The Republic Is Saved.

[jack]

17 hours ago, jrs2 said:

...AND...to think you actually edited your post. 

Look, Hartford Boy, your Yankee finger pointing racism BS doesn't fly down round these parts. Know your audience and assume that a Gator fan would know their opponents on the football field. Not to mention the obvious...why would Bama fans vote for an Auburn Tiger for Senate especially if he was a racist.

 But I'll play your silly little game...here's photographic proof of how racist Tubby is and how his players feel and/or felt about playing for and being coached by a racist. 

And BTW, what were you even doing 15-25 years ago when he was HBC at Auburn and Ole Miss? 

You are way out of your wheelhouse on this one... but I still love ya...

 

 

He might not be racist, but I think he may just be dumb. 

[orange87]

Poll shows Biden beating Trump, even if Manchin runs

Article: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4108696-poll-shows-biden-beating-trump-even-if-manchin-runs/?fbclid=IwAR3LT7diWhCcSr9Uu-lJfgLBzkr3tvoDWrwM9fxZeCjXKXW7a0yX71tOlmY

[jrs2]

On 7/20/2023 at 10:08 AM, jack said:

He might not be racist, but I think he may just be dumb. 

could be but he was smart enough to get into office and now has a lifetime pension.

on a side note, please watch the video below ala that subject of whether there is a "puppet master" (or Master of Puppets (I couldn't resist the Metallica reference)) scenario at play. It's a little a-lotta disturbing and makes me want to drink, take a toke, 'fill in the blank':

 

[jack]

On 7/21/2023 at 3:17 PM, jrs2 said:

could be but he was smart enough to get into office and now has a lifetime pension.

on a side note, please watch the video below ala that subject of whether there is a "puppet master" (or Master of Puppets (I couldn't resist the Metallica reference)) scenario at play. It's a little a-lotta disturbing and makes me want to drink, take a toke, 'fill in the blank':

 

You do know Sinclair has been accused of being in the tank for Trump? 

[jrs2]

6 hours ago, jack said:

You do know Sinclair has been accused of being in the tank for Trump? 

Naturally...

[orange87]

Rudy Giuliani Admits He Made False Statements in Georgia Elections Case

Article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/rudy-giuliani-says-he-wont-contest-that-he-made-false-statements-ad706fd6?fbclid=IwAR16c_kPjWwxK9f7Ig8tWZ0VX453-UhjFoD4ZEM21eHcbdFjxGOkHUmE1mY

[jrs2]

On 7/24/2023 at 8:47 AM, jack said:

You do know Sinclair has been accused of being in the tank for Trump? 

...but what's interesting about this video is that the network news was prompting people to question internet news and/or data.  this was back during the time when Trump's "fake news" rants were countered with "alternative facts" and that whole back and forth.  this was back when Wikileaks (& Lemmiwinks) was a thing and alt media was getting traction.  so when you think about it, things had to come to a head. 

MSM has always historically controlled the narrative, from Siskel & Ebert telling us whether Star Wars sucked, when we could figure it out on our own, to whether Jimmy was really weak on defense compared to his successor, Ronnie. But ratings go into that too; if people are watching internet news sources instead, the ratings go down and the networks lose advertising $$$.  So they have to slam the competition for self preservation's sake.

But what's funny is that if you watch a "broadcast" on Youtube, they almost always place a banner below the video giving you a disclaimer or disavowing of said video.  Who told YouTube to do that?  You had mentioned conspiracy theories a couple weeks back and mentioned the flat earth.  So, I looked it up on Youtube.  No sooner does the video begin, does Youtube place a banner from some source saying something like "the flat earth is an archaic theory..." that people used to believe when they were dumbf*cks (or something like that). 

Why do I need Youtube controlling the narrative on a point of view video?  Can't I make that determination on my own? The answer is...no...according to them.  They don't want you to think on your own because they want to control the narrative even on the internet.  So, if they don't take a video down, they place a banner under it.  Just look up anything on, say, covid. 

That Sinclair video is like that shampoo commercial from the late '70's where the girl says "and I told two friends...and so on...and so on...and so on..." and the people double, quadruple, etc... It's just a reflection of the control structure trying to maintain control.  Nixon's quote about TV?   It does make a meaningful impact on the viewer.

[orange87]

House Republicans propose planting a trillion trees as they move away from climate change denial

Article: https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-republicans-trillion-trees-01e455acce4397c0376e82bfa18b72c2

[jrs2]

9 hours ago, orange87 said:

House Republicans propose planting a trillion trees as they move away from climate change denial

Article: https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-republicans-trillion-trees-01e455acce4397c0376e82bfa18b72c2

Whether Democrat or Republican, a trillion trees replanting plan should've been pushed for over the past few decades by BOTH parties.  If it wasn't being pushed by Dems while they  instead chose to push for Teslas with Chinese batteries or solar panels from Chinese companies while capping natural resources domestically, then shame on them.  It was never a denial of Climate Change...it was a denial of the religious zealotry and political posturing of the Global Warming movement, the shaming of our way of life in favor of energy sources and technologies from OTHER countries, like China, that made the US energy dependent and which weakened the US Dollar.  I assume you use US currency to eat, right, and not Republic Credits?

And you still haven't answered a question I posed a couple years ago.. WTF is the deal with the chemtrails that extend horizon to horizon that spread out and create a haze in the sky?  Unlike a jet trail from a passenger jet that is either invisible or extends maybe 1/2 to 1 mile behind a passenger jet depending on altitude.  On some days the sky is crisscrossed with them.  What of it and why is that being ignored yet the political figerpointing continues on car exhaust when you sometimes can't see the Sun because of those?  

And, I haven't heard a peep from you about the Canadian forest fires in the past month.  Afraid to criticize a fellow SJW that did more damage to our environment in one month then all US industry has in the past twenty years? Let's keep it real. 

And send an email to Buddy to plant shade trees in those I-4 retention ponds like they do elsewhere, with like Cypress or whatever that tree is that grows close to bodies of water.  Then they can decide on Oaks wherever they may be contested because of space requirements afterwards.  But the retention ponds are a no brainer and could be done sooner than later.

And yes, I do blame developers for razing everything in sight before building...even if they too vote Republican. Enough with the war on trees. Where is Gandalf The Grey when you need him, or Neal Peart to write us another tale...

Peace...

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

Whether Democrat or Republican, a trillion trees replanting plan should've been pushed for over the past few decades by BOTH parties.  If it wasn't being pushed by Dems while they  instead chose to push for Teslas with Chinese batteries or solar panels from Chinese companies while capping natural resources domestically, then shame on them.  It was never a denial of Climate Change...it was a denial of the religious zealotry and political posturing of the Global Warming movement, the shaming of our way of life in favor of energy sources and technologies from OTHER countries, like China, that made the US energy dependent and which weakened the US Dollar.  I assume you use US currency to eat, right, and not Republic Credits?

Sorry, but I just don't buy that for a minute.

I've never seen/heard that posted, written or uttered by one conservative before now.

As for the article and the notion that Republicans are seeing the light re: the climate and the environment, joining us tree huggers or even that the proposal is a real solution that is even doable...  don't be too quick to assume they're not still first and foremost, the same protectors of big industry, corporate profits that they've always been.

Some key points from the AP article....

Quote

But the solution long touted by Democrats and environmental advocates — government action to force emissions reductions — remains a non-starter with most Republicans.

But the tree-planting push has drawn intense pushback from environmental scientists who call it a distraction from cutting emissions from fossil fuels. The authors of the original study have also clarified that planting trees does not eliminate “the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Planting one trillion trees would also require a massive amount of space — roughly the size of the continental United States. And more trees could even increase the risk of wildfires by serving as fuel in a warming world.

“There is a lot of value to planting trees, but it is not a panacea,” said Mark Ashton, a professor of forest ecology at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

For Republicans, the bill checks the right boxes. It is friendly to the timber industry and touts a climate solution — sequestering a massive amount of carbon from manmade emissions — that would also partially alleviate the need to wean the country off fossil fuels.

Now that he has a slim House majority, McCarthy has also pushed for expanded energy production. He made the “ Lower Energy Costs Act” the top legislative priority of the new GOP majority, as signified by its bill number — H.R. 1. The proposal, which passed the House on a mostly party-line vote in March, would spur American energy production, especially oil, gas and coal.

Democrats like President Joe Biden rejected the bill as a “thinly veiled license to pollute,” 

But not all Republicans agree that there’s a need to address climate change. Rep. Scott Perry, who leads the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, in a hearing Thursday alleged that the Biden administration’s climate agenda was tackling “a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Perry went on to declare — without evidence — that global leaders pushing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are “grifting.”

Nearly across the board, House Republicans have tried to undo parts of Biden’s climate agenda, deriding them as expensive and burdensome. They have targeted government incentives for clean energy projects and denounced investment strategies that account for environmental impact. Last week, they moved to restrict the Department of Defense from using funds to implement the president’s executive orders on climate.

“You are seeing a recognition in the Republican Party that climate change is something they are going to have to at least acknowledge because their constituents are dealing with it on a daily basis and it’s having an increasing economic toll,” said Lena Moffit, executive director of Evergreen Action, an environmental group that promotes urgent action. “But you cannot say you are committed to putting out the house fire while you pour more gasoline on it.”

Sounds to me like another case of Republican chicanery and sleight of hand. 

[jrs2]

21 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Sorry, but I just don't buy that for a minute.

I've never seen/heard that posted, written or uttered by one conservative before now.

As for the article and the notion that Republicans are seeing the light re: the climate and the environment, joining us tree huggers or even that the proposal is a real solution that is even doable...  don't be too quick to assume they're not still first and foremost, the same protectors of big industry, corporate profits that they've always been.

Some key points from the AP article....

Sounds to me like another case of Republican chicanery and sleight of hand. 

this is long (imagine that)...but I cover a few things...

Seriously, it's true.  And I posted that a couple years ago...  but the MSM has muddled it...  I just remember back around 2015, between then and 2000 when Al Gore started pushing the Global Warming agenda, there was a gradual fusion of the two terms (Global Warming and Climate Change) over time in the MSM.  I noticed it but thought nothing of it until somebody pointed it out to me, and, sure enough, that's what they were doing, because it suited them.  It's marketing.  Just like changing out "UFO" for "UAP."  Why even do that?  Is a UAP more valid of a thing than a report of a UFO?  Probably.  But they're still the same thing.  And maybe "Global Warming" had the Al Gore stigma that they tried to distance themselves from...I don't know.

Yes, for the most part the GOP has denied even climate change or at least the degree at which its proponents have stated, but the main protest was always against Man's (can I say even say that anymore?) part in pushing Climate Change forward (i.e., Global Warming).  I remember they would compare volcanic eruptions to x number of vehicle emissions and stuff like that to show that it wasn't even making a dent. Nevertheless...it was still pushed...because there was money to be made.

And the media harps on it:  "Are you a climate denier?" - that whole thing- but the media controls the narrative because by saying "climate denier" that lumps in the sub-category of Global Warming.  And if you are intending to say no to Global Warming, they are saying that you are saying no to Climate Change.  And then you get cancel culture labeled a "denier."

Regarding the distinction, you are right, I also have not seen anyone in the media (lately) make that distinction as before, not even Republicans, which is very odd because if I was a politician or talking head, I would be all over this, and I would harp on it night and day, until I got canceled.

OMG, that article is so full of it.  Listen to what they say: More trees increases the risk of forest fires?  Do we have Canada to thank for this new angle on Global Warming?  Therefore, cut them all down (or don't plant any new one) for fear of a fire so that the only recourse in the movement is to lean on the fossil fuel industry emissions argument?  I never thought I'd ever hear or read that more trees is bad. Convenient argument.  We have Canada to thank for that.  That right there kills the entire Global Warming argument or need for reducing emissions. 

On a related note, weren't there Congressional hearings where the people pushing for EV's had to answer for there not being enough kilowatts or what have you in the power grid infrastructure to support all those EV's they've been pushing for?  And they agreed that there were not?

And as far as industry goes, why shut it down in the US only to have to import those resources from abroad and become energy dependent?  Because that's what they're doing...

I'm a tree hugger too, and against dumping chemicals in the water table, but I am against making us dependent on having to import energy from abroad.  When Biden shut down that pipeline in 2020, not only did tens of thousands of Americans lose their jobs, but so did thousands of Canadians.  To what end?  I can't believe Trudeau still talks to him.  But I don't think Trudeau even cares.  Just look at the aerial time lapse of the Canadian wild fires all starting simultaneously hundreds of miles apart.  The day that they hit NYC on Clean Air Day, his solution was to raise taxes in Canada while legislators were choking on fumes, and to push Climate Change efforts.  Someone here posted something about a boogeyman in that other thread, but Trudeau's answer for a clear case of unprecedented massive arson and/or at the least forest mismanagement was the boogeyman of Climate Change.

People see this...we are the only ones that read these threads and maybe a dozen or so more web surfers, but people as a whole see this hypocrisy or whatever it would otherwise be called.

This has become a religion in and of itself.  Even that British economist guy or whatever at that symposium gave a talk and pointed out that the threat of ice caps melting and coastal cities getting flooded out was a lie because banks wouldn't dare loan money for 20 and 30 year mortgages and construction loans in those regions.   And what do we see in SoFla and Manhattan?  More $$$billion dollar developments than anyone has ever seen, not to mention the Chinese coastal mega cities like Hong Kong, Kowloon, etc.  

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

this is long (imagine that)...but I cover a few things...

Seriously, it's true.  And I posted that a couple years ago...  but the MSM has muddled it...  I just remember back around 2015, between then and 2000 when Al Gore started pushing the Global Warming agenda, there was a gradual fusion of the two terms (Global Warming and Climate Change) over time in the MSM.  I noticed it but thought nothing of it until somebody pointed it out to me, and, sure enough, that's what they were doing, because it suited them.  It's marketing.  Just like changing out "UFO" for "UAP."  Why even do that?  Is a UAP more valid of a thing than a report of a UFO?  Probably.  But they're still the same thing.  And maybe "Global Warming" had the Al Gore stigma that they tried to distance themselves from...I don't know.

Yes, for the most part the GOP has denied even climate change or at least the degree at which its proponents have stated, but the main protest was always against Man's (can I say even say that anymore?) part in pushing Climate Change forward (i.e., Global Warming).  I remember they would compare volcanic eruptions to x number of vehicle emissions and stuff like that to show that it wasn't even making a dent. Nevertheless...it was still pushed...because there was money to be made.

And the media harps on it:  "Are you a climate denier?" - that whole thing- but the media controls the narrative because by saying "climate denier" that lumps in the sub-category of Global Warming.  And if you are intending to say no to Global Warming, they are saying that you are saying no to Climate Change.  And then you get cancel culture labeled a "denier."

Regarding the distinction, you are right, I also have not seen anyone in the media (lately) make that distinction as before, not even Republicans, which is very odd because if I was a politician or talking head, I would be all over this, and I would harp on it night and day, until I got canceled.

OMG, that article is so full of it.  Listen to what they say: More trees increases the risk of forest fires?  Do we have Canada to thank for this new angle on Global Warming?  Therefore, cut them all down (or don't plant any new one) for fear of a fire so that the only recourse in the movement is to lean on the fossil fuel industry emissions argument?  I never thought I'd ever hear or read that more trees is bad. Convenient argument.  We have Canada to thank for that.  That right there kills the entire Global Warming argument or need for reducing emissions. 

On a related note, weren't there Congressional hearings where the people pushing for EV's had to answer for there not being enough kilowatts or what have you in the power grid infrastructure to support all those EV's they've been pushing for?  And they agreed that there were not?

And as far as industry goes, why shut it down in the US only to have to import those resources from abroad and become energy dependent?  Because that's what they're doing...

I'm a tree hugger too, and against dumping chemicals in the water table, but I am against making us dependent on having to import energy from abroad.  When Biden shut down that pipeline in 2020, not only did tens of thousands of Americans lose their jobs, but so did thousands of Canadians.  To what end?  I can't believe Trudeau still talks to him.  But I don't think Trudeau even cares.  Just look at the aerial time lapse of the Canadian wild fires all starting simultaneously hundreds of miles apart.  The day that they hit NYC on Clean Air Day, his solution was to raise taxes in Canada while legislators were choking on fumes, and to push Climate Change efforts.  Someone here posted something about a boogeyman in that other thread, but Trudeau's answer for a clear case of unprecedented massive arson and/or at the least forest mismanagement was the boogeyman of Climate Change.

People see this...we are the only ones that read these threads and maybe a dozen or so more web surfers, but people as a whole see this hypocrisy or whatever it would otherwise be called.

This has become a religion in and of itself.  Even that British economist guy or whatever at that symposium gave a talk and pointed out that the threat of ice caps melting and coastal cities getting flooded out was a lie because banks wouldn't dare loan money for 20 and 30 year mortgages and construction loans in those regions.   And what do we see in SoFla and Manhattan?  More $$$billion dollar developments than anyone has ever seen, not to mention the Chinese coastal mega cities like Hong Kong, Kowloon, etc.  

1) Global warming is not nor was it ever an agenda. It was and is a dire warning and a clarion call to act before it's too late.

2) The term climate change did not replace global warming as a marketing gimmick. Scientists applied the term "global warming" to refer to an increase in the AVERAGE global temperature. But it became apparent that too many people could not grasp the concept of averaging and because every time it got extremely cold somewhere in the winter, climate deniers would use it as an excuse to deny global warming is happening. Climate change is just a more ACCURATE and easier to understand description. 

3) The media, on issues involving science, goes with what the vast majority of actual, legitimate scientists say.

Like climate change for instance.  https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

On issues involving the law, they go with what the vast majority of legitimate legal experts say. Like with Trump's crimes and lies, for instance.

On issues of culture, race and gender, they go with what their commercial sponsors who spend big money on ads, tell them to. 

4) It is obvious that the more forests that exist, the greater the chances for forest fires becomes. In order to prevent these fires, requires maintenance in the form of keeping underbrush cleared. This is hugely expensive. Tree planting programs are good, but should be realistic in scope, mostly urban and suburban centered, and should NOT be cynically used as an excuse to keep from moving away from dirty, polluting fuel sources.  

5) The US has been energy independent for several years now since we increased natural gas production. We do not rely on other countries for our energy needs any more than they rely on us. Oil is a worldwide commodity and our domestically produced oil gets sold on the world market just like with all other oil producing countries. American oil companies do not and will not keep every barrel of oil they produce here at home just so they can lose money by selling it cheap enough to keep gas prices low to make us happy. 

6) The oil pipeline shut down did not cost "tens of thousands" of jobs. What kind of jobs do you think are required to keep liquid running through a giant metal pipe? Certainly there are maintenance jobs for the pumping equipment and repairs to the pipe, but not tens of thousands. That is just a gross exaggeration created for political purposes. 

7) Banks loan money for construction projects based on the odds of getting their money back with interest, not whether or not the sea level may rise decades from now, by which time they'll have gotten their money back anyway. Totally irrelevant. 

[jrs2]

22 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

1) Global warming is not nor was it ever an agenda. It was and is a dire warning and a clarion call to act before it's too late.

2) The term climate change did not replace global warming as a marketing gimmick. Scientists applied the term "global warming" to refer to an increase in the AVERAGE global temperature. But it became apparent that too many people could not grasp the concept of averaging and because every time it got extremely cold somewhere in the winter, climate deniers would use it as an excuse to deny global warming is happening. Climate change is just a more ACCURATE and easier to understand description. 

3) The media, on issues involving science, goes with what the vast majority of actual, legitimate scientists say.

Like climate change for instance.  https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

On issues involving the law, they go with what the vast majority of legitimate legal experts say. Like with Trump's crimes and lies, for instance.

On issues of culture, race and gender, they go with what their commercial sponsors who spend big money on ads, tell them to. 

4) It is obvious that the more forests that exist, the greater the chances for forest fires becomes. In order to prevent these fires, requires maintenance in the form of keeping underbrush cleared. This is hugely expensive. Tree planting programs are good, but should be realistic in scope, mostly urban and suburban centered, and should NOT be cynically used as an excuse to keep from moving away from dirty, polluting fuel sources.  

5) The US has been energy independent for several years now since we increased natural gas production. We do not rely on other countries for our energy needs any more than they rely on us. Oil is a worldwide commodity and our domestically produced oil gets sold on the world market just like with all other oil producing countries. American oil companies do not and will not keep every barrel of oil they produce here at home just so they can lose money by selling it cheap enough to keep gas prices low to make us happy. 

6) The oil pipeline shut down did not cost "tens of thousands" of jobs. What kind of jobs do you think are required to keep liquid running through a giant metal pipe? Certainly there are maintenance jobs for the pumping equipment and repairs to the pipe, but not tens of thousands. That is just a gross exaggeration created for political purposes. 

7) Banks loan money for construction projects based on the odds of getting their money back with interest, not whether or not the sea level may rise decades from now, by which time they'll have gotten their money back anyway. Totally irrelevant. 

well my point about the banks issue was that how many times have they said the sea level would rise "in ten years?"  Just go to Miami and check the water level at the mouth of the Miami River.  Also see Chicago, Manhattan, Toronto, etc. 

Trees: when was the last time there were buku fires in CFLA because of underbrush, etc.?  1998?  Twenty five years ago.  Lightning strikes will melt anything even in the cold, but you don't see Hillsborough on fire all the time.

Look, my point about Global Warming isn't to toot Trump's horn.  F*ck Him; I don't own stock in his enterprises.  I saw this long before he threw his hat into the ring.  And I'm not pointing fingers at voters here either.  Even the liberal media ridiculed Al Gore the first few years of his campaigning for this until it got major traction with the MSM and Fed.  Now, it's like speaking up against The Caesar.  I blame both parties.  And I say its a deception because the Fed gives money to scientists to come up with a "report" that supports their agenda so that people can point to it in the argument.  And as you stated...only a vast majority; it should be unanimous if true...  The sky is either blue or it isn't.  And I see this just like the culture, race, and gender example you gave.  

If you received a government grant to come up with a report, wouldn't you write it with the outcome they wanted?  Sure you would.  They say lawyers are liars.  Why?  Because lawyers can argue both sides of an issue as though the side they're arguing for was the truth, and they advocate for the side that's paying them.  So, what makes a so called "scientist" any more objectively reliable when they rely on government grants to make a living?  No one ever asks that question.  God forbid someone question a "scientist."

OMG, I almost forgot about this:  I had The Dean of my college tell me to go back and come up with a new conclusion for my thesis otherwise he wouldn't pass me- and it was about money that the host U would have to spend on the subject matter of my thesis when they had "all these other expenses" to consider.  It was just a thesis; not a policy in the accounting office of the school.  My Chairman was flabbergasted but powerless to say anything.  That cost me seven months of my life.  Whether it's that carrot or money, tell me they don't influence conclusions of reports or studies when it doesn't suit them; all of them can be manipulated; I experienced it first hand.  I manipulated my results just to pass and get that piece of paper.  So, that dean could then take my study and rely on it to shoot down someone else's similar stance and say "Oh, it's not economically feasible; one of our students already did a cost analysis on that just recently.  Here, look."

[orange87]

8 hours ago, jrs2 said:

Whether Democrat or Republican, a trillion trees replanting plan should've been pushed for over the past few decades by BOTH parties.  If it wasn't being pushed by Dems while they  instead chose to push for Teslas with Chinese batteries or solar panels from Chinese companies while capping natural resources domestically, then shame on them.  It was never a denial of Climate Change...it was a denial of the religious zealotry and political posturing of the Global Warming movement, the shaming of our way of life in favor of energy sources and technologies from OTHER countries, like China, that made the US energy dependent and which weakened the US Dollar.  I assume you use US currency to eat, right, and not Republic Credits?

Slowing/stopping/reversing climate change requires big changes across the board. The only reason the GOP is proposing planting a trillion trees isn't because they've finally "seen the light." It's because they want it to be an alternative to cutting CO2 emissions. That alone won't solve the problem, but I suppose it could be one of many things that need to take place.

9 hours ago, jrs2 said:

And you still haven't answered a question I posed a couple years ago.. WTF is the deal with the chemtrails that extend horizon to horizon that spread out and create a haze in the sky?  Unlike a jet trail from a passenger jet that is either invisible or extends maybe 1/2 to 1 mile behind a passenger jet depending on altitude.  On some days the sky is crisscrossed with them.  What of it and why is that being ignored yet the political figerpointing continues on car exhaust when you sometimes can't see the Sun because of those?

Why am I not surprised you believe in chemtrails?

9 hours ago, jrs2 said:

And, I haven't heard a peep from you about the Canadian forest fires in the past month.  Afraid to criticize a fellow SJW that did more damage to our environment in one month then all US industry has in the past twenty years? Let's keep it real.

I have mentioned it before, but what point are you trying to make? You're not suggesting that the forest fires were set intentionally by "my fellow SJW," are you?

[jrs2]

6 hours ago, orange87 said:

Slowing/stopping/reversing climate change requires big changes across the board. The only reason the GOP is proposing planting a trillion trees isn't because they've finally "seen the light." It's because they want it to be an alternative to cutting CO2 emissions. That alone won't solve the problem, but I suppose it could be one of many things that need to take place.

Why am I not surprised you believe in chemtrails?

I have mentioned it before, but what point are you trying to make? You're not suggesting that the forest fires were set intentionally by "my fellow SJW," are you?

The point I'm trying to make about Canada is the point I already made.  It's the "my sh!t don't stick" point.  You guys criticize DeSantis calling him DeSanctimonious, but Trudeau's got him beat by a parsec; but he's a Socialist, so he's a good guy, right?   I still cannot believe the bit about the dangers of planting more trees because of the possibility of potential forest fires, so let's shut down factories instead to push our agenda.   Who cares if the GOP proposed the trees because they were against lessening big industry CO2 emissions?  Since when is it a sin to have big industry in the US?  Why, because the Democrats said so? Because CNN said so? I don't think so. You guys are too quick to support tanking the US economy and US jobs all in the name of going green.  You guys are so fixated on Trump and DeSantis that you can't be objective.  All they have to say is "Trump's against it" and you guys double down, no matter what the issue or how ludicrous. 

[JFW657]

34 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

The point I'm trying to make about Canada is the point I already made.  It's the "my sh!t don't stick" point.  You guys criticize DeSantis calling him DeSanctimonious, but Trudeau's got him beat by a parsec; but he's a Socialist, so he's a good guy, right?   I still cannot believe the bit about the dangers of planting more trees because of the possibility of potential forest fires, so let's shut down factories instead to push our agenda.   Who cares if the GOP proposed the trees because they were against lessening big industry CO2 emissions?  Since when is it a sin to have big industry in the US?  Why, because the Democrats said so? Because CNN said so? I don't think so. You guys are too quick to support tanking the US economy and US jobs all in the name of going green.  You guys are so fixated on Trump and DeSantis that you can't be objective.  All they have to say is "Trump's against it" and you guys double down, no matter what the issue or how ludicrous. 

Bold text = exaggeration, hyperbole and misrepresentation ^^^.    

[jrs2]

9 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Bold text = exaggeration, hyperbole and misrepresentation ^^^.    

...maybe just a little...

[orange87]

Trump's legal problems are piling up and so are his legal bills. He's running out of money.

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/us/politics/donald-trump-legal-bills-campaign.html

[orange87]

Hopefully we get Trump's mugshot tomorrow. lol

[JFW657]

The two nuts in the lower right hand corner are happy about it. 

Shows just how far over the edge Trumpers are.   

[jack]

59 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

The two nuts in the lower right hand corner are happy about it. 

Shows just how far over the edge Trumpers are.   

Some of them look like normal people that just took the grifting too far. Some of them (the Kraken lady) have crazy eyes. Lifeless eyes, black eyes. Like a dolls eyes. 

[aent]

15 hours ago, orange87 said:

Hopefully we get Trump's mugshot tomorrow. lol

 

Hopefully we can get Joe Biden's mugshot as well.

[jrs2]

57 minutes ago, jack said:

Some of them look like normal people that just took the grifting too far. Some of them (the Kraken lady) have crazy eyes. Lifeless eyes, black eyes. Like a dolls eyes. 

oh, hell no!  Ain't no way I'd let that brilliant reference pass without me some Quint!

[FLheat]

I can't wait to see Trump's height confirmed at 6'3" and weight of 239 lbs. But visually I'm gonna put it at 6'1 and 278.

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, aent said:

Hopefully we can get Joe Biden's mugshot as well.

If we ever find out that conclusive evidence has been uncovered which indicates Joe Biden engaged in some criminal activity for which he should be arrested, fingerprinted and his mug shot taken, I'm certain we will.

But until then, hoping to see it is just sour grapes from Trump's fan club.  

Because as of yet, no such conclusive evidence exists.