Comments
23,801 - 23,820 of 30,543 Comments Last updated 5 hrs ago
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#26244 Mar 1, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
water over flows genius......problem with your failed experiment is it is fantasy.
do you put a glacier in the ocean to raise water levels, or is the glacier already there displacing water?
you libs are a hoot when screaming I am stupider than a 3rd grader.
just like your failed POTUS that lowered taxes for new manufacturing hubs in Chicago & Detroit. He acknowledges his failed policies have hurt business.
Since lowering taxes is proven to promote economic activity, why did the racist in office only promote economic activity with African Americans in 2 cities, and not grow the entire countries jobs with lowering the 35% corporate tax?
It is truly an amazing feat to me more stupid than the average science denier. Well done, Walter.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#26245 Mar 1, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
It is truly an amazing feat to me more stupid than the average science denier. Well done, Walter.
did you re-define the word scientific?

since when is science in just a few years able to predict weather, but can't find a cure for colds or virus?

is weather easier?

since your science has studied 50 years out of a billion, they know everything about everyday that earth has lived.

your arrogant scientists think they can control weather.

they must have stolen Bush's hurricane machine, and have it stashed at Al Gores mansion.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#26248 Mar 1, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
Rule #1:
When a Republican is in the Oval office, we spend like drunk sailors on shore leave.Tax cuts! Unfunded, off budget wars of choice! Bloated new bureaucracies! Expensive new entitlements structured to give money away to favored donors.
Rule #2:
When a Democrat is in the Oval office,it's time for super duper austerity. All poor people are lazy, worthless freeloaders and mooches who don't deserve any help from the government. All rich people are noble and selfless job creators, even when they're not, so we need to coddle them with tax cuts
What's even funnier:
Owsley County, Kentucky
Is 99.22% white
Is 95% Republican
It has the highest usage of SNAP benefits in the USA.
Again you change the subject which was basically 'word twisting propaganda' by certain politicians but I'll address your new subject.
I agree that Booneville/Owsley county is a big plump pimple. I have been thru there several times. The courthouse & clerk's office would fit into 2 dbl wide trailers. That is mainly a states issue, NOT federal.
They are in the coal belt which Obama is destroying so that it can be said that their problems are partly rooted in DC.
Owsley Co has 52.08% SNAP recipients, Wade Hampton has 54.13%, Todd Co SD has 55.08% & Shannon Co SD has 59.33%
That being said....with the current office holders in Washington the national debt has gone from about 9.9T to over 16T !! It's not unlike a huge Ponzi scheme that the private citizen would be imprisoned for.
Their unemployment still is over 10% which Obama PROMISED to bring down in BOTH campaigns. He also professes that minimum wage should increase to over $10 an hr. Want to guess how many more jobs will go overseas? The bipartisan CBO says over 5,000,000 job losses over time.
Not only has the number of SNAP beneficiaries increased, but the average payout has gone up 30% per each while SS recipients payouts have gone up only 1.3% per each recipient ! Don't both segments of our society buy groceries? Why the Strange disparity?
IF jobs/employment would be seriously addressed, Social program rolls would shrink meaning several things. Gov payouts would decrease dramatically, tax receipts would increase just as dramatically, more employed people means MORE buying power which also means more people working to produce those goods IF those goods are produced HERE & NOT overseas.
.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#26249 Mar 1, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
did you re-define the word scientific?
since when is science in just a few years able to predict weather, but can't find a cure for colds or virus?
is weather easier?
since your science has studied 50 years out of a billion, they know everything about everyday that earth has lived.
your arrogant scientists think they can control weather.
they must have stolen Bush's hurricane machine, and have it stashed at Al Gores mansion.
I was referring to your insistence that glaciers float in the ocean.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#26250 Mar 1, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why they went to Climate Change instead of Global Warming. After it was discovered that the earth was no longer heating, they had to do something. So they changed it to Climate Change because the climate has been changing since God put the earth here. They know the climate will never stop changing so now they are saying that climate changing is not natural. Man is causing the climate to change.
A large part of the problem is that certain types of people are incapable of thinking beyond the simple name used to refer to complicated processes.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#26251 Mar 1, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
your arrogant scientists think they can control weather.
they must have stolen Bush's hurricane machine, and have it stashed at Al Gores mansion.
It's in the lock box.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#26252 Mar 1, 2014
joanna50 wrote:
<quoted text>The ice is melting, their habitat is on ice, no ice where do they go they migrate to another food source. Bears can swim so no chance of them drowning.
The WWF's own data says that there is insifficient data to make any claim of polar bear increases or decreases or what a substainable population is for any part of their historic habitat.
They list 19 regions of the world for polar bears. with the weak non-long term data saying that bears are increasing in 6 regions, stable in 2 regions, declining in 5 regions & that data is 'deficient' in the remaining 6 regions.
The animal is so widespread in such an extreme weather condition part of the world that the numbers might never get clearly compiled.

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#26254 Mar 1, 2014
So I suppose Chinas pollution problem, spilled oil in the ocean and rivers, Trees being cut down so now there is hardly any forests left, all of this and many more is conducive to a good environment. Globa warming, climate change whatever word you want to use doesn't make it any less real and a serious issue, Jesus Christ a blind man can see that but keep drinking the koolaid.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#26255 Mar 1, 2014
Canton wrote:
So at what point do the record breaking storms, record breaking high temps, record breaking flooding, record breaking low temps, record breaking droughts... equate to you that our climate is changing?
You probably haven't picked up on this yet, but the libs had to change the name from "global warming" to "climate change", because the earth failed to burn up on schedule. So now, any and every weather occurrence is attributed to "climate change", whether it's low temps, high temps, rain, drought, hurricanes, flooding, etc., and of course, it's all caused by man.(There's no proof of that, but libs don't need proof when they're pushing an agenda (i.e. "abortion" and "evolution".)) They just need lots of lies, propaganda, and stupid drones.

Keep drinking your Super Big Gulp, Chicken Little.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#26256 Mar 1, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Complicated processes? There is nothing complicated about it. Go outside and see for yourself.
Every time it gets warmer than usual--Climate Change. When it gets cooler out than normal--Climate Change. When there are hurricanes--Climate Change. When there are droughts or floods--Climate Change. When there are fires--Climate Change. When there are tornados--Climate Change.
You people act like these events are nothing we've ever seen before. So the question is, when is it not climate change?
You've proven my point. Understanding takes more than looking outside. You will never, ever understand because looking outside is all you are capable of doing.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#26258 Mar 1, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> The WWF's own data says that there is insifficient data to make any claim of polar bear increases or decreases or what a substainable population is for any part of their historic habitat.
They list 19 regions of the world for polar bears. with the weak non-long term data saying that bears are increasing in 6 regions, stable in 2 regions, declining in 5 regions & that data is 'deficient' in the remaining 6 regions.
The animal is so widespread in such an extreme weather condition part of the world that the numbers might never get clearly compiled.
Pops, it's always a good thing to include a link to your references. It helps others see the information in context, and verifies the correctness of what you report.

Like this:

"The total polar bear population is divided into 19 units or subpopulations. Of those, the latest data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group show that 8 subpopulations are in decline and there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change.

Because of ongoing and potential loss of their sea ice habitat resulting from climate change, polar bears were listed as a threatened species in the U.S., across their range, under the Endangered Species Act in May 2008."

"WWF advocates directly for governments to recognize and mitigate the effects of climate change on polar bears. At polar bear range states meetings, WWF has successfully pushed for a statement formally recognizing the urgent need for an effective global response that will address the challenges of climate change. WWF has also successfully advocated for the creation of an international polar bear management plan."

http://worldwildlife.org/species/polar-bear
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#26259 Mar 1, 2014
The scientists who caused the massive "polar-bears-are-drowning -because-of-global-warming " hysteria, were reprimanded in 2011, and forced to retire early.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2014/01/scienti...

Didn't the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore, use that bit about the polar bears in his "documentary"? Maybe the inconvenient truth was that the polar bears are actually alive and well.

Lying about polar bears, lying about data, suppressing dissenting reports from EPA scientists, pressuring the IPCC to skew the results of their testing ... this is what the left offers us as proof of their theory. Food for thought: If man-made climate change were real, would they need to lie about it?

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#26260 Mar 1, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Well every time a corporation has had enough to move out of this country to places like China, they only pollute more there than they did over here. So what was solved? Because you don't see it anymore?
There is nothing wrong with clean water, air and so on. But it has to be limited. It can't take every last dollar floating around in the United States. And since even Global Warming scientists admit there is nothing we could ever do about climate change, why keep dumping money into it?
This planet was designed by God for the occupation of humans and animals. Humans and animals emit dirt and pollutants. There is no way around that. Even if we stopped all transportation, how much global warming gasses would be emitted by the millions of horses we would need for transportation? If we stopped using all gasses like natural gas or propane to heat our homes, how much pollution would that cause in people burning wood fires to cook and stay warm? Since we would no longer have garbage trucks to haul our rubbish away, we would all have to burn that as well.
I disagree there are things that can be done and it can help probably wont stop but it can slow the process down. How can you put a limit on things that are necessary for life, water and air, we pretty much need those to ensure our survival. Just out of curiosity how do you know the reason this planet was designed for, I don't think God intended us to ravage it like a bunch of drunken heathens,It is never to late for change.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#26261 Mar 1, 2014
mutt wrote:
The scientists who caused the massive "polar-bears-are-drowning -because-of-global-warming " hysteria, were reprimanded in 2011, and forced to retire early.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2014/01/scienti...
"The agency, BOEM, ultimately found no evidence of scientific misconduct but reprimanded Monnett for improper release of emails that an Interior Department official said were cited by a federal appeals court in decisions to vacate agency approval of an oil and gas company's Arctic exploration plan.

While Monnett returned to work, his prior research portfolio, which was focused on Arctic issues, had been reassigned, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which helped Monnett with his case. Monnett filed a complaint, seeking to have the reprimand rescinded, to have his name restored to an award for a bowhead whale tracking project and the ability to transfer jobs, a request that the complaint said had not been granted.

Under the settlement, signed in October but released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility on Wednesday, Monnett will receive $100,000 but cannot seek Interior Department work for five years. His retirement was effective 15 November, at which point the agency agreed to withdraw the letter of reprimand and issue Monnett a certificate for his work on the tracking project."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/d...

So, no scientific misconduct, his reprimand was rescinded, and he got $100,000.
mutt

Van Wert, OH

#26263 Mar 1, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
So God expected us to sit in our caves or huts freezing our buns off and not transport anything? If so, why did God provide us these blessings to stay alive and comfortable?
How can I put a limit on things? Well it goes back to xxxrayteds rule I've been saying all along: you can't make an environmentalist happy, it just isn't possible. We've been trying to do it most of my life, and they still aren't happy. In fact, in spite of the trillions we contributed to clean up the environment, they are more miserable now than ever.
If I were the President of the United States, I would have a law that all products we purchase must include a "green" cost. Because let's face it, every single thing we buy has some sort of intrinsic green cost in it that manufacturers had to include in the price of that product. So why not list list it?
If you buy a car for $27,000, the sales contract has to show that $8,000 are in that vehicle because of environmental costs. If you buy gasoline, the price on the pump must include what it took to produce that gasoline under environmental regulations. So if you pay $3.60 per gallon, it must show that $1.34 is for green costs alone. If your electric bill is $65.00, it must show that $34.00 is the cost that it took to produce that energy under EPA standards. Every product must display the green costs.
If Americans could understand even the slightest on how much this Green Movement is actually costing us, you wouldn't have nearly as much support for it as you do today. The problem is we are paying thousands every year for this cause and we don't even know what it actually costs us in dollars and cents. We should know.
You're right. We should deregulate EVERYTHING so those poor old big businesses are free to poison our water, air, and soil without any pesky consequences. Screw the environment, and to Hell with future generations, we need to make as much money as possible RIGHT NOW!
That's the way God would want it. Amen...

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#26264 Mar 1, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
So God expected us to sit in our caves or huts freezing our buns off and not transport anything? If so, why did God provide us these blessings to stay alive and comfortable?
How can I put a limit on things? Well it goes back to xxxrayteds rule I've been saying all along: you can't make an environmentalist happy, it just isn't possible. We've been trying to do it most of my life, and they still aren't happy. In fact, in spite of the trillions we contributed to clean up the environment, they are more miserable now than ever.
If I were the President of the United States, I would have a law that all products we purchase must include a "green" cost. Because let's face it, every single thing we buy has some sort of intrinsic green cost in it that manufacturers had to include in the price of that product. So why not list list it?
If you buy a car for $27,000, the sales contract has to show that $8,000 are in that vehicle because of environmental costs. If you buy gasoline, the price on the pump must include what it took to produce that gasoline under environmental regulations. So if you pay $3.60 per gallon, it must show that $1.34 is for green costs alone. If your electric bill is $65.00, it must show that $34.00 is the cost that it took to produce that energy under EPA standards. Every product must display the green costs.
If Americans could understand even the slightest on how much this Green Movement is actually costing us, you wouldn't have nearly as much support for it as you do today. The problem is we are paying thousands every year for this cause and we don't even know what it actually costs us in dollars and cents. We should know.
God gave us intellect but also the free will to be responsible. Im not saying that the green movement is entirely responsible for using the allotted funds in the way they are supposed to be used either considering its coming from the government its probably a sham anyway, personal responsibility is the key.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#26266 Mar 1, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm talking about the money we spend on products every single day, not the government. That's an entirely different thing.
On a personal note, I'm a truck driver and I see the expense with green that goes on in my field of work alone. Today, it costs 8 to 10 thousand more for a truck because of all the pollution crap needed to manufacture that truck legally. Who pays for that? My employer passes that cost to our customers.
Then they came out with Diesel Emission Fluid a few years back. It's a separate container that squirts this fluid into the exhaust pipe supposedly making it burn cleaner. Who pays for that? About seven or eight years ago, the EPA forced the makers of diesel fuel to produce fuel with much lower sulfur content. Since that time, diesel fuel exceeded the price of gasoline sometimes a dollar per gallon more. Who pays for that? Now because we have all this pollution crap in these trucks, most of the breakdowns are related to some sort of pollution gadget, and that gadget has to be repaired. Who pays for that?
We in the transportation industry are one very small slice of this green pie. But all these costs our company incurs has to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is eventually the consumer. You and I pay for it. We just don't see it. And every single time somebody comes out with a new green idea, we will pay even more. So the question I have is, when will we be paying enough? 30% of our net pay? 55% of our net pay? 70% of our net pay? What?
Hmm:

www.todaystrucking.com/new-truck-fuel-savings...

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#26267 Mar 1, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm talking about the money we spend on products every single day, not the government. That's an entirely different thing.
On a personal note, I'm a truck driver and I see the expense with green that goes on in my field of work alone. Today, it costs 8 to 10 thousand more for a truck because of all the pollution crap needed to manufacture that truck legally. Who pays for that? My employer passes that cost to our customers.
Then they came out with Diesel Emission Fluid a few years back. It's a separate container that squirts this fluid into the exhaust pipe supposedly making it burn cleaner. Who pays for that? About seven or eight years ago, the EPA forced the makers of diesel fuel to produce fuel with much lower sulfur content. Since that time, diesel fuel exceeded the price of gasoline sometimes a dollar per gallon more. Who pays for that? Now because we have all this pollution crap in these trucks, most of the breakdowns are related to some sort of pollution gadget, and that gadget has to be repaired. Who pays for that?
We in the transportation industry are one very small slice of this green pie. But all these costs our company incurs has to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is eventually the consumer. You and I pay for it. We just don't see it. And every single time somebody comes out with a new green idea, we will pay even more. So the question I have is, when will we be paying enough? 30% of our net pay? 55% of our net pay? 70% of our net pay? What?
Those are regulations placed on your profession by the government not your employer or yourself. Its a different story if you buy household cleaners that are supposedly green or lightbulbs that use less energy. As a truck driver you are paying a lot in order to ensure your employment does it honestly make a difference?.
Canton

Canton, OH

#26268 Mar 1, 2014
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
the climate is changing, and will continue to do so, just like it did in history.
are you that arrogant you think you can control weather?
did George Bush loan you his hurricane guidance system?
Are you so stupid that you haven't realized you are on your knees with a big Koch in your mouth?
Canton

Canton, OH

#26269 Mar 1, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
You probably haven't picked up on this yet, but the libs had to change the name from "global warming" to "climate change", because the earth failed to burn up on schedule. So now, any and every weather occurrence is attributed to "climate change", whether it's low temps, high temps, rain, drought, hurricanes, flooding, etc., and of course, it's all caused by man.(There's no proof of that, but libs don't need proof when they're pushing an agenda (i.e. "abortion" and "evolution".)) They just need lots of lies, propaganda, and stupid drones.
Keep drinking your Super Big Gulp, Chicken Little.
But all the chicken littles are in their Doomsday Bible bunkers waiting for Jesus to come back.
Besides, I'll stick with the experts who accurately predicted the HOTTEST DECADE IN RECORDED HISTORY over a Bible thumping moron like you, any day. You guys already had your big day in the sun, lil' poochie. The thinking folks are still digging America out of it. That big gulp you keep hearing is all the idiots like yourself, sucking on that oil industry Koch. Look at you guys go! So enthusiastic. It all really boils down to you and yours not being able to admit that you were wrong on just about everything you believed in. Real Americans realized that two election ago. How'd that work out for ya, lil' trooper?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 4 min rename 53,397
Kansas Voting Disqualification Amendment - Ment... (Oct '10) 10 min WE PORK HICKS 268
OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Questio... (Oct '10) 38 min Dix 75,188
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Limbertwig 151,299
Who do you support for Governor in Tennessee in... (Oct '10) 1 hr WTSenior 145,944
Who do you support for Governor in Texas in 2010? (Oct '10) 3 hr fubar 17,890
Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Car... (Oct '10) 3 hr Ben 58,935
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••