What do the left consider the greatest threat to America?

[kaz]

Well kaz, you fail again.

My greed, i mean lobbyists bribing politicians to conform their laws and regulations to said interests' liking, despite it hurting the general public.

That is the greed of which i refer.

You automatically though I wanted your fucking piggy bank or something?

Fuck outta here. I do very well for myself and my family, thank you very much.

As I said, you are playing dumb, the word "greed" is used extensively in politics today and you know exactly how it's used. And I kept giving you the chance to address it. Then when you did, you still came back with vague terms like "special interest" that could be used anywhere across the spectrum, including still as a reference to exactly how the left uses it. Clarifying your view is your job, not mine, and you still haven't done it

It doesnt require clarification, everyone with a fucking brain knows EXACTLY that special interests have our Government in their pockets.

Its eerily simple to figure out.

The vague statement you made could mean anything from libertarian to leftist. Go ahead and play dumb. You consider this the greatest threat to America and yet you don't know exactly what it means or can't say

 

[kaz]

I don't speak for liberals either...I don't think there is a single greatest threat to America. I do think Kaz's little thread didn't go the way he anticipated...and he'll blame it on liberal reading comprehension problems.

It went exactly the way I thought it would go. Non-liberals agreed, liberals didn't get it. BTW, reading comprehension is an issue for you, but overt stupidity is a bigger one

Sure it did, Trolly Mctrollerson.

Apparently liberals can be concerned with a number of things at once and concern for one does not equal dis concern for another.

Not getting it is not the same as being concerned with multiple things at once, and you still don't grasp my original post

 

[Redfish]

Well kaz, you fail again.

My greed, i mean lobbyists bribing politicians to conform their laws and regulations to said interests' liking, despite it hurting the general public.

That is the greed of which i refer.

You automatically though I wanted your fucking piggy bank or something?

Fuck outta here. I do very well for myself and my family, thank you very much.

As I said, you are playing dumb, the word "greed" is used extensively in politics today and you know exactly how it's used. And I kept giving you the chance to address it. Then when you did, you still came back with vague terms like "special interest" that could be used anywhere across the spectrum, including still as a reference to exactly how the left uses it. Clarifying your view is your job, not mine, and you still haven't done it

It doesnt require clarification, everyone with a fucking brain knows EXACTLY that special interests have our Government in their pockets.

Its eerily simple to figure out.

The vague statement you made could mean anything from libertarian to leftist. Go ahead and play dumb. You consider this the greatest threat to America and yet you don't know exactly what it means or can't say

leftists repeat talking points, they don't have to understand what they are saying.

 

[G.T.]

Oh so our government is not corrupted by money?



Kay guys, gotcha!

 

[kaz]

Oh so our government is not corrupted by money?



Kay guys, gotcha!

Of course it is. You say that yet don't believe it as keep wanting more government while claiming it's controlled by special interests. The irony being it's a lie because you don't believe it while at the same time you are actually right

 

[Marxist]

How can leftists take away beliefs?

he said FREEDOM of beliefs.

You're free to believe anything you want. In your case, it's the freedom to believe that you're making a lick of sense, which, of course, you are not. But you're still free to believe it.

as are you, and if you choose to believe that soccer moms driving SUVs are destroying the climate, go right ahead.

The climate of our planet is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. Man has never, and will never, have anything to do with it.

Any yutz can offer the observation that x (whatever x might happen to be) has always been changing or has always been in the process of change. That's about as relevant as someone who's driving a car hard without doing proper maintenance remarking that all cars get old and all parts eventually wear out. While true, it doesn't alter the fact that not changing the oil regularly and driving a car hard will shorten its useful lifespan after causing expensive repairs along the way.

Of course humans can alter the climate if they alter the composition of the atmosphere in much the same way that humans can alter an ecosystem by polluting a lake, killing all the fish, and poisoning the wildlife in the food chain which just so happens to be what happened to the Great Lakes decades ago which is what ushered in environmental protection laws in the first place.

why is it that you libs can't understand the difference between pollution and climate change. Pollution is bad, pollution does not cause climate change.

See that big ball of fire in the sky? Its called the sun, it controls the climate of our planet, not whether we use incandescent bulbs or toxic curly bulbs made in china.

What a glorious misunderstanding.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't speak for liberals either...I don't think there is a single greatest threat to America. I do think Kaz's little thread didn't go the way he anticipated...and he'll blame it on liberal reading comprehension problems.

It went exactly the way I thought it would go. Non-liberals agreed, liberals didn't get it. BTW, reading comprehension is an issue for you, but overt stupidity is a bigger one

Sure it did, Trolly Mctrollerson.

Apparently liberals can be concerned with a number of things at once and concern for one does not equal dis concern for another.

Not getting it is not the same as being concerned with multiple things at once, and you still don't grasp my original post

I grasped your troll post just fine...interesting that the thread didn't follow your troll eh?

 

[Mustang]

How can leftists take away beliefs?

he said FREEDOM of beliefs.

You're free to believe anything you want. In your case, it's the freedom to believe that you're making a lick of sense, which, of course, you are not. But you're still free to believe it.

as are you, and if you choose to believe that soccer moms driving SUVs are destroying the climate, go right ahead.

The climate of our planet is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. Man has never, and will never, have anything to do with it.

Any yutz can offer the observation that x (whatever x might happen to be) has always been changing or has always been in the process of change. That's about as relevant as someone who's driving a car hard without doing proper maintenance remarking that all cars get old and all parts eventually wear out. While true, it doesn't alter the fact that not changing the oil regularly and driving a car hard will shorten its useful lifespan after causing expensive repairs along the way.

Of course humans can alter the climate if they alter the composition of the atmosphere in much the same way that humans can alter an ecosystem by polluting a lake, killing all the fish, and poisoning the wildlife in the food chain which just so happens to be what happened to the Great Lakes decades ago which is what ushered in environmental protection laws in the first place.

why is it that you libs can't understand the difference between pollution and climate change. Pollution is bad, pollution does not cause climate change.

See that big ball of fire in the sky? Its called the sun, it controls the climate of our planet, not whether we use incandescent bulbs or toxic curly bulbs made in china.

While conservative ignorance is nothing new, it IS a wonder to behold. I say that because the sun wouldn't and couldn't heat the Earth to a level that would allow life as we know it to flourish if it were not for greenhouse gases. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be several hundred degrees below zero. What that means is that messing with the NATURAL balance of CO2 by introducing massive quantities of the gas is potentially very dangerous once levels rise beyond a certain point. People have learned similar lessons on a local and regional level thought the introduction of too much salt on the roads to clear ice in the winter. It gets in the water table and can effect the ability of farmers to grow crops. They've found it out by over-fertilizing fields and discovered later that the run off could kill all the fish in lakes. They've found it out by clear cutting trees on mountains which ultimately led to mud slides due to the fact that no trees were there to soak up the water from the rains. It's called the law of unintended consequences because very often people don't clearly understand the ramifications of their actions. That's understandable. What's not understandable is why people continue on these paths once the dangers are known. That's just plain stupidity. That and greed.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Extremists are the biggest threat. People that want to impose their will on others through the government.

 

[kaz]

I don't speak for liberals either...I don't think there is a single greatest threat to America. I do think Kaz's little thread didn't go the way he anticipated...and he'll blame it on liberal reading comprehension problems.

It went exactly the way I thought it would go. Non-liberals agreed, liberals didn't get it. BTW, reading comprehension is an issue for you, but overt stupidity is a bigger one

Sure it did, Trolly Mctrollerson.

Apparently liberals can be concerned with a number of things at once and concern for one does not equal dis concern for another.

Not getting it is not the same as being concerned with multiple things at once, and you still don't grasp my original post

I grasped your troll post just fine...interesting that the thread didn't follow your troll eh?

Rhetorical genius, are you descended from Daniel Webster by any chance?

 

[Redfish]

he said FREEDOM of beliefs.

You're free to believe anything you want. In your case, it's the freedom to believe that you're making a lick of sense, which, of course, you are not. But you're still free to believe it.

as are you, and if you choose to believe that soccer moms driving SUVs are destroying the climate, go right ahead.

The climate of our planet is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. Man has never, and will never, have anything to do with it.

Any yutz can offer the observation that x (whatever x might happen to be) has always been changing or has always been in the process of change. That's about as relevant as someone who's driving a car hard without doing proper maintenance remarking that all cars get old and all parts eventually wear out. While true, it doesn't alter the fact that not changing the oil regularly and driving a car hard will shorten its useful lifespan after causing expensive repairs along the way.

Of course humans can alter the climate if they alter the composition of the atmosphere in much the same way that humans can alter an ecosystem by polluting a lake, killing all the fish, and poisoning the wildlife in the food chain which just so happens to be what happened to the Great Lakes decades ago which is what ushered in environmental protection laws in the first place.

why is it that you libs can't understand the difference between pollution and climate change. Pollution is bad, pollution does not cause climate change.

See that big ball of fire in the sky? Its called the sun, it controls the climate of our planet, not whether we use incandescent bulbs or toxic curly bulbs made in china.

While conservative ignorance is nothing new, it IS a wonder to behold. I say that because the sun wouldn't and couldn't heat the Earth to a level that would allow life as we know it to flourish if it were not for greenhouse gases. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be several hundred degrees below zero. What that means is that messing with the NATURAL balance of CO2 by introducing massive quantities of the gas is potentially very dangerous once levels rise beyond a certain point. People have learned similar lessons on a local and regional level thought the introduction of too much salt on the roads to clear ice in the winter. It gets in the water table and can effect the ability of farmers to grow crops. They've found it out by over-fertilizing fields and discovered later that the run off could kill all the fish in lakes. They've found it out by clear cutting trees on mountains which ultimately led to mud slides due to the fact that no trees were there to soak up the water from the rains. It's called the law of unintended consequences because very often people don't clearly understand the ramifications of their actions. That's understandable. What's not understandable is why people continue on these paths once the dangers are known. That's just plain stupidity. That and greed.

thats all true. CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. it is the same today as it was 100 million years ago.

Man is not causing the climate to change, man does not have that power. Try sunspots, a slight wobble on the earth's axis, ocean current variations. Those things affect climate, not using fossil fuels to improve the lives of human beings.

NOW PAY ATTENTION; POLLUTION IS BAD, POLLUTION SHOULD BE STOPPED, POLLUTION DOES NOT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE.

 

[Redfish]

he said FREEDOM of beliefs.

You're free to believe anything you want. In your case, it's the freedom to believe that you're making a lick of sense, which, of course, you are not. But you're still free to believe it.

as are you, and if you choose to believe that soccer moms driving SUVs are destroying the climate, go right ahead.

The climate of our planet is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. Man has never, and will never, have anything to do with it.

Any yutz can offer the observation that x (whatever x might happen to be) has always been changing or has always been in the process of change. That's about as relevant as someone who's driving a car hard without doing proper maintenance remarking that all cars get old and all parts eventually wear out. While true, it doesn't alter the fact that not changing the oil regularly and driving a car hard will shorten its useful lifespan after causing expensive repairs along the way.

Of course humans can alter the climate if they alter the composition of the atmosphere in much the same way that humans can alter an ecosystem by polluting a lake, killing all the fish, and poisoning the wildlife in the food chain which just so happens to be what happened to the Great Lakes decades ago which is what ushered in environmental protection laws in the first place.

why is it that you libs can't understand the difference between pollution and climate change. Pollution is bad, pollution does not cause climate change.

See that big ball of fire in the sky? Its called the sun, it controls the climate of our planet, not whether we use incandescent bulbs or toxic curly bulbs made in china.

While conservative ignorance is nothing new, it IS a wonder to behold. I say that because the sun wouldn't and couldn't heat the Earth to a level that would allow life as we know it to flourish if it were not for greenhouse gases. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be several hundred degrees below zero. What that means is that messing with the NATURAL balance of CO2 by introducing massive quantities of the gas is potentially very dangerous once levels rise beyond a certain point. People have learned similar lessons on a local and regional level thought the introduction of too much salt on the roads to clear ice in the winter. It gets in the water table and can effect the ability of farmers to grow crops. They've found it out by over-fertilizing fields and discovered later that the run off could kill all the fish in lakes. They've found it out by clear cutting trees on mountains which ultimately led to mud slides due to the fact that no trees were there to soak up the water from the rains. It's called the law of unintended consequences because very often people don't clearly understand the ramifications of their actions. That's understandable. What's not understandable is why people continue on these paths once the dangers are known. That's just plain stupidity. That and greed.

thats all true. CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. it is the same today as it was 100 million years ago.

Man is not causing the climate to change, man does not have that power. Try sunspots, a slight wobble on the earth's axis, ocean current variations. Those things affect climate, not using fossil fuels to improve the lives of human beings.

NOW PAY ATTENTION; POLLUTION IS BAD, POLLUTION SHOULD BE STOPPED, POLLUTION DOES NOT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE.

 

[Redfish]

he said FREEDOM of beliefs.

You're free to believe anything you want. In your case, it's the freedom to believe that you're making a lick of sense, which, of course, you are not. But you're still free to believe it.

as are you, and if you choose to believe that soccer moms driving SUVs are destroying the climate, go right ahead.

The climate of our planet is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. Man has never, and will never, have anything to do with it.

Any yutz can offer the observation that x (whatever x might happen to be) has always been changing or has always been in the process of change. That's about as relevant as someone who's driving a car hard without doing proper maintenance remarking that all cars get old and all parts eventually wear out. While true, it doesn't alter the fact that not changing the oil regularly and driving a car hard will shorten its useful lifespan after causing expensive repairs along the way.

Of course humans can alter the climate if they alter the composition of the atmosphere in much the same way that humans can alter an ecosystem by polluting a lake, killing all the fish, and poisoning the wildlife in the food chain which just so happens to be what happened to the Great Lakes decades ago which is what ushered in environmental protection laws in the first place.

why is it that you libs can't understand the difference between pollution and climate change. Pollution is bad, pollution does not cause climate change.

See that big ball of fire in the sky? Its called the sun, it controls the climate of our planet, not whether we use incandescent bulbs or toxic curly bulbs made in china.

What a glorious misunderstanding.

YES, that describes you quite accurately. Have you paid tribute to the great prophet algore yet today?

 

[Seawytch]

I don't speak for liberals either...I don't think there is a single greatest threat to America. I do think Kaz's little thread didn't go the way he anticipated...and he'll blame it on liberal reading comprehension problems.

It went exactly the way I thought it would go. Non-liberals agreed, liberals didn't get it. BTW, reading comprehension is an issue for you, but overt stupidity is a bigger one

Sure it did, Trolly Mctrollerson.

Apparently liberals can be concerned with a number of things at once and concern for one does not equal dis concern for another.

Not getting it is not the same as being concerned with multiple things at once, and you still don't grasp my original post

I grasped your troll post just fine...interesting that the thread didn't follow your troll eh?

Rhetorical genius, are you descended from Daniel Webster by any chance?

Like I said, don't take it out on me because nobody bit on your troll of a thread or that they bit only on your title. It was a silly premise.

People can be concerned about multiple things at the same time. Well, liberals can anyway.

 

[G.T.]

Oh so our government is not corrupted by money?



Kay guys, gotcha!

Of course it is. You say that yet don't believe it as keep wanting more government while claiming it's controlled by special interests. The irony being it's a lie because you don't believe it while at the same time you are actually right

Wtf? I say it but im lying and i want more governmwnt all cuz you fuckin said so?

Mmmmmkay bro.

 

[kaz]

It went exactly the way I thought it would go. Non-liberals agreed, liberals didn't get it. BTW, reading comprehension is an issue for you, but overt stupidity is a bigger one

Sure it did, Trolly Mctrollerson.

Apparently liberals can be concerned with a number of things at once and concern for one does not equal dis concern for another.

Not getting it is not the same as being concerned with multiple things at once, and you still don't grasp my original post

I grasped your troll post just fine...interesting that the thread didn't follow your troll eh?

Rhetorical genius, are you descended from Daniel Webster by any chance?

Like I said, don't take it out on me because nobody bit on your troll of a thread or that they bit only on your title. It was a silly premise.

People can be concerned about multiple things at the same time. Well, liberals can anyway.

What are you talking about? Everyone "bit" on my thread. Non-liberals agreed, liberals proved me right. Once gain that nagging reading comprehension problem you're fighting...

 

[kaz]

Oh so our government is not corrupted by money?



Kay guys, gotcha!

Of course it is. You say that yet don't believe it as keep wanting more government while claiming it's controlled by special interests. The irony being it's a lie because you don't believe it while at the same time you are actually right

Wtf? I say it but im lying and i want more governmwnt all cuz you fuckin said so?

Mmmmmkay bro.

You're still hiding

 

[G.T.]

Oh so our government is not corrupted by money?



Kay guys, gotcha!

Of course it is. You say that yet don't believe it as keep wanting more government while claiming it's controlled by special interests. The irony being it's a lie because you don't believe it while at the same time you are actually right

Wtf? I say it but im lying and i want more governmwnt all cuz you fuckin said so?

Mmmmmkay bro.

You're still hiding

Youre an empty troll, get a fuckin life.

 

[Mustang]

You're free to believe anything you want. In your case, it's the freedom to believe that you're making a lick of sense, which, of course, you are not. But you're still free to believe it.

as are you, and if you choose to believe that soccer moms driving SUVs are destroying the climate, go right ahead.

The climate of our planet is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. Man has never, and will never, have anything to do with it.

Any yutz can offer the observation that x (whatever x might happen to be) has always been changing or has always been in the process of change. That's about as relevant as someone who's driving a car hard without doing proper maintenance remarking that all cars get old and all parts eventually wear out. While true, it doesn't alter the fact that not changing the oil regularly and driving a car hard will shorten its useful lifespan after causing expensive repairs along the way.

Of course humans can alter the climate if they alter the composition of the atmosphere in much the same way that humans can alter an ecosystem by polluting a lake, killing all the fish, and poisoning the wildlife in the food chain which just so happens to be what happened to the Great Lakes decades ago which is what ushered in environmental protection laws in the first place.

why is it that you libs can't understand the difference between pollution and climate change. Pollution is bad, pollution does not cause climate change.

See that big ball of fire in the sky? Its called the sun, it controls the climate of our planet, not whether we use incandescent bulbs or toxic curly bulbs made in china.

While conservative ignorance is nothing new, it IS a wonder to behold. I say that because the sun wouldn't and couldn't heat the Earth to a level that would allow life as we know it to flourish if it were not for greenhouse gases. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be several hundred degrees below zero. What that means is that messing with the NATURAL balance of CO2 by introducing massive quantities of the gas is potentially very dangerous once levels rise beyond a certain point. People have learned similar lessons on a local and regional level thought the introduction of too much salt on the roads to clear ice in the winter. It gets in the water table and can effect the ability of farmers to grow crops. They've found it out by over-fertilizing fields and discovered later that the run off could kill all the fish in lakes. They've found it out by clear cutting trees on mountains which ultimately led to mud slides due to the fact that no trees were there to soak up the water from the rains. It's called the law of unintended consequences because very often people don't clearly understand the ramifications of their actions. That's understandable. What's not understandable is why people continue on these paths once the dangers are known. That's just plain stupidity. That and greed.

thats all true. CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. it is the same today as it was 100 million years ago.

Man is not causing the climate to change, man does not have that power. Try sunspots, a slight wobble on the earth's axis, ocean current variations. Those things affect climate, not using fossil fuels to improve the lives of human beings.

NOW PAY ATTENTION; POLLUTION IS BAD, POLLUTION SHOULD BE STOPPED, POLLUTION DOES NOT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE.

Man has the power to dig up buried carbon (what we today call fossil fuels) that's been buried (AND out of circulation in the atmosphere) for millions of years and reintroduce it into the environment. In fact, it's those fossil fuels that have enabled man to change the face of the planet on a massive scale never dreamed of before by replacing horse power with horsepower. This has allowed humans to create machines which in turn can be used to build ever larger machines, all of which burn the fossil fuels we've unearthed.

Now, with that said, what was the CO2 level 150 years ago?

 

[Marxist]

You're free to believe anything you want. In your case, it's the freedom to believe that you're making a lick of sense, which, of course, you are not. But you're still free to believe it.

as are you, and if you choose to believe that soccer moms driving SUVs are destroying the climate, go right ahead.

The climate of our planet is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. Man has never, and will never, have anything to do with it.

Any yutz can offer the observation that x (whatever x might happen to be) has always been changing or has always been in the process of change. That's about as relevant as someone who's driving a car hard without doing proper maintenance remarking that all cars get old and all parts eventually wear out. While true, it doesn't alter the fact that not changing the oil regularly and driving a car hard will shorten its useful lifespan after causing expensive repairs along the way.

Of course humans can alter the climate if they alter the composition of the atmosphere in much the same way that humans can alter an ecosystem by polluting a lake, killing all the fish, and poisoning the wildlife in the food chain which just so happens to be what happened to the Great Lakes decades ago which is what ushered in environmental protection laws in the first place.

why is it that you libs can't understand the difference between pollution and climate change. Pollution is bad, pollution does not cause climate change.

See that big ball of fire in the sky? Its called the sun, it controls the climate of our planet, not whether we use incandescent bulbs or toxic curly bulbs made in china.

What a glorious misunderstanding.

YES, that describes you quite accurately. Have you paid tribute to the great prophet algore yet today?

Al gore is an idiot, that's why their are international scientific bodies, climate scientists..