Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yeah, why should people in politics tell the voters anything? Just force them to vote for two political parties and then leave them in ignorance for the rest of the time.
And just how do they "force" anybody? I don't recall a time when I went to vote and somebody put a gun to my head telling me I can't vote Libertarian or Green. Believe it or not, they let me (like all Americans) make the choice.
Some people think that politics should be transparent and open, not hidden away from the voters. But then some people aren't fascists.
You mean like "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it?"
The irony between the two paragraphs? No, come on then Ray, amuse me with the so called irony.
If you can't see it, then it's you that's blind. It can't be more obvious.
Oh, you find debates that go back and forth with the same message tiring do you? You want to liven it up with a lot of bullshit thrown in just to make it more entertaining. Well you got Trump, as entertaining as politics can be, I guess.
You bet. Trump is the most entertaining President in our lifetime--just like DumBama was the mosts leftist and anti-business in our lifetime.
Oh, I see Ray, I show you examples of your complete bullshit and you deflect with "why do you bring this up every time?"
It's called changing the subject. You do it all the time. Not only is it boring, but against USMB rules.
Well Ray, some people happen to think that your actions in the past can show how you react in the present and future. I could go through many posts of your and find absolute drivel. Stuff that has no logic, no sense, and you've backed it up with nothing, and whenever someone calls you out on it, you go off hiding, and then come back later.
Really? Then quote me on WTF you're talking about because you are making it all up as usual.
Ray, you claim to have opinions on topics where you don't even understand the terminology of the topic and you can't even be fucking bothered to use an internet search engine to find out, and you don't remember what people tell you, in fact you probably didn't even fucking read it.
Why do I need to read the story about the Three Pigs over and over again? I know how it turns out, just as I know the outcome between the Road Runner and the wolf.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously Ray, when you don't read, don't understand and post complete crap? Really? Why should anyone take you seriously?
Apparently you do.
Flippin' hell Ray. I didn't say they forced people. I was being sarcastic and I did do it in such a way that it's easy to get on the internet.
Yes, I mean like people who want to pass the bill before it can be seen is not very transparent. Is this your way of deflecting by stating something obvious?
No Ray, I can't see it, so it can't be so fucking obvious. If it's so obvious I doubt you'll have trouble telling me. If you can't put it down in writing, I'm going to assume it's not there. So, let's have it. Or is this just more deflecting?
Yes, I see, you like Trump because he manages to keep your attention when otherwise normal "running the country" makes you lose concentration after five minutes.
You know Ray, I'd rather have someone COMPETENT running the country and let the entertainers do entertaining without pretending to run the country. You seem to think that entertainers should be presidents. Why not have a prozzie as your doctor then? I mean, she'll be hotter looking than the fucking boring doctor and she won't be like "you've got cancer" she'll be like "wow, your dick is so huge", I know the latter sounds so much better Ray, but it doesn't solve the problem of YOU'VE GOT FUCKING CANCER.
No Ray, it's not "changing the subject", it's "the subject is complex", but seeing as you can't read people's posts and you can't look up simple things like FPTP and you can't.... fuck it Ray, you can't really debate at all. It's sad, but true. You spend your whole time deflecting. You want to think you're intelligent and you can do this shit, but every time someone points out that you can't do basic shit like reading, you get all defensive. It's tiring Ray.
The rest of your post is just CRAP. It has nothing to do with anything. It's just you fucking around pretending you can actually do this shit.
What kind of a person can't even look up an acronym on the internet? What kind of a person gets told what it means and still can't figure it out a few months later?
What is the fucking point talking to someone who you explain the basics of a subject to, because they don't have the smallest fucking clue what the subject is about, but they still have the opinion that they know best.
How can you know something when you don't know a single thing about the issue?
You're an expert in something, but don't know the basics?
Tell me Ray, how the fuck am I supposed to debate with someone who just makes it all up? Tell me.
Leave Ray alone take me on
Of course you won't
Thank you Bear but I'm very entertained by him (her) taking on me. Kind of like using the laser pen to entertain your dog.
. That's the jewel of it all, that you can't prove it, put it in writing to prove it, point to anything to prove it because the goal post steady moves. It is the ultimate scam that has been landed upon, and the scammers ain't gonna give it up no matter how much the universe proves otherwise. The greatest money laundering scam of the century is what it was turning out to be.Yeah, why should people in politics tell the voters anything? Just force them to vote for two political parties and then leave them in ignorance for the rest of the time.
And just how do they "force" anybody? I don't recall a time when I went to vote and somebody put a gun to my head telling me I can't vote Libertarian or Green. Believe it or not, they let me (like all Americans) make the choice.
Some people think that politics should be transparent and open, not hidden away from the voters. But then some people aren't fascists.
You mean like "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it?"
The irony between the two paragraphs? No, come on then Ray, amuse me with the so called irony.
If you can't see it, then it's you that's blind. It can't be more obvious.
Oh, you find debates that go back and forth with the same message tiring do you? You want to liven it up with a lot of bullshit thrown in just to make it more entertaining. Well you got Trump, as entertaining as politics can be, I guess.
You bet. Trump is the most entertaining President in our lifetime--just like DumBama was the mosts leftist and anti-business in our lifetime.
Oh, I see Ray, I show you examples of your complete bullshit and you deflect with "why do you bring this up every time?"
It's called changing the subject. You do it all the time. Not only is it boring, but against USMB rules.
Well Ray, some people happen to think that your actions in the past can show how you react in the present and future. I could go through many posts of your and find absolute drivel. Stuff that has no logic, no sense, and you've backed it up with nothing, and whenever someone calls you out on it, you go off hiding, and then come back later.
Really? Then quote me on WTF you're talking about because you are making it all up as usual.
Ray, you claim to have opinions on topics where you don't even understand the terminology of the topic and you can't even be fucking bothered to use an internet search engine to find out, and you don't remember what people tell you, in fact you probably didn't even fucking read it.
Why do I need to read the story about the Three Pigs over and over again? I know how it turns out, just as I know the outcome between the Road Runner and the wolf.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously Ray, when you don't read, don't understand and post complete crap? Really? Why should anyone take you seriously?
Apparently you do.
Flippin' hell Ray. I didn't say they forced people. I was being sarcastic and I did do it in such a way that it's easy to get on the internet.
Yes, I mean like people who want to pass the bill before it can be seen is not very transparent. Is this your way of deflecting by stating something obvious?
No Ray, I can't see it, so it can't be so fucking obvious. If it's so obvious I doubt you'll have trouble telling me. If you can't put it down in writing, I'm going to assume it's not there. So, let's have it. Or is this just more deflecting?
Yes, I see, you like Trump because he manages to keep your attention when otherwise normal "running the country" makes you lose concentration after five minutes.
You know Ray, I'd rather have someone COMPETENT running the country and let the entertainers do entertaining without pretending to run the country. You seem to think that entertainers should be presidents. Why not have a prozzie as your doctor then? I mean, she'll be hotter looking than the fucking boring doctor and she won't be like "you've got cancer" she'll be like "wow, your dick is so huge", I know the latter sounds so much better Ray, but it doesn't solve the problem of YOU'VE GOT FUCKING CANCER.
No Ray, it's not "changing the subject", it's "the subject is complex", but seeing as you can't read people's posts and you can't look up simple things like FPTP and you can't.... fuck it Ray, you can't really debate at all. It's sad, but true. You spend your whole time deflecting. You want to think you're intelligent and you can do this shit, but every time someone points out that you can't do basic shit like reading, you get all defensive. It's tiring Ray.
The rest of your post is just CRAP. It has nothing to do with anything. It's just you fucking around pretending you can actually do this shit.
What kind of a person can't even look up an acronym on the internet? What kind of a person gets told what it means and still can't figure it out a few months later?
What is the fucking point talking to someone who you explain the basics of a subject to, because they don't have the smallest fucking clue what the subject is about, but they still have the opinion that they know best.
How can you know something when you don't know a single thing about the issue?
You're an expert in something, but don't know the basics?
Tell me Ray, how the fuck am I supposed to debate with someone who just makes it all up? Tell me.
Flippin' hell Ray. I didn't say they forced people. I was being sarcastic and I did do it in such a way that it's easy to get on the internet.
No Ray, I can't see it, so it can't be so fucking obvious. If it's so obvious I doubt you'll have trouble telling me. If you can't put it down in writing, I'm going to assume it's not there. So, let's have it. Or is this just more deflecting?
Yes, I see, you like Trump because he manages to keep your attention when otherwise normal "running the country" makes you lose concentration after five minutes.
You know Ray, I'd rather have someone COMPETENT running the country and let the entertainers do entertaining without pretending to run the country. You seem to think that entertainers should be presidents. Why not have a prozzie as your doctor then? I mean, she'll be hotter looking than the fucking boring doctor and she won't be like "you've got cancer" she'll be like "wow, your dick is so huge", I know the latter sounds so much better Ray, but it doesn't solve the problem of YOU'VE GOT FUCKING CANCER.
No Ray, it's not "changing the subject", it's "the subject is complex", but seeing as you can't read people's posts and you can't look up simple things like FPTP and you can't.... fuck it Ray, you can't really debate at all. It's sad, but true. You spend your whole time deflecting. You want to think you're intelligent and you can do this shit, but every time someone points out that you can't do basic shit like reading, you get all defensive. It's tiring Ray.
What kind of a person can't even look up an acronym on the internet? What kind of a person gets told what it means and still can't figure it out a few months later?
Tell me Ray, how the fuck am I supposed to debate with someone who just makes it all up? Tell me.
I didn't claim that they outspent the two political parties. I claimed they spent a lot of money on politics. My claim was they spent more than any other individual on politics. That claim still holds.
We don't know how much they spend. That's the biggest problem here. You go onto opensecrets and it'll probably show they spent like $2,000 or something ridiculous like that.
What is a small portion? 5%? 95%? We have no idea, just vague words from someone I wouldn't trust with a stick.
I didn't say Trump received from the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers have decided to go for a more direct route at the voters, rather than spending on the politicians. They have tried to change how people think, rather than getting their own politicians in power.
And how the fuck do you get climate change in here. Jeesuz foowkin' krist.
There's a massive difference between SCIENCE and trying to figure out where people are sending their money, if you haven't noticed.
The thread is about global warming so excuse me, If I try to relate to the topic at least in some way.
I provided links to support my opinion. Dispute them if you can.
Your unsupported opinion is noted.
The Global Warming topic here is more about the narrative than what is actually happening in the world. It's about who believes who.
The Koch brothers, and many other rich oil magnets, are pumping millions into denying there is any man made global warming, and people here are sucking it up.
The articles you provided didn't seem to answering any questions I had.
My problem with the koch brothers, who almost went to prison for stealing oil by the way, now have the blessing from our politicians to pollute for profit. Anything for profit and the public be damned.
link below, one of many about these thieving, polluting right wing heroes.
Uncloaking the Koch Brothers’ Ethics – Molly Aloysius: My Thoughts, My World
Your problem with the Koch Bros is going to places like the website you linked for your information. If you consult other than the leftwing propaganda sites, you will get a very different perspective.
Sure, get a different perspective. Potentially a perspective written by someone being paid for by the Koch brothers themselves.
Is that going to be an unbiased perspective? No, not at all.
The problem is that you can look at anything the Koch brothers have put money into, politically, and you'll basically find the same message throughout. That message is something like "The degree of financial support was not spelled out." which comes from The Kochs Aren't the Only Funders of Cato
"A review of recent tax returns filed by Koch foundations shows no donations to Cato."
"David Koch, who serves as a trustee, is listed in the institute's 2010 annual report as a donor of $25,000 or more, but there is no time line given for his contributions."
So, David Koch put in "more than $25,000", well $100 million is more than $25,000, I believe.
""Charles Koch and David Koch have contributed tens of millions of dollars to Cato Institute, including more than $13 million since 2000."
And $100 million is also more than $13 million.
Then you have
'"Charles stopped donating personally around 1991 (I don't have an exact date.) He did continue to contribute about $250,000 a year through a foundation he controls (The Claude Lambe Foundation), but that ceased in 2010."
So, Charles didn't donate to the Cato Institute after about 1991, however he did donate to the Cato Institute up until 2010 through another foundation. And then what? He moved money through another institute?
"David contributed varying amounts from the time he became a shareholder and board member in the 1980s, but his contributions ceased in 2010 as well."
Ceased as a direct individual, or ceased totally? Oh, again, we don't know.
""Total contributions from the Kochs over our 35 year existence is about $30 million."
Directly or indirectly? We don't know.
"During that time, the Cato Institute has raised more than $340 million, so over the life of the Institute, their contributions have amounted to about 10 percent of our funding.
Direct or indirect? We don't know.
"Corporate sponsors include such major companies as FedEx, Google, CME Group and Whole Foods."
What's a "Corporate sponsor" and what do they contribute and what do they get out of it?
Koch Industries Inc. Takes Position in CME Group Inc. (NASDAQ:CME)
"
Koch Industries Inc. Takes Position in CME Group Inc. (NASDAQ:CME)"
Ah. The Koch brothers get a position in the CME group inc. which then goes and funds the Koch Brothers' little institute. Surprise!!!
I think I could go on all day doing this, finding the little bits of information about their foundations that they don't put all the money into, but somehow manage to be connected to companies that do fund these things, and somehow have a million different foundations which they push money through so that it doesn't look like they're finding it totally, and then they go and make vague comments about how they don't finance the whole of this organization but it's got lots of donors, which probably seems to be the Koch brothers in various different entities.
so are the loonies already on cable news trying to essplain why all of this warming is causing record cold all over the place?How can the icebergs be melting if the Great Lakes are freezing over? The weather we are experiencing on the East Coast is severe but it's not the first time Charleston S.C or Florida had snow. In other words cold weather is cold and hot weather is hot just like it has been for recorded history regardless of clueless Al Gore's anti-American posturing.
so are the loonies already on cable news trying to essplain why all of this warming is causing record cold all over the place?How can the icebergs be melting if the Great Lakes are freezing over? The weather we are experiencing on the East Coast is severe but it's not the first time Charleston S.C or Florida had snow. In other words cold weather is cold and hot weather is hot just like it has been for recorded history regardless of clueless Al Gore's anti-American posturing.
. That's the jewel of it all, that you can't prove it, put it in writing to prove it, point to anything to prove it because the goal post steady moves. It is the ultimate scam that has been landed upon, and the scammers ain't gonna give it up no matter how much the universe proves otherwise. The greatest money laundering scam of the century is what it was turning out to be.Yeah, why should people in politics tell the voters anything? Just force them to vote for two political parties and then leave them in ignorance for the rest of the time.
And just how do they "force" anybody? I don't recall a time when I went to vote and somebody put a gun to my head telling me I can't vote Libertarian or Green. Believe it or not, they let me (like all Americans) make the choice.
Some people think that politics should be transparent and open, not hidden away from the voters. But then some people aren't fascists.
You mean like "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it?"
The irony between the two paragraphs? No, come on then Ray, amuse me with the so called irony.
If you can't see it, then it's you that's blind. It can't be more obvious.
Oh, you find debates that go back and forth with the same message tiring do you? You want to liven it up with a lot of bullshit thrown in just to make it more entertaining. Well you got Trump, as entertaining as politics can be, I guess.
You bet. Trump is the most entertaining President in our lifetime--just like DumBama was the mosts leftist and anti-business in our lifetime.
Oh, I see Ray, I show you examples of your complete bullshit and you deflect with "why do you bring this up every time?"
It's called changing the subject. You do it all the time. Not only is it boring, but against USMB rules.
Well Ray, some people happen to think that your actions in the past can show how you react in the present and future. I could go through many posts of your and find absolute drivel. Stuff that has no logic, no sense, and you've backed it up with nothing, and whenever someone calls you out on it, you go off hiding, and then come back later.
Really? Then quote me on WTF you're talking about because you are making it all up as usual.
Ray, you claim to have opinions on topics where you don't even understand the terminology of the topic and you can't even be fucking bothered to use an internet search engine to find out, and you don't remember what people tell you, in fact you probably didn't even fucking read it.
Why do I need to read the story about the Three Pigs over and over again? I know how it turns out, just as I know the outcome between the Road Runner and the wolf.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously Ray, when you don't read, don't understand and post complete crap? Really? Why should anyone take you seriously?
Apparently you do.
Flippin' hell Ray. I didn't say they forced people. I was being sarcastic and I did do it in such a way that it's easy to get on the internet.
Yes, I mean like people who want to pass the bill before it can be seen is not very transparent. Is this your way of deflecting by stating something obvious?
No Ray, I can't see it, so it can't be so fucking obvious. If it's so obvious I doubt you'll have trouble telling me. If you can't put it down in writing, I'm going to assume it's not there. So, let's have it. Or is this just more deflecting?
Yes, I see, you like Trump because he manages to keep your attention when otherwise normal "running the country" makes you lose concentration after five minutes.
You know Ray, I'd rather have someone COMPETENT running the country and let the entertainers do entertaining without pretending to run the country. You seem to think that entertainers should be presidents. Why not have a prozzie as your doctor then? I mean, she'll be hotter looking than the fucking boring doctor and she won't be like "you've got cancer" she'll be like "wow, your dick is so huge", I know the latter sounds so much better Ray, but it doesn't solve the problem of YOU'VE GOT FUCKING CANCER.
No Ray, it's not "changing the subject", it's "the subject is complex", but seeing as you can't read people's posts and you can't look up simple things like FPTP and you can't.... fuck it Ray, you can't really debate at all. It's sad, but true. You spend your whole time deflecting. You want to think you're intelligent and you can do this shit, but every time someone points out that you can't do basic shit like reading, you get all defensive. It's tiring Ray.
The rest of your post is just CRAP. It has nothing to do with anything. It's just you fucking around pretending you can actually do this shit.
What kind of a person can't even look up an acronym on the internet? What kind of a person gets told what it means and still can't figure it out a few months later?
What is the fucking point talking to someone who you explain the basics of a subject to, because they don't have the smallest fucking clue what the subject is about, but they still have the opinion that they know best.
How can you know something when you don't know a single thing about the issue?
You're an expert in something, but don't know the basics?
Tell me Ray, how the fuck am I supposed to debate with someone who just makes it all up? Tell me.
Here's a clue: BECAUSE I DON'T CARE!
The thread is about global warming so excuse me, If I try to relate to the topic at least in some way.
I provided links to support my opinion. Dispute them if you can.
Your unsupported opinion is noted.
The Global Warming topic here is more about the narrative than what is actually happening in the world. It's about who believes who.
The Koch brothers, and many other rich oil magnets, are pumping millions into denying there is any man made global warming, and people here are sucking it up.
The articles you provided didn't seem to answering any questions I had.
My problem with the koch brothers, who almost went to prison for stealing oil by the way, now have the blessing from our politicians to pollute for profit. Anything for profit and the public be damned.
link below, one of many about these thieving, polluting right wing heroes.
Uncloaking the Koch Brothers’ Ethics – Molly Aloysius: My Thoughts, My World
Your problem with the Koch Bros is going to places like the website you linked for your information. If you consult other than the leftwing propaganda sites, you will get a very different perspective.
Sure, get a different perspective. Potentially a perspective written by someone being paid for by the Koch brothers themselves.
Is that going to be an unbiased perspective? No, not at all.
The problem is that you can look at anything the Koch brothers have put money into, politically, and you'll basically find the same message throughout. That message is something like "The degree of financial support was not spelled out." which comes from The Kochs Aren't the Only Funders of Cato
"A review of recent tax returns filed by Koch foundations shows no donations to Cato."
"David Koch, who serves as a trustee, is listed in the institute's 2010 annual report as a donor of $25,000 or more, but there is no time line given for his contributions."
So, David Koch put in "more than $25,000", well $100 million is more than $25,000, I believe.
""Charles Koch and David Koch have contributed tens of millions of dollars to Cato Institute, including more than $13 million since 2000."
And $100 million is also more than $13 million.
Then you have
'"Charles stopped donating personally around 1991 (I don't have an exact date.) He did continue to contribute about $250,000 a year through a foundation he controls (The Claude Lambe Foundation), but that ceased in 2010."
So, Charles didn't donate to the Cato Institute after about 1991, however he did donate to the Cato Institute up until 2010 through another foundation. And then what? He moved money through another institute?
"David contributed varying amounts from the time he became a shareholder and board member in the 1980s, but his contributions ceased in 2010 as well."
Ceased as a direct individual, or ceased totally? Oh, again, we don't know.
""Total contributions from the Kochs over our 35 year existence is about $30 million."
Directly or indirectly? We don't know.
"During that time, the Cato Institute has raised more than $340 million, so over the life of the Institute, their contributions have amounted to about 10 percent of our funding.
Direct or indirect? We don't know.
"Corporate sponsors include such major companies as FedEx, Google, CME Group and Whole Foods."
What's a "Corporate sponsor" and what do they contribute and what do they get out of it?
Koch Industries Inc. Takes Position in CME Group Inc. (NASDAQ:CME)
"
Koch Industries Inc. Takes Position in CME Group Inc. (NASDAQ:CME)"
Ah. The Koch brothers get a position in the CME group inc. which then goes and funds the Koch Brothers' little institute. Surprise!!!
I think I could go on all day doing this, finding the little bits of information about their foundations that they don't put all the money into, but somehow manage to be connected to companies that do fund these things, and somehow have a million different foundations which they push money through so that it doesn't look like they're finding it totally, and then they go and make vague comments about how they don't finance the whole of this organization but it's got lots of donors, which probably seems to be the Koch brothers in various different entities.
Sure you can find little bits of information and big chunks of information--some of it perhaps accurate and a whole bunch that isn't on any number of hundreds of websites out there. But you obviously have not read what I linked about the Koch Bros. and climate change. And none of all that mostly hateful and unsupportable leftist propaganda changes the fact that the Koch Bros. have personally contributed a drop in the bucket to political causes and candidates when compared to all the leftist unions and other political action groups funded by say people like George Soros.
And the Koch Bros. contribute a great deal to all manner of things as well as a study at Berkeley, who consistently promote that global warming is happening, and came to that same conclusion with the study funded by the Koch Brothers in 2012. Further the Koch Brothers have strongly supported Mitt Romney who believes climate change is happening.
The CATO Institute is certainly not a hotbed of anti-AGW propaganda. From their website:
Global warming is indeed real, and human activity has been a contributor since 1975. But global warming is also a very complicated and difficult issue that can provoke very unwise policy in response to political pressure. Although there are many different legislative proposals for substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, there is no operational or tested suite of technologies that can accomplish the goals of such legislation.
Fortunately, and contrary to much of the rhetoric surrounding climate change, there is ample time to develop such technologies, which will require substantial capital investment by individuals.
Along with links to several other thoughtful articles on the topic.
Very few of us in the skeptic camp believe climate change is not happening. Very few of us think that global warming is not happening. And most of us know that activity of seven billion people on Earth no doubt are contributing something to that.
But most of us are objective enough to want real, honest, information untainted by less-than-honest opportunism, ambitions, and intentions by individuals and/or governments. And we want more reliable information on whether trillions of dollars of the people's resources, and the liberties, choices, options, and opportunities of the people being restricted are likely to have any affect whatsoever to stop climate change or whether those resources would be better spent in other ways like helping people prepare for and adjust to inevitable climate change.
When somebody is so blinded by the assigned partisan talking points and the politically correct dogma and hatred for anybody who thinks, supports, or advocates any conservative point of view, that person is going to be so full of erroneous propaganda and false concepts, he/she will not be able to see the truth and/or will refuse to even consider another point of view.
And that in turn allows those with less than noble motives to do their worst.
I am hearing that every iguana in Florida is laughing at John Kerryso are the loonies already on cable news trying to essplain why all of this warming is causing record cold all over the place?How can the icebergs be melting if the Great Lakes are freezing over? The weather we are experiencing on the East Coast is severe but it's not the first time Charleston S.C or Florida had snow. In other words cold weather is cold and hot weather is hot just like it has been for recorded history regardless of clueless Al Gore's anti-American posturing.
Al Gore tweeted about it.
Here's a clue: BECAUSE I DON'T CARE!
Yes Ray, I get it.
You come on here and you have an agenda. You will ignore everything that doesn't suit your agenda.
You talk complete and utter shit. You have no idea what you're even talking about. And now you've admitted that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
So you come on this thread about global warming, and I know that you don't care. You don't care about the truth. You don't care about things that are inconvenient. You don't know about this topic. You have no fucking clue about this topic, and yet you write shit, and shit, and shit and shit again and again and again.
Nothing you say can be taken seriously Ray. Nothing, because you don't know anything about anything, because you only want your partisan bullshit to come across.
I'm done with you Ray. I don't need to listen to made up shit all the time from you. Because I know everything you tell me, is bullshit.
I am hearing that every iguana in Florida is laughing at John Kerryso are the loonies already on cable news trying to essplain why all of this warming is causing record cold all over the place?How can the icebergs be melting if the Great Lakes are freezing over? The weather we are experiencing on the East Coast is severe but it's not the first time Charleston S.C or Florida had snow. In other words cold weather is cold and hot weather is hot just like it has been for recorded history regardless of clueless Al Gore's anti-American posturing.
Al Gore tweeted about it.
The Global Warming topic here is more about the narrative than what is actually happening in the world. It's about who believes who.
The Koch brothers, and many other rich oil magnets, are pumping millions into denying there is any man made global warming, and people here are sucking it up.
The articles you provided didn't seem to answering any questions I had.
My problem with the koch brothers, who almost went to prison for stealing oil by the way, now have the blessing from our politicians to pollute for profit. Anything for profit and the public be damned.
link below, one of many about these thieving, polluting right wing heroes.
Uncloaking the Koch Brothers’ Ethics – Molly Aloysius: My Thoughts, My World
Your problem with the Koch Bros is going to places like the website you linked for your information. If you consult other than the leftwing propaganda sites, you will get a very different perspective.
Sure, get a different perspective. Potentially a perspective written by someone being paid for by the Koch brothers themselves.
Is that going to be an unbiased perspective? No, not at all.
The problem is that you can look at anything the Koch brothers have put money into, politically, and you'll basically find the same message throughout. That message is something like "The degree of financial support was not spelled out." which comes from The Kochs Aren't the Only Funders of Cato
"A review of recent tax returns filed by Koch foundations shows no donations to Cato."
"David Koch, who serves as a trustee, is listed in the institute's 2010 annual report as a donor of $25,000 or more, but there is no time line given for his contributions."
So, David Koch put in "more than $25,000", well $100 million is more than $25,000, I believe.
""Charles Koch and David Koch have contributed tens of millions of dollars to Cato Institute, including more than $13 million since 2000."
And $100 million is also more than $13 million.
Then you have
'"Charles stopped donating personally around 1991 (I don't have an exact date.) He did continue to contribute about $250,000 a year through a foundation he controls (The Claude Lambe Foundation), but that ceased in 2010."
So, Charles didn't donate to the Cato Institute after about 1991, however he did donate to the Cato Institute up until 2010 through another foundation. And then what? He moved money through another institute?
"David contributed varying amounts from the time he became a shareholder and board member in the 1980s, but his contributions ceased in 2010 as well."
Ceased as a direct individual, or ceased totally? Oh, again, we don't know.
""Total contributions from the Kochs over our 35 year existence is about $30 million."
Directly or indirectly? We don't know.
"During that time, the Cato Institute has raised more than $340 million, so over the life of the Institute, their contributions have amounted to about 10 percent of our funding.
Direct or indirect? We don't know.
"Corporate sponsors include such major companies as FedEx, Google, CME Group and Whole Foods."
What's a "Corporate sponsor" and what do they contribute and what do they get out of it?
Koch Industries Inc. Takes Position in CME Group Inc. (NASDAQ:CME)
"
Koch Industries Inc. Takes Position in CME Group Inc. (NASDAQ:CME)"
Ah. The Koch brothers get a position in the CME group inc. which then goes and funds the Koch Brothers' little institute. Surprise!!!
I think I could go on all day doing this, finding the little bits of information about their foundations that they don't put all the money into, but somehow manage to be connected to companies that do fund these things, and somehow have a million different foundations which they push money through so that it doesn't look like they're finding it totally, and then they go and make vague comments about how they don't finance the whole of this organization but it's got lots of donors, which probably seems to be the Koch brothers in various different entities.
Sure you can find little bits of information and big chunks of information--some of it perhaps accurate and a whole bunch that isn't on any number of hundreds of websites out there. But you obviously have not read what I linked about the Koch Bros. and climate change. And none of all that mostly hateful and unsupportable leftist propaganda changes the fact that the Koch Bros. have personally contributed a drop in the bucket to political causes and candidates when compared to all the leftist unions and other political action groups funded by say people like George Soros.
And the Koch Bros. contribute a great deal to all manner of things as well as a study at Berkeley, who consistently promote that global warming is happening, and came to that same conclusion with the study funded by the Koch Brothers in 2012. Further the Koch Brothers have strongly supported Mitt Romney who believes climate change is happening.
The CATO Institute is certainly not a hotbed of anti-AGW propaganda. From their website:
Global warming is indeed real, and human activity has been a contributor since 1975. But global warming is also a very complicated and difficult issue that can provoke very unwise policy in response to political pressure. Although there are many different legislative proposals for substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, there is no operational or tested suite of technologies that can accomplish the goals of such legislation.
Fortunately, and contrary to much of the rhetoric surrounding climate change, there is ample time to develop such technologies, which will require substantial capital investment by individuals.
Along with links to several other thoughtful articles on the topic.
Very few of us in the skeptic camp believe climate change is not happening. Very few of us think that global warming is not happening. And most of us know that activity of seven billion people on Earth no doubt are contributing something to that.
But most of us are objective enough to want real, honest, information untainted by less-than-honest opportunism, ambitions, and intentions by individuals and/or governments. And we want more reliable information on whether trillions of dollars of the people's resources, and the liberties, choices, options, and opportunities of the people being restricted are likely to have any affect whatsoever to stop climate change or whether those resources would be better spent in other ways like helping people prepare for and adjust to inevitable climate change.
When somebody is so blinded by the assigned partisan talking points and the politically correct dogma and hatred for anybody who thinks, supports, or advocates any conservative point of view, that person is going to be so full of erroneous propaganda and false concepts, he/she will not be able to see the truth and/or will refuse to even consider another point of view.
And that in turn allows those with less than noble motives to do their worst.
I disagree. The Koch brothers haven't put in "a drop in the bucket". Soros has out a lot of money into politics and the Koch brothers have put in more.
Money is coming from a lot of places, and money shouldn't be what makes politics tick.
What's this "study at Berkeley"? And supporting a guy who believes climate change is happening doesn't mean anything. The main thing the Koch brothers are doing is pumping money into telling people how to think. They have lots of interests, they don't need a candidate to be 100% on their side. Just so long as they can get what they want.
The Cato Institute have posted a lot of things. Like this:
Global-Warming Myth
"Science no longer provides justification for any rush to pass drastic global warming legislation."
Global Warming: The Anatomy of a Debate
"In fact, our kids are marshaled endlessly to shame us into planning for the worst … for their sake."
"will not be 4.4 times wealthier than we are - as they would be absent global warming - but will instead be only 3.9 times wealthier than we are at present."
Yeah, his argument is that if we take global warming seriously, we'll only be 3.9 times wealthier, not 4.4 times.
Money before anything else.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1992/4/v15n2-9.pdf
"Improved technology and increased societal wealth are what allow society to deal with
environmental threats most effectively."
I typed in Cato Institute global warming and picked the first three articles from the Cato Institute. All of them suggest we don't really need to do anything about global warming.
"Very few of us in the skeptic camp believe climate change is not happening. Very few of us think that global warming is not happening."
I disagree with that. You can find a lot of ignorant muppets on this board who are so convinced nothing is happening. Do you know how many threads have started this past week or so which are essentially "It's cold here, therefore there's no global warming"? This is the level you're dealing with with MOST skeptics on forums like this.
Why do they think like they? It's simple, people like the Koch brothers are spending A LOT OF MONEY on telling them what to think, and their brains are exceedingly malleable.
My problem with the koch brothers, who almost went to prison for stealing oil by the way, now have the blessing from our politicians to pollute for profit. Anything for profit and the public be damned.
link below, one of many about these thieving, polluting right wing heroes.
Uncloaking the Koch Brothers’ Ethics – Molly Aloysius: My Thoughts, My World
Your problem with the Koch Bros is going to places like the website you linked for your information. If you consult other than the leftwing propaganda sites, you will get a very different perspective.
Sure, get a different perspective. Potentially a perspective written by someone being paid for by the Koch brothers themselves.
Is that going to be an unbiased perspective? No, not at all.
The problem is that you can look at anything the Koch brothers have put money into, politically, and you'll basically find the same message throughout. That message is something like "The degree of financial support was not spelled out." which comes from The Kochs Aren't the Only Funders of Cato
"A review of recent tax returns filed by Koch foundations shows no donations to Cato."
"David Koch, who serves as a trustee, is listed in the institute's 2010 annual report as a donor of $25,000 or more, but there is no time line given for his contributions."
So, David Koch put in "more than $25,000", well $100 million is more than $25,000, I believe.
""Charles Koch and David Koch have contributed tens of millions of dollars to Cato Institute, including more than $13 million since 2000."
And $100 million is also more than $13 million.
Then you have
'"Charles stopped donating personally around 1991 (I don't have an exact date.) He did continue to contribute about $250,000 a year through a foundation he controls (The Claude Lambe Foundation), but that ceased in 2010."
So, Charles didn't donate to the Cato Institute after about 1991, however he did donate to the Cato Institute up until 2010 through another foundation. And then what? He moved money through another institute?
"David contributed varying amounts from the time he became a shareholder and board member in the 1980s, but his contributions ceased in 2010 as well."
Ceased as a direct individual, or ceased totally? Oh, again, we don't know.
""Total contributions from the Kochs over our 35 year existence is about $30 million."
Directly or indirectly? We don't know.
"During that time, the Cato Institute has raised more than $340 million, so over the life of the Institute, their contributions have amounted to about 10 percent of our funding.
Direct or indirect? We don't know.
"Corporate sponsors include such major companies as FedEx, Google, CME Group and Whole Foods."
What's a "Corporate sponsor" and what do they contribute and what do they get out of it?
Koch Industries Inc. Takes Position in CME Group Inc. (NASDAQ:CME)
"
Koch Industries Inc. Takes Position in CME Group Inc. (NASDAQ:CME)"
Ah. The Koch brothers get a position in the CME group inc. which then goes and funds the Koch Brothers' little institute. Surprise!!!
I think I could go on all day doing this, finding the little bits of information about their foundations that they don't put all the money into, but somehow manage to be connected to companies that do fund these things, and somehow have a million different foundations which they push money through so that it doesn't look like they're finding it totally, and then they go and make vague comments about how they don't finance the whole of this organization but it's got lots of donors, which probably seems to be the Koch brothers in various different entities.
Sure you can find little bits of information and big chunks of information--some of it perhaps accurate and a whole bunch that isn't on any number of hundreds of websites out there. But you obviously have not read what I linked about the Koch Bros. and climate change. And none of all that mostly hateful and unsupportable leftist propaganda changes the fact that the Koch Bros. have personally contributed a drop in the bucket to political causes and candidates when compared to all the leftist unions and other political action groups funded by say people like George Soros.
And the Koch Bros. contribute a great deal to all manner of things as well as a study at Berkeley, who consistently promote that global warming is happening, and came to that same conclusion with the study funded by the Koch Brothers in 2012. Further the Koch Brothers have strongly supported Mitt Romney who believes climate change is happening.
The CATO Institute is certainly not a hotbed of anti-AGW propaganda. From their website:
Global warming is indeed real, and human activity has been a contributor since 1975. But global warming is also a very complicated and difficult issue that can provoke very unwise policy in response to political pressure. Although there are many different legislative proposals for substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, there is no operational or tested suite of technologies that can accomplish the goals of such legislation.
Fortunately, and contrary to much of the rhetoric surrounding climate change, there is ample time to develop such technologies, which will require substantial capital investment by individuals.
Along with links to several other thoughtful articles on the topic.
Very few of us in the skeptic camp believe climate change is not happening. Very few of us think that global warming is not happening. And most of us know that activity of seven billion people on Earth no doubt are contributing something to that.
But most of us are objective enough to want real, honest, information untainted by less-than-honest opportunism, ambitions, and intentions by individuals and/or governments. And we want more reliable information on whether trillions of dollars of the people's resources, and the liberties, choices, options, and opportunities of the people being restricted are likely to have any affect whatsoever to stop climate change or whether those resources would be better spent in other ways like helping people prepare for and adjust to inevitable climate change.
When somebody is so blinded by the assigned partisan talking points and the politically correct dogma and hatred for anybody who thinks, supports, or advocates any conservative point of view, that person is going to be so full of erroneous propaganda and false concepts, he/she will not be able to see the truth and/or will refuse to even consider another point of view.
And that in turn allows those with less than noble motives to do their worst.
I disagree. The Koch brothers haven't put in "a drop in the bucket". Soros has out a lot of money into politics and the Koch brothers have put in more.
Money is coming from a lot of places, and money shouldn't be what makes politics tick.
What's this "study at Berkeley"? And supporting a guy who believes climate change is happening doesn't mean anything. The main thing the Koch brothers are doing is pumping money into telling people how to think. They have lots of interests, they don't need a candidate to be 100% on their side. Just so long as they can get what they want.
The Cato Institute have posted a lot of things. Like this:
Global-Warming Myth
"Science no longer provides justification for any rush to pass drastic global warming legislation."
Global Warming: The Anatomy of a Debate
"In fact, our kids are marshaled endlessly to shame us into planning for the worst … for their sake."
"will not be 4.4 times wealthier than we are - as they would be absent global warming - but will instead be only 3.9 times wealthier than we are at present."
Yeah, his argument is that if we take global warming seriously, we'll only be 3.9 times wealthier, not 4.4 times.
Money before anything else.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1992/4/v15n2-9.pdf
"Improved technology and increased societal wealth are what allow society to deal with
environmental threats most effectively."
I typed in Cato Institute global warming and picked the first three articles from the Cato Institute. All of them suggest we don't really need to do anything about global warming.
"Very few of us in the skeptic camp believe climate change is not happening. Very few of us think that global warming is not happening."
I disagree with that. You can find a lot of ignorant muppets on this board who are so convinced nothing is happening. Do you know how many threads have started this past week or so which are essentially "It's cold here, therefore there's no global warming"? This is the level you're dealing with with MOST skeptics on forums like this.
Why do they think like they? It's simple, people like the Koch brothers are spending A LOT OF MONEY on telling them what to think, and their brains are exceedingly malleable.
Major players of corporations don't go to prison. They appeal and appeal till they get the right judge and judgement. Like the Exxon Valdez incident back in the 90's. It was kept on appeal till the original litigants were dead and the judgement knocked down to less than half the original fine. Grisham has covered a lot of this stuff in his novels.
Amazing also that felons like the kochs are allowed to buy a president. Most felons are not allowed to even vote.
i thought everyone driving SUV's was going to melt the south pole! so now the loony left is coming up with a theory that driving too many SUV's and 78 Million Cows farting is making the earth colder? u cant have it both ways!I drove a Suburban for about 5 years.
Sorry, guys. I caused the climate crisis.
How much do California fires contribute to climate change versus my SUV, though.
