Eric Arthur Blair
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2015
- 25,955
- 15,964
- 1,415
I expect Obama will sell his Cape Cod ocean side mansion pretty soon...I mean if he truly believes inAccording to your Cult we only have about 8 years left.
global warming.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I expect Obama will sell his Cape Cod ocean side mansion pretty soon...I mean if he truly believes inAccording to your Cult we only have about 8 years left.
Oh good, if you really believe that then you won't have to worry about the money trail from the biden accounts either.
Turtlesock.Oh good, if you really believe that then you won't have to worry about the money trail from the biden accounts either.
No. Actually, these Syrian Kurds are viewed as terrorists by NATO ally Turkey, and Turkey announced that they would not be allowed within a particular range of their border, which at the time contained both Kurds and 50 US advisors. The Kurds were not being clear about whether they would withdraw to outside the buffer zone Turkey was insisting on, and since the original mission of these 50 US advisors had been fulfilled, Trump moved them, which, the Left and the Anti-Trumpers screamed was "a sell out of the Kurds". Now personally I have no use for the leader of Turkey and I have great sympathy for the Kurds, but, these same bastards that claim Trump should have left these 50 advisors there, would also scream the loudest if they got killed, or even scream louder if they started shooting at Turkish forces.I never said or implied Turkey would attack US troops if we tried to guarantee or assure the Kurds they would have their own nation which is what they are after, and that frightens and angers Turkey.There is no way Turkey, as a NATO member would have attacked while US troops were stationed there and the US was giving clear security assurances. Indeed Turkey and Greece have serious disputes over territory but since Cyprus invasion Turkey is not using force against them due to NATO pressure.
And the proof is in the pudding, Turkey did not attack while the US was there, it attacked days after Trump's disgraceful withdrawal.
So that's a red herring from you...
You think Americans should be stationed in a war zone for several decades so the kurds can cut a deal with Syia? Tell you what, since you are so keen on that policy, why don't you worthless Aussies send your boys over there to get shot? Otherwise, shut the fuck up.We assisted them when we had common goals. I'm not aware of any agreement where we promisedWhen did we promise to protect the Kurds?
to help them carve out a Kurdish nation in the middle of four hostile nations.
Pompeo rejects idea that the United States abandoned Kurds
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the cease-fire agreement in Syria that he and Vice President Pence spearheaded, denying allegations that the U.S. abandoned Kurdish allies in the region. He …thehill.com
We never proposed to carve out a Kurdish nation but rather as we did with the Kurds in Iraq for several decades protect them until Syria settles and they can negotiate with the Syrian government.
Most of all protect them from Turkey.
Of course Pompeo pretends he does not know this, he had to sell Trump's betrayal of the Kurds.
But it was so well known as I posted a link above even many Republicans thought it a disgrace to America, as it was.
No, and the 97% figure is a hoax. Belief in it is proof that you're gullible.Oh long winded, sorry there’s too much science, not enough leftist talking points. I’ve already made my point on how to reduce it. Very clearly. You called it gibberish, which apparently means to you “I don’t understand the science, it’s too hard”. The overall point is that you’re on here calling people who are actually using the science “cultists”. While you’re plugging your ears and are all about the party that’s ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, pushing energies with an overall net gain in carbon, and that are toxic to the environment. Not only is it bad for the environment, it’s also economically devastating. Especially considering we already invented clean energy 80 years ago in nuclear. What the left is suggesting is straight up psychoticOne last slow clap for jake “I like turtles” frogen. I’ve been drunk plenty of times, never in a million years would I confuse those two. Why? Because my environmental education isn’t based off of the shit I saw in Disney’s Fern Gully.No just drunk.
And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.
So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.
Good.
Then I agree with you.
I can tell you right now, we’re no where close to agreement. If your talking the shit you’ve been talking, you’re all about solar panels, and believe it’s “renewable” energy. Let me mansplain this to you using a metaphor, because thermodynamics is too big of a word and clearly went right over your head. We’ll use kinetic energy in the form of rolling a boulder up a hill to roll back down. It takes energy to push it up in order to roll back down. If you’re using solar, you are starting at 3/4 of the way down the hill, and have to expend all the energy to roll it up, in order to have it roll that extra 1/4 down from where you started. On top of that you have to clear out a fuck ton of trees along the way. What’s more is you have to dump toxic chemicals every 10 or so as your going up. If your talking about burning wood, that’d be like starting halfway up the hill. Less tress to cut down. No toxic chemicals. Coal your looking at starting 3/4 of the way up the hill. Gas your starting 5/6 uphill. Nuclear 99/100ths of the way uphill and just have to give the boulder a little push.The more energy dense the fuels you use, the less carbon emissions there are. Photons from the sun are not a very energy dense fuel (not really a fuel, just one form of energy that requires an inefficient, costly, and toxic process to convert into another form of energy).
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
I tried to wade through that rambling, boring post, I still do not know what you are going on about?
I have not talked about solar panels as THE solution, I was simply trying to make the point with the Trump cult that global warming is largely caused by man made carbon emissions.
If you agree good.
Just make your point, how would you deal with man made global warming?
And please do not add to it with such, hot, long winded posts.
Lets get to the point, do you believe humans are a major cause of the present global warming as 97% of climatoglists current do?
As for that other mumbo jumbo provide me a scientific link please.
No, and the 97% figure is a hoax. Belief in it is proof that you're gullible.Oh long winded, sorry there’s too much science, not enough leftist talking points. I’ve already made my point on how to reduce it. Very clearly. You called it gibberish, which apparently means to you “I don’t understand the science, it’s too hard”. The overall point is that you’re on here calling people who are actually using the science “cultists”. While you’re plugging your ears and are all about the party that’s ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, pushing energies with an overall net gain in carbon, and that are toxic to the environment. Not only is it bad for the environment, it’s also economically devastating. Especially considering we already invented clean energy 80 years ago in nuclear. What the left is suggesting is straight up psychoticOne last slow clap for jake “I like turtles” frogen. I’ve been drunk plenty of times, never in a million years would I confuse those two. Why? Because my environmental education isn’t based off of the shit I saw in Disney’s Fern Gully.No just drunk.
And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.
So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.
Good.
Then I agree with you.
I can tell you right now, we’re no where close to agreement. If your talking the shit you’ve been talking, you’re all about solar panels, and believe it’s “renewable” energy. Let me mansplain this to you using a metaphor, because thermodynamics is too big of a word and clearly went right over your head. We’ll use kinetic energy in the form of rolling a boulder up a hill to roll back down. It takes energy to push it up in order to roll back down. If you’re using solar, you are starting at 3/4 of the way down the hill, and have to expend all the energy to roll it up, in order to have it roll that extra 1/4 down from where you started. On top of that you have to clear out a fuck ton of trees along the way. What’s more is you have to dump toxic chemicals every 10 or so as your going up. If your talking about burning wood, that’d be like starting halfway up the hill. Less tress to cut down. No toxic chemicals. Coal your looking at starting 3/4 of the way up the hill. Gas your starting 5/6 uphill. Nuclear 99/100ths of the way uphill and just have to give the boulder a little push.The more energy dense the fuels you use, the less carbon emissions there are. Photons from the sun are not a very energy dense fuel (not really a fuel, just one form of energy that requires an inefficient, costly, and toxic process to convert into another form of energy).
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
I tried to wade through that rambling, boring post, I still do not know what you are going on about?
I have not talked about solar panels as THE solution, I was simply trying to make the point with the Trump cult that global warming is largely caused by man made carbon emissions.
If you agree good.
Just make your point, how would you deal with man made global warming?
And please do not add to it with such, hot, long winded posts.
Lets get to the point, do you believe humans are a major cause of the present global warming as 97% of climatoglists current do?
As for that other mumbo jumbo provide me a scientific link please.
You think Americans should be stationed in a war zone for several decades so the kurds can cut a deal with Syia? Tell you what, since you are so keen on that policy, why don't you worthless Aussies send your boys over there to get shot? Otherwise, shut the fuck up.We assisted them when we had common goals. I'm not aware of any agreement where we promisedWhen did we promise to protect the Kurds?
to help them carve out a Kurdish nation in the middle of four hostile nations.
Pompeo rejects idea that the United States abandoned Kurds
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the cease-fire agreement in Syria that he and Vice President Pence spearheaded, denying allegations that the U.S. abandoned Kurdish allies in the region. He …thehill.com
We never proposed to carve out a Kurdish nation but rather as we did with the Kurds in Iraq for several decades protect them until Syria settles and they can negotiate with the Syrian government.
Most of all protect them from Turkey.
Of course Pompeo pretends he does not know this, he had to sell Trump's betrayal of the Kurds.
But it was so well known as I posted a link above even many Republicans thought it a disgrace to America, as it was.
No. Actually, these Syrian Kurds are viewed as terrorists by NATO ally Turkey, and Turkey announced that they would not be allowed within a particular range of their border, which at the time contained both Kurds and 50 US advisors. The Kurds were not being clear about whether they would withdraw to outside the buffer zone Turkey was insisting on, and since the original mission of these 50 US advisors had been fulfilled, Trump moved them, which, the Left and the Anti-Trumpers screamed was "a sell out of the Kurds". Now personally I have no use for the leader of Turkey and I have great sympathy for the Kurds, but, these same bastards that claim Trump should have left these 50 advisors there, would also scream the loudest if they got killed, or even scream louder if they started shooting at Turkish forces.I never said or implied Turkey would attack US troops if we tried to guarantee or assure the Kurds they would have their own nation which is what they are after, and that frightens and angers Turkey.There is no way Turkey, as a NATO member would have attacked while US troops were stationed there and the US was giving clear security assurances. Indeed Turkey and Greece have serious disputes over territory but since Cyprus invasion Turkey is not using force against them due to NATO pressure.
And the proof is in the pudding, Turkey did not attack while the US was there, it attacked days after Trump's disgraceful withdrawal.
So that's a red herring from you...
We did not "sell out the Kurds."
About 500 U.S. troops remain in Syria. They protect the Kurds, secure the Kurd's oil and continue stamping out ISIS sleeper cells.
The Syrian regime now occupies more of it's former country, with Russian help and wants to recover control of the rest of it, which includes this land that the Kurds now occupy.
So now, in addition to the myriad dangers already present, U.S. patrols increasingly encounter regime militias and Russian convoys. The potential for conflict is high, difficult to navigate and so far, Trump has navigated about as well as could be hoped for.
The U.S. troops are typically optimistic are focused on their mission.
Protecting the Kurd's oil is a Trump stated objective. It deprives hostile actors -- Russia, Turkey, Syria and of course ISIS -- of an important resource, and it gives Kurds the means to provide for themselves in the hopes that a future political solution is reached.
Turkey has to be considered, the Syrian regime is hungry to retake more of it's former territory and the Russians back them. It's a first rate farce that the warmongering clowns think it's in our national interest to put our troops in the middle two front war for a Kurdish homeland in Syria. There are Kurds in Iran as well, so it could probably become a 3 front war, very quickly.
These same rotten bastards would immediately become anti- Trump war protestors as soon as the body bags started coming in. It's a tough position, the Kurds have my sympathy, but, this is the limit of what we can do for them at the moment. But, if anyone here wants to put their own lives on the line, or the lives of their sons or daughters, I'm sure Kurds would welcome the help. They should probably fly to Turkey and try to infiltrate from there.
Or, they should petition their Congressperson to submit a bill authorizing Trump to use force to do whatever it is that they would like to see done.
I'm no fan of Turkey, I wish Istanbul was still Constantinople, but, we operate in the real world, and Turkey occupies key real estate important for containing Russia.
You want a scientific link for thermodynamics? Pretty sure it falls under the realm of common knowledge. OooKay.Oh long winded, sorry there’s too much science, not enough leftist talking points. I’ve already made my point on how to reduce it. Very clearly. You called it gibberish, which apparently means to you “I don’t understand the science, it’s too hard”. The overall point is that you’re on here calling people who are actually using the science “cultists”. While you’re plugging your ears and are all about the party that’s ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, pushing energies with an overall net gain in carbon, and that are toxic to the environment. Not only is it bad for the environment, it’s also economically devastating. Especially considering we already invented clean energy 80 years ago in nuclear. What the left is suggesting is straight up psychoticOne last slow clap for jake “I like turtles” frogen. I’ve been drunk plenty of times, never in a million years would I confuse those two. Why? Because my environmental education isn’t based off of the shit I saw in Disney’s Fern Gully.No just drunk.
And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.
So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.
Good.
Then I agree with you.
I can tell you right now, we’re no where close to agreement. If your talking the shit you’ve been talking, you’re all about solar panels, and believe it’s “renewable” energy. Let me mansplain this to you using a metaphor, because thermodynamics is too big of a word and clearly went right over your head. We’ll use kinetic energy in the form of rolling a boulder up a hill to roll back down. It takes energy to push it up in order to roll back down. If you’re using solar, you are starting at 3/4 of the way down the hill, and have to expend all the energy to roll it up, in order to have it roll that extra 1/4 down from where you started. On top of that you have to clear out a fuck ton of trees along the way. What’s more is you have to dump toxic chemicals every 10 or so as your going up. If your talking about burning wood, that’d be like starting halfway up the hill. Less tress to cut down. No toxic chemicals. Coal your looking at starting 3/4 of the way up the hill. Gas your starting 5/6 uphill. Nuclear 99/100ths of the way uphill and just have to give the boulder a little push.The more energy dense the fuels you use, the less carbon emissions there are. Photons from the sun are not a very energy dense fuel (not really a fuel, just one form of energy that requires an inefficient, costly, and toxic process to convert into another form of energy).
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
I tried to wade through that rambling, boring post, I still do not know what you are going on about?
I have not talked about solar panels as THE solution, I was simply trying to make the point with the Trump cult that global warming is largely caused by man made carbon emissions.
If you agree good.
Just make your point, how would you deal with man made global warming?
And please do not add to it with such, hot, long winded posts.
Lets get to the point, do you believe humans are a major cause of the present global warming as 97% of climatoglists current do?
As for that other mumbo jumbo provide me a scientific link please.
Yeah, let's vote on it. That's real science!No, and the 97% figure is a hoax. Belief in it is proof that you're gullible.Oh long winded, sorry there’s too much science, not enough leftist talking points. I’ve already made my point on how to reduce it. Very clearly. You called it gibberish, which apparently means to you “I don’t understand the science, it’s too hard”. The overall point is that you’re on here calling people who are actually using the science “cultists”. While you’re plugging your ears and are all about the party that’s ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, pushing energies with an overall net gain in carbon, and that are toxic to the environment. Not only is it bad for the environment, it’s also economically devastating. Especially considering we already invented clean energy 80 years ago in nuclear. What the left is suggesting is straight up psychoticOne last slow clap for jake “I like turtles” frogen. I’ve been drunk plenty of times, never in a million years would I confuse those two. Why? Because my environmental education isn’t based off of the shit I saw in Disney’s Fern Gully.No just drunk.
And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.
So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.
Good.
Then I agree with you.
I can tell you right now, we’re no where close to agreement. If your talking the shit you’ve been talking, you’re all about solar panels, and believe it’s “renewable” energy. Let me mansplain this to you using a metaphor, because thermodynamics is too big of a word and clearly went right over your head. We’ll use kinetic energy in the form of rolling a boulder up a hill to roll back down. It takes energy to push it up in order to roll back down. If you’re using solar, you are starting at 3/4 of the way down the hill, and have to expend all the energy to roll it up, in order to have it roll that extra 1/4 down from where you started. On top of that you have to clear out a fuck ton of trees along the way. What’s more is you have to dump toxic chemicals every 10 or so as your going up. If your talking about burning wood, that’d be like starting halfway up the hill. Less tress to cut down. No toxic chemicals. Coal your looking at starting 3/4 of the way up the hill. Gas your starting 5/6 uphill. Nuclear 99/100ths of the way uphill and just have to give the boulder a little push.The more energy dense the fuels you use, the less carbon emissions there are. Photons from the sun are not a very energy dense fuel (not really a fuel, just one form of energy that requires an inefficient, costly, and toxic process to convert into another form of energy).
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
I tried to wade through that rambling, boring post, I still do not know what you are going on about?
I have not talked about solar panels as THE solution, I was simply trying to make the point with the Trump cult that global warming is largely caused by man made carbon emissions.
If you agree good.
Just make your point, how would you deal with man made global warming?
And please do not add to it with such, hot, long winded posts.
Lets get to the point, do you believe humans are a major cause of the present global warming as 97% of climatoglists current do?
As for that other mumbo jumbo provide me a scientific link please.
There we go, no wonder you post long winded jibberish that has no science in it.
I think I will go with the majority of climate scientists thank you.
You don't know my generation. I'm certainly not from the generation of foriegners who believe Americans are supposed to fight and die so they won't have to get off their sorry asses.The Greatest Generation of Americans would not do this, but like I said your generation is a long way from great, or even competent when it comes to war and the aftermath.
You think Americans should be stationed in a war zone for several decades so the kurds can cut a deal with Syia? Tell you what, since you are so keen on that policy, why don't you worthless Aussies send your boys over there to get shot? Otherwise, shut the fuck up.We assisted them when we had common goals. I'm not aware of any agreement where we promisedWhen did we promise to protect the Kurds?
to help them carve out a Kurdish nation in the middle of four hostile nations.
Pompeo rejects idea that the United States abandoned Kurds
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the cease-fire agreement in Syria that he and Vice President Pence spearheaded, denying allegations that the U.S. abandoned Kurdish allies in the region. He …thehill.com
We never proposed to carve out a Kurdish nation but rather as we did with the Kurds in Iraq for several decades protect them until Syria settles and they can negotiate with the Syrian government.
Most of all protect them from Turkey.
Of course Pompeo pretends he does not know this, he had to sell Trump's betrayal of the Kurds.
But it was so well known as I posted a link above even many Republicans thought it a disgrace to America, as it was.
We did go into both Afghanistan and Iraqi with you. If we knew how incompetent American planning would be we would not have.
Still the Kurdish protection plan was clear with the Iraqi Kurd blueprint. The Kurds did most of the heavy lifting against ISIS for the US, losing 12.000 fighters and the US betrayed them.
What form did this "notice" takeThe region noticed.
It is not a good look for a world power to turn tail, betray allies and run. Especially when the fight was won.
Even many Republicans felt shame on this one.
Though we all know Trump does not do shame.
Furious Republicans prepare to rebuke Trump on Syria
Congressional Republicans appear poised to hand President Trump a stinging rebuke of his Turkey and Syria policy when lawmakers return to Washington this week.GOP lawmakers, furious over Trump’s de…thehill.com