theme of their own research, not whether or not they "believed" in human-caused climate change. Moreover, the study proved that the more expertise each paper contained regarding climate science, the more likely they were to agree that humans cause the vast majority of it.


Seriously you are making stuff up as you go.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims


"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been ..."


Oh FFS, is this a guy you're relying on???

So are you now trying to tell me the media has not always been liberal?

Explain to the audience how the music industry , Hollywood and newscasters have a conservative bias?
 
Here is an example of how I approach tax policy: The Fact is that tax policy causes individuals and businesses to adjust their behavior in accordance with their self interests. Thus a static evaluation of raising or lowering taxes is a fundamentally flawed undertaking. The only objective evaluation of tax policy is the measurement of Net Government Revenues, that is, the balance of anticipated revenues and expenditures over a period of time.

If raising taxes results in reduced employment, then whatever increase in tax revenues may be offset by an increase in expenditures related to unemployment. Conversely, a reduction in taxes may result in an even greater reduction in expenditures, thereby creating a Net Government Surplus.

As a result, I think that tax policy should be driven by empirical data and not someone's feelings about "fairness."

Awesome. If that we true....it would be awesome.
 
In other words, do you start with preconceived desired outcomes and then create a rationale to support them, or do you look at facts and let them lead you to whatever outcomes they support? I think that ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum tend to follow the former approach in order to address some unresolved dissonance in their own feelings. On the other hand, many "moderates" seem to be more interested in avoiding conflict than in actual resolution of issues. That leave very few who are willing to let the facts take them to a logical conclusion, regardless of whether it "offends" anyone. Where do you fit in?


My wallet, democrats tend to take to much.

lol, sure

Prove me wrong... A pack of smokes in my home town of Chicago $10 bucks a pack, in south Carolina I am pay $1.29

I might not be a great speller or use correct grammar but I do know how to use math.

What are the verifiable reasons for that price difference?

What is the actual cost to a municipality of a pack of smokes?
 
No, it was not "clearly debunked", it was "clarified" by the authors. You're choosing to read "debunked" because you have an emotional reaction to anyone who mentions climate change and attributes human activity as a cause.

Clarified by its authors, What the heck are you talking about have a link?

Yeah, yours. They took issue with the core theme of their own research, not whether or not they "believed" in human-caused climate change. Moreover, the study proved that the more expertise each paper contained regarding climate science, the more likely they were to agree that humans cause the vast majority of it.


Seriously you are making stuff up as you go.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims


"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been ..."


Oh FFS, is this a guy you're relying on???

So are you now trying to tell me the media has not always been liberal?

Explain to the audience how the music industry , Hollywood and newscasters have a conservative bias?

Stupid "liberal media" quoting the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, etc. Well-known "liberal" think tanks, right?
 
See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.

And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE

Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.

And WTF does evolution have to do with any of this? Earth itself will be fine, and no one ever said it wouldn't. It's human beings and other animals on the planet that will likely die off in huge numbers precisely because we CAN'T adapt to the change in climate.

Sounds like you don't even know how evolution works. "Earth" is not an organism.

OF COURSE Earth is not an organism, however it does have an atmosphere that relies on organisms to maintain it.

You appear to hate science.

Huh?

Trees for one thing, our atmosphere would poof without them. Just for starters.

Holy shit, you just said that, didn't you?

So wait a minute here. You don't agree that the Earth's atmosphere would not survive without trees? Jesus the left really hates science don't they.
 
And WTF does evolution have to do with any of this? Earth itself will be fine, and no one ever said it wouldn't. It's human beings and other animals on the planet that will likely die off in huge numbers precisely because we CAN'T adapt to the change in climate.

Sounds like you don't even know how evolution works. "Earth" is not an organism.

OF COURSE Earth is not an organism, however it does have an atmosphere that relies on organisms to maintain it.

You appear to hate science.

Huh?

Trees for one thing, our atmosphere would poof without them. Just for starters.

Holy shit, you just said that, didn't you?

So wait a minute here. You don't agree that the Earth's atmosphere would not survive without trees? Jesus the left really hates science don't they.

Not what I'm saying.

Tell us more about your "logic" in removing "negroes" from Chicago, as you proposed on another thread. Surely that's not an emotional plea, right?

Stop responding to my posts. You're a fucking moron.
 
OF COURSE Earth is not an organism, however it does have an atmosphere that relies on organisms to maintain it.

You appear to hate science.

Huh?

Trees for one thing, our atmosphere would poof without them. Just for starters.

Holy shit, you just said that, didn't you?

So wait a minute here. You don't agree that the Earth's atmosphere would not survive without trees? Jesus the left really hates science don't they.

Not what I'm saying.

Tell us more about your "logic" in removing "negroes" from Chicago, as you proposed on another thread. Surely that's not an emotional plea, right?

Stop responding to my posts. You're a fucking moron.


I didn't suggest removing negroes from Chicago Gary, I asked you which would decrease crime more in Chicago? It's called a theoretical question.

You don't belong in the CDZ bro.
 

Trees for one thing, our atmosphere would poof without them. Just for starters.

Holy shit, you just said that, didn't you?

So wait a minute here. You don't agree that the Earth's atmosphere would not survive without trees? Jesus the left really hates science don't they.

Not what I'm saying.

Tell us more about your "logic" in removing "negroes" from Chicago, as you proposed on another thread. Surely that's not an emotional plea, right?

Stop responding to my posts. You're a fucking moron.


I didn't suggest removing negroes from Chicago Gary, I asked you which would decrease crime more in Chicago? It's called a theoretical question.

You don't belong in the CDZ bro.

You compared the rights of guns to the rights of black people....and you say I don't belong in the CDZ?

You're everything that's currently wrong with America right now. Truly. It's not just that you're ignorant and racist. That's always been an issue. It's that you feel empowered to speak. In a normal time in history, you'd be shamed into silence. But thanks to Trump and his ilk, here you are, puffing up your chest and blowing ignorant hot air.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top