The Left is shameless

[Votto]

'This is science': Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg testifies before Congress

Not only will the Left drag out children out of class when they should be in school, to protest guns, they will also drag them before Congress to testify as a 12 year old girl speaks before Congress about the evils of global warming.

What's next? Gerry's kids dragged to protest a lack of abortion access, which is why they are still alive?

 

[G.T.]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

 

[Votto]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

Ok, so someone who is STILL not of legal age to consent to a wide variety of activity is being sent to Washington to give their opinions on something?


Why exactly? When is the last time you took advise from a 17 year old and who sent her there?

And yes, she looks to be 12 to me.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

With the severity and multitude of problems we have today, this is how Congress spends their time.

 

[G.T.]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

Ok, so someone who is STILL not of legal age to consent to a wide variety of activity is being sent to Washington to give their opinions on something?


Why exactly? When is the last time you took advise from a 17 year old and who sent her there?

And yes, she looks to be 12 to me.

The Legal age of consent in Sweden is 15...Mr. Shameless.

Damn, you really love your straw-men to whine about dumb-shit. The girl cares about the Planet, and believes in the Science and you, a grown ass man who is right-leaning and therefore by all means has to be against the science tooth and nail, are sitting on your internet to whine.

17yr old swedish girl >>> votto, on the internet

 

[G.T.]

With the severity and multitude of problems we have today, this is how Congress spends their time.

That depends on what you prioritize. I understand some folks think that climate change is a conspiracy, but those who don't wouldn't consider a call to action as a waste of time. Anyone could deduce that.

 

[toomuchtime_]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

So you are saying the Democrats in Congress are looking to 17 year olds, not 12 year olds, for guidance on these issues. That's so much better.

 

[G.T.]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

So you are saying the Democrats in Congress are looking to 17 year olds, not 12 year olds, for guidance on these issues. That's so much better.

I'm not saying that, no.

This is a publicity stunt, not looking for guidance on the issue. Anyone could deduce that.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

With the severity and multitude of problems we have today, this is how Congress spends their time.

That depends on what you prioritize. I understand some folks think that climate change is a conspiracy, but those who don't wouldn't consider a call to action as a waste of time. Anyone could deduce that.

I don't mean Congress is wasting time with climate change... but wasting time giving TV time to a kid for show. The OP has a point. If climate change is literally HALF as bad as reported, then the few people on earth who can actually do something is sitting their listening to a child. For the 2nd day.
But, I guess that is really all they can do.
If you wanted to pass meaningful laws that would actually address climate changes as it is being presented... the world would have to practically go back in time 100 years.

 

[Votto]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

Ok, so someone who is STILL not of legal age to consent to a wide variety of activity is being sent to Washington to give their opinions on something?


Why exactly? When is the last time you took advise from a 17 year old and who sent her there?

And yes, she looks to be 12 to me.

The Legal age of consent in Sweden is 15...Mr. Shameless.

Damn, you really love your straw-men to whine about dumb-shit. The girl cares about the Planet, and believes in the Science and you, a grown ass man who is right-leaning and therefore by all means has to be against the science tooth and nail, are sitting on your internet to whine.

17yr old swedish girl >>> votto, on the internet

I did not say the legal consent to do what, did I. In many places she is too young to drink, fight in a war, or have sex, yet there she is as an expert witness?

Do lawmakers really care about the views of children? If so, why do none testify against things like abortion, or even have children up there who disagree with the whole global warming conspiracy?

 

[toomuchtime_]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

So you are saying the Democrats in Congress are looking to 17 year olds, not 12 year olds, for guidance on these issues. That's so much better.

I'm not saying that, no.

This is a publicity stunt, not looking for guidance on the issue. Anyone could deduce that.

A publicity stunt? Is that what Congress is supposed to do while the are on taxpayers' dime? Clearly you agree that word shameless is appropriate for this hearing.

 

[Votto]

With the severity and multitude of problems we have today, this is how Congress spends their time.

That depends on what you prioritize. I understand some folks think that climate change is a conspiracy, but those who don't wouldn't consider a call to action as a waste of time. Anyone could deduce that.

I don't mean Congress is wasting time with climate change... but wasting time giving TV time to a kid for show. The OP has a point. If climate change is literally HALF as bad as reported, then the few people on earth who can actually do something is sitting their listening to a child. For the 2nd day.
But, I guess that is really all they can do.
If you wanted to pass meaningful laws that would actually address climate changes as it is being presented... the world would have to practically go back in time 100 years.

The Left is only interested in one thing, propaganda and moving poll numbers.

Their mantra is that democracy is what makes society pure, so they then use the power over the press and academia to drive home public support for things.

But when democracy does not go their way, like in the case of both Bush and Trump winning, they deride it.

 

[G.T.]

With the severity and multitude of problems we have today, this is how Congress spends their time.

That depends on what you prioritize. I understand some folks think that climate change is a conspiracy, but those who don't wouldn't consider a call to action as a waste of time. Anyone could deduce that.

I don't mean Congress is wasting time with climate change... but wasting time giving TV time to a kid for show. The OP has a point. If climate change is literally HALF as bad as reported, then the few people on earth who can actually do something is sitting their listening to a child.
But, I guess that is really all they can do.
If you wanted to pass meaningful laws that would actually address climate changes as it is being presented... the world would have to practically go back in time 100 years.

It depends on where you sit in this faggoty r vs. d shell-game.

If the Ds think it IS "half as bad," and the Rs are, in the Ds view, ignoring the hard science, perhaps shaming them is another approach.

I don't put any publicity-moves past these two little girl teams, but I'm also not going to pretend they could be getting the Rs on-board with an actionable policy otherwise.....but just if it weren't for a single-day in life that this girl came to testify.

I chalk this thread up to another goofy, useless partisan whine.

 

[G.T.]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

So you are saying the Democrats in Congress are looking to 17 year olds, not 12 year olds, for guidance on these issues. That's so much better.

I'm not saying that, no.

This is a publicity stunt, not looking for guidance on the issue. Anyone could deduce that.

A publicity stunt? Is that what Congress is supposed to do while the are on taxpayers' dime? Clearly you agree that word shameless is appropriate for this hearing.

Is it what Congress is supposed to do?

Yes, in a sense, they have subjects come testify on every single issue...they have Scientists, teachers, activists, athletes, Specialists of all different fields/backgrounds....celebrities of influence...

Congress, yes, has been doing this for decades...and the publicity is helpful for everyone involved - pro or con.

 

[Votto]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

So you are saying the Democrats in Congress are looking to 17 year olds, not 12 year olds, for guidance on these issues. That's so much better.

I'm not saying that, no.

This is a publicity stunt, not looking for guidance on the issue. Anyone could deduce that.

A publicity stunt? Is that what Congress is supposed to do while the are on taxpayers' dime? Clearly you agree that word shameless is appropriate for this hearing.

Is it what Congress is supposed to do?

Yes, in a sense, they have subjects come testify on every single issue...they have Scientists, teachers, activists, athletes, Specialists of all different fields/backgrounds....celebrities of influence...

Congress, yes, has been doing this for decades...and the publicity is helpful for everyone involved - pro or con.

Then again, they let Hollywood types get up their and testify before Congress, and I'm pretty sure the 17 year old girl is smarter.

Never mind about the age, I take it all back.

 

[G.T.]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

Ok, so someone who is STILL not of legal age to consent to a wide variety of activity is being sent to Washington to give their opinions on something?


Why exactly? When is the last time you took advise from a 17 year old and who sent her there?

And yes, she looks to be 12 to me.

The Legal age of consent in Sweden is 15...Mr. Shameless.

Damn, you really love your straw-men to whine about dumb-shit. The girl cares about the Planet, and believes in the Science and you, a grown ass man who is right-leaning and therefore by all means has to be against the science tooth and nail, are sitting on your internet to whine.

17yr old swedish girl >>> votto, on the internet

I did not say the legal consent to do what, did I. In many places she is too young to drink, fight in a war, or have sex, yet there she is as an expert witness?

Do lawmakers really care about the views of children? If so, why do none testify against things like abortion, or even have children up there who disagree with the whole global warming conspiracy?

You brought up the age of consent - you did it for effect - do you think it wasn't see through?

Anyone can be brought to testify before Congress - why the fuck are you asking ME why such and such isn't being brought to testify? I dunno, goof, fuggin ask um?

 

[G.T.]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

So you are saying the Democrats in Congress are looking to 17 year olds, not 12 year olds, for guidance on these issues. That's so much better.

I'm not saying that, no.

This is a publicity stunt, not looking for guidance on the issue. Anyone could deduce that.

A publicity stunt? Is that what Congress is supposed to do while the are on taxpayers' dime? Clearly you agree that word shameless is appropriate for this hearing.

Is it what Congress is supposed to do?

Yes, in a sense, they have subjects come testify on every single issue...they have Scientists, teachers, activists, athletes, Specialists of all different fields/backgrounds....celebrities of influence...

Congress, yes, has been doing this for decades...and the publicity is helpful for everyone involved - pro or con.

Then again, they let Hollywood types get up their and testify before Congress, and I'm pretty sure the 17 year old girl is smarter.

Never mind about the age, I take it all back.

there*

Maybe the order of intelligence goes: the girl > hollywood types > votto, on the internet

 

[toomuchtime_]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

So you are saying the Democrats in Congress are looking to 17 year olds, not 12 year olds, for guidance on these issues. That's so much better.

I'm not saying that, no.

This is a publicity stunt, not looking for guidance on the issue. Anyone could deduce that.

A publicity stunt? Is that what Congress is supposed to do while the are on taxpayers' dime? Clearly you agree that word shameless is appropriate for this hearing.

Is it what Congress is supposed to do?

Yes, in a sense, they have subjects come testify on every single issue...they have Scientists, teachers, activists, athletes, Specialists of all different fields/backgrounds....celebrities of influence...

Congress, yes, has been doing this for decades...and the publicity is helpful for everyone involved - pro or con.

I thought they were supposed to investigate issues and pass legislation on its merits rather than its popularity, but apparently you think its more important to be popular than right. That's a fair description of Obama's presidency.

 

[Votto]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

Ok, so someone who is STILL not of legal age to consent to a wide variety of activity is being sent to Washington to give their opinions on something?


Why exactly? When is the last time you took advise from a 17 year old and who sent her there?

And yes, she looks to be 12 to me.

The Legal age of consent in Sweden is 15...Mr. Shameless.

Damn, you really love your straw-men to whine about dumb-shit. The girl cares about the Planet, and believes in the Science and you, a grown ass man who is right-leaning and therefore by all means has to be against the science tooth and nail, are sitting on your internet to whine.

17yr old swedish girl >>> votto, on the internet

I did not say the legal consent to do what, did I. In many places she is too young to drink, fight in a war, or have sex, yet there she is as an expert witness?

Do lawmakers really care about the views of children? If so, why do none testify against things like abortion, or even have children up there who disagree with the whole global warming conspiracy?

You brought up the age of consent - you did it for effect - do you think it wasn't see through?

Anyone can be brought to testify before Congress - why the fuck are you asking ME why such and such isn't being brought to testify? I dunno, goof, fuggin ask um?

Listen dolt, forcing kids out of class to protest Left wing positions is criminal and manipulating children to testify before Congress is abuse.

Now if Trump had him a 17 year old girl to play with, you would be all up in arms about it.

 

[G.T.]

She's 17, not 12 Mr. shameless.

So you are saying the Democrats in Congress are looking to 17 year olds, not 12 year olds, for guidance on these issues. That's so much better.

I'm not saying that, no.

This is a publicity stunt, not looking for guidance on the issue. Anyone could deduce that.

A publicity stunt? Is that what Congress is supposed to do while the are on taxpayers' dime? Clearly you agree that word shameless is appropriate for this hearing.

Is it what Congress is supposed to do?

Yes, in a sense, they have subjects come testify on every single issue...they have Scientists, teachers, activists, athletes, Specialists of all different fields/backgrounds....celebrities of influence...

Congress, yes, has been doing this for decades...and the publicity is helpful for everyone involved - pro or con.

I thought they were supposed to investigate issues and pass legislation on its merits rather than its popularity, but apparently you think its more important to be popular than right. That's a fair description of Obama's presidency.

No, you're inferring incorrectly regarding what I think is important.

I believe in Merit, that'd be ridiculous to assume not - but you're assuming that Legislation is being based on a single activist's testimony in the first place - and nobody knows why the fuck you'd assume THAT, besides you.