Random Political Thoughts

[mikuthing01]

KANGZ bully French/Japanese girl


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU2Zbs4-S7U

[theONE]

KANGZ bully French/Japanese girl


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU2Zbs4-S7U

She was very cute and polite and fun.
Why niggers are so brain=dead,how come it's OK for them to use word nigger but for everybody else is not,?
This is one of the biggest social bullshits that was ever conceived.

Same as word 'fuck'.
In the long past this was a totally proper,medical terminology describing sexual intercourse,..but somehow it become a swear word.
Word, 'lady'. Today it describes whatever it describes, but in the long past on the King's Palace there were big kitchens preparing food for
all those who lived there, and they had of course bakeries, they had women there who's only job was kneading dough for the bread
and they were called ...ladies. Go figure.
Of course there is a explanation for that, because kneading bread was given only to those women that could be trusted not to spit into the dough
or not to grab their pussies making their fingers wet with pussy jello and kneading bread with those slippery fingers

So language changes of course, but how come blacks can call themselves 'niggers' and whites are not allowed, that shows me a stupidity
and intellectual retardation and almost self hate,self degradation on part of blacks.
And their reasoning that they are doing it [using word nigger on each other] in a friendly loving way is pure of bullshit, piece of turd if you will.
But FUCK them if they are so stupid and irrational let them crawl on all fours till they realize that they are practising intellectual retardation. 


Clint Eastwood: ''I Just Hate Niggers ''

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1w29SpEVTY

[attachment deleted by admin]

[mikuthing01]

LIVE! MILO at University of Alabama: Obama Just Handed The Internet Over To Monsters


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tiOd2F4TzA

[Gruntled]

She was very cute and polite and fun.
Why niggers are so brain=dead,how come it's OK for them to use word nigger but for everybody else is not,?
This is one of the biggest social bullshits that was ever conceived.

Same as word 'fuck'.
In the long past this was a totally proper,medical terminology describing sexual intercourse,..but somehow it become a swear word.
Word, 'lady'. Today it describes whatever it describes, but in the long past on the King's Palace there were big kitchens preparing food for
all those who lived there, and they had of course bakeries, they had women there who's only job was kneading dough for the bread
and they were called ...ladies. Go figure.
Of course there is a explanation for that, because kneading bread was given only to those women that could be trusted not to spit into the dough
or not to grab their pussies making their fingers wet with pussy jello and kneading bread with those slippery fingers

So language changes of course, but how come blacks can call themselves 'niggers' and whites are not allowed, that shows me a stupidity
and intellectual retardation and almost self hate,self degradation on part of blacks.
And their reasoning that they are doing it [using word nigger on each other] in a friendly loving way is pure of bullshit, piece of turd if you will.
But FUCK them if they are so stupid and irrational let them crawl on all fours till they realize that they are practising intellectual retardation. 


Clint Eastwood: ''I Just Hate Niggers ''

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1w29SpEVTY

I'm not sure what to make of this.

[FightTheFuture]

I'm not sure what to make of this.

Um, well, it`s a movie??

[FightTheFuture]

KANGZ bully French/Japanese girl


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU2Zbs4-S7U

Whatever lol.

[Richard Groyper]

"Muslims dindu nuffin in German" -Imam Merkel

[mikuthing01]

ITS HAPPENING!!!!! Nuclear war 'IMMINENT' as Russia tells citizens to find out where the closest bunkers are.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/721008/Russia-America-nuclear-war-Putin-Obama-bunker-fallout-shelter-Syria-Bashar-al-Assad

http://beforeitsnews.com/self-sufficiency/2016/10/air-raid-sirens-in-san-diego-and-tacoma-fighter-jets-seen-scrambling-reports-of-explosion-sounds-2510880.html

[21st Century Man]

Hurrican Matthew: Disappointment to global warming activists?

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/are-global-warming-alarmists-disappointed-hurricane-matthew-wasnt-worse/

[onan]

Hurrican Matthew: Disappointment to global warming activists?

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/are-global-warming-alarmists-disappointed-hurricane-matthew-wasnt-worse/

Here is a much more reasoned and less inflammatory take on the subject:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hurricane-matthew-climate-change-20161007-snap-htmlstory.html

[21st Century Man]

Here is a much more reasoned and less inflammatory take on the subject:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hurricane-matthew-climate-change-20161007-snap-htmlstory.html

From the article:

The global sea level average has risen by about 6 inches over the last century. A hurricane can do its damage in a matter of hours. But the combination of the relatively slow rise in sea level with the fierce slam of a storm can be devastating.

How do we know that the global sea level average has risen by 6 inches?  Did we take measurements at the same locations in 1916 and 2016?  I want to know how they come up with their statistics.

[Kidnostad3]

"Muslims dindu nuffin in German" -Imam Merkel

Yeah but they commit crimes against infidels so it's okay.

[Kidnostad3]

I have come to the conclusion that there can be no good outcome to this election.  Given all that has been revealed about Hilliary, and Donald's tendency to make thoughtless, bonehead statements with amazing regularity, whoever take's office will have been so badly mauled and battered by their respective critics I question wether either will be able to govern effectively.  The fallout from this election will be heavy and lasting.

Hilliary will never be fully trusted even by her supporters and you can be sure that her detractors will use her demonstrated dishonesty and duplicity to question and undermine her legislative agenda. You can also be sure that our international foe will run the video of her buckling at the knees like she'd been pole-axed and her being flopped into a limousine like a dead game fish relentlessly.

Donald will continue to be Donald and will, through his inarticulate and/or impulsive utterances, continue to give the opposition plenty of opportunity to heap on scorn and ridicule and with the enthusiastic support of a leftist MSM will succeed in making him look like a dope.  In addition, even if he survives getting cut off at knees by the republican establishment he will never garner its favor making successful implementation of the changes he as in mind a long shot.

I could  not in conscience vote for Hillary, yet as hard as I've tried to get fully on board wth Trump I, like many other conservatives, still have to preface anything I say about my intention to vote republican with something like, "I'm no fan of Donald Trump but......"  In reality we're forced to choose the least onerous of the two or not vote at all.  This is the choice that our two-party political system has given us.  Something has to change but nothing will unless this ridiculous election season produces a grass roots, massively popular third party movement.

[onan]

From the article:

The global sea level average has risen by about 6 inches over the last century. A hurricane can do its damage in a matter of hours. But the combination of the relatively slow rise in sea level with the fierce slam of a storm can be devastating.

How do we know that the global sea level average has risen by 6 inches?  Did we take measurements at the same locations in 1916 and 2016?  I want to know how they come up with their statistics.

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).

[theONE]

All that matters not really.

Last time God took care / cleansed the Earth with flood.
This time it's said He will do it with fire ... so ...

[attachment deleted by admin]

[onan]

All that matters not really.

Last time God took care / cleansed the Earth with flood.
This time it's said He will do it with fire ... so ...

Sorry, but the easter bunny is in charge of the environment. God died.

[theONE]

Sorry, but the easter bunny is in charge of the environment. God died.

We'll We will see about that ...

[onan]

We'll We will see about that ...

That line is well over 2000 years old, nothing better?

[theONE]

That line is well over 2000 years old, nothing better?

soon = VERY SOON
don't you worry
there is time set for it,.. and We as humanity are at 11-th hour

[21st Century Man]

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).

Most of that data relies on recent innovations.  We did not have those technologies in 1916. Excuse me if I'm ignorant but in my eyes, it seems that we can not say for certain unless we were taking measurements at the time.  I'm extremely skeptical of climate science because it has been politicized to justify more taxes and increased restrictions on what we can do.  I'm not your typical insensitive right wing wingnut.  I believe in protecting the environment and keeping it clean from man's tendency to litter and spoil the landscape. I love nature and enjoy being out in it.  I'm very much a Teddy Roosevelt Republican in that sense.  I'm just extremely skeptical because the science has been politicized to such a degree.  There are plenty in the weather field who dispute this so-called science.  John Coleman and Joe Bastardi come to mind immediately but there are many others.

[onan]

Most of that data relies on recent innovations.  We did not have those technologies in 1916. Excuse me if I'm ignorant but in my eyes, it seems that we can not say for certain unless we were taking measurements at the time.  I'm extremely skeptical of climate science because it has been politicized to justify more taxes and increased restrictions on what we can do.  I'm not your typical insensitive right wing wingnut.  I believe in protecting the environment and keeping it clean from man's tendency to litter and spoil the landscape. I love nature and enjoy being out in it.  I'm very much a Teddy Roosevelt Republican in that sense.  I'm just extremely skeptical because the science has been politicized to such a degree.  There are plenty in the weather field who dispute this so-called science.  John Coleman and Joe Bastardi come to mind immediately but there are many others.

Here is my problem man, Science has been politicized but you have not. I get it, when information contradicts our belief systems, in general, we dig our heels in, I get it.

[theONE]

Most of that data relies on recent innovations.  We did not have those technologies in 1916. Excuse me if I'm ignorant but in my eyes, it seems that we can not say for certain unless we were taking measurements at the time.  I'm extremely skeptical of climate science because it has been politicized to justify more taxes and increased restrictions on what we can do.  I'm not your typical insensitive right wing wingnut.  I believe in protecting the environment and keeping it clean from man's tendency to litter and spoil the landscape. I love nature and enjoy being out in it.  I'm very much a Teddy Roosevelt Republican in that sense.  I'm just extremely skeptical because the science has been politicized to such a degree.  There are plenty in the weather field who dispute this so-called science.  John Coleman and Joe Bastardi come to mind immediately but there are many others.

ALL are very good and logical points

[Yorkshire pud]

Most of that data relies on recent innovations.  We did not have those technologies in 1916. Excuse me if I'm ignorant but in my eyes, it seems that we can not say for certain unless we were taking measurements at the time.  I'm extremely skeptical of climate science because it has been politicized to justify more taxes and increased restrictions on what we can do.  I'm not your typical insensitive right wing wingnut.  I believe in protecting the environment and keeping it clean from man's tendency to litter and spoil the landscape. I love nature and enjoy being out in it.  I'm very much a Teddy Roosevelt Republican in that sense.  I'm just extremely skeptical because the science has been politicized to such a degree.  There are plenty in the weather field who dispute this so-called science.  John Coleman and Joe Bastardi come to mind immediately but there are many others.

If science is politicised, then presumably ALL science falls into that category and none of it is to be trusted? Whether it involves weather, climate, engineering, medicine, botany, chemistry or physics? Yes?

[onan]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/03/weather-channel-founder-not-credible-on-global-warming

Coleman Denies Basic Climate Science

In his Fox News interview, Coleman said,

The Antarctic ice cap is at an all-time record high in both coverage and thickness, and the Arctic ice cap at the North Pole is at the highest it has been in several years. It’s in its so-called normal range since we got satellite observations that can measure it. So not only is the ice not melting, more polar bears are alive and happy today than in 100 years.

Each of these points is either wrong or misleading.

Although more Arctic sea ice survived this year than in the record-shattering melt of 2012, in 2014 the ice was nevertheless at its 6th-lowest level in thousands of years. About 70% of the sea ice in the Arctic has disappeared over the past three decades, mainly due to human-caused global warming. This rapid decline is well outside “the normal range” of Arctic sea ice extent and volume.




The Arctic has lost 10 times more sea ice than the Antarctic has gained, and resent research suggests the collapse of the land-based Antarctic ice sheet may already be inevitable.

Of the 12 polar bear populations for which we have sufficient observational data, 8 are declining and just 1 is increasing. There’s a myth that polar bear populations are thriving because they’ve grown since the 1970s. That growth has nothing to do with the climate â€" it was due to the introduction of the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973, which restricted and in some circumstances banned the hunting of polar bears, which had caused their populations to dwindle. Global warming â€" specifically the rapid decline in the Arctic sea ice they need to hunt â€" has caused polar bear populations to decline in recent years.

Coleman said,

Well there are 9,000 Ph.D.’s and 31 [thousand] scientists who have signed a petition that says that [carbon dioxide] is not a significant greenhouse gas

On both Fox and CNN Coleman referred to the discredited Oregon Petition, which can be signed by anyone with just about any college science degree, and which has included “signatures” from fictional characters and Spice Girls. In reality, 97% of climate science experts and their peer-reviewed research agree that human carbon dioxide emissions are driving global warming.

On CNN (which to its credit, established before the interview that there is a 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming and there aren’t two equal sides in this ‘debate’), Coleman went even further in denying basic science, saying,

[21st Century Man]

Here is my problem man, Science has been politicized but you have not. I get it, when information contradicts our belief systems, in general, we dig our heels in, I get it.

I guess we are all politicized to a certain degree.  The thing is if there was complete consensus on climate change, I'd fall right in line.  However, the climate science camp has divided itself along political lines.  You have scientists who are skeptics and scientists who aren't.  Give me an example of a scientist who is on the right who agrees with the so-called consensus on climate change and I might change my opinion.  I'm not talking about a moderate but someone completely right-wing.

[onan]

I guess we are all politicized to a certain degree.  The thing is if there was complete consensus on climate change, I'd fall right in line.  However, the climate science camp has divided itself along political lines.  You have scientists who are skeptics and scientists who aren't.  Give me an example of a scientist who is on the right who agrees with the so-called consensus on climate change and I might change my opinion.  I'm not talking about a moderate but someone completely right-wing.

read the post above your last

[21st Century Man]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/03/weather-channel-founder-not-credible-on-global-warming

Coleman Denies Basic Climate Science

In his Fox News interview, Coleman said,
Each of these points is either wrong or misleading.

Although more Arctic sea ice survived this year than in the record-shattering melt of 2012, in 2014 the ice was nevertheless at its 6th-lowest level in thousands of years. About 70% of the sea ice in the Arctic has disappeared over the past three decades, mainly due to human-caused global warming. This rapid decline is well outside “the normal range” of Arctic sea ice extent and volume.




The Arctic has lost 10 times more sea ice than the Antarctic has gained, and resent research suggests the collapse of the land-based Antarctic ice sheet may already be inevitable.

Of the 12 polar bear populations for which we have sufficient observational data, 8 are declining and just 1 is increasing. There’s a myth that polar bear populations are thriving because they’ve grown since the 1970s. That growth has nothing to do with the climate â€" it was due to the introduction of the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973, which restricted and in some circumstances banned the hunting of polar bears, which had caused their populations to dwindle. Global warming â€" specifically the rapid decline in the Arctic sea ice they need to hunt â€" has caused polar bear populations to decline in recent years.

Coleman said,
On both Fox and CNN Coleman referred to the discredited Oregon Petition, which can be signed by anyone with just about any college science degree, and which has included “signatures” from fictional characters and Spice Girls. In reality, 97% of climate science experts and their peer-reviewed research agree that human carbon dioxide emissions are driving global warming.

On CNN (which to its credit, established before the interview that there is a 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming and there aren’t two equal sides in this ‘debate’), Coleman went even further in denying basic science, saying,

This rapid decline is well outside “the normal range” of Arctic sea ice extent and volume.


And how do we determine the normal range of Arctic sea ice extent and volume?  Ice core samples I suppose.  In truth we only have 100 years worth of data on the Arctic.  Oh we can make general statements that the Arctic was much colder back in 1000 AD from ice core samples but beyond that I am skeptical about the precision of ice core samples.

And another point in the article, the Guardian affirms that polar bear populations are growing but says they are not thriving.  You cannot have one without the other.  If they were not thriving, the population would not be growing.

I don't dispute the loss of sea ice in the Arctic.  That has been apparent for a number of years but again we were truly unable to anaylze it before this last century.  We have historical statements in the past about the Northwest Passage  being closed up until the last few years. The climate does change.  I don't argue that.  But to blame it on carbon dioxide, well, that is a leap I cannot make.

[onan]

This rapid decline is well outside “the normal range” of Arctic sea ice extent and volume.


And how do we determine the normal range of Arctic sea ice extent and volume?  Ice core samples I suppose.  In truth we only have 100 years worth of data on the Arctic.  Oh we can make general statements that the Arctic was much colder back in 1000 AD from ice core samples but beyond that I am skeptical about the precision of ice core samples.

And another point in the article, the Guardian affirms that polar bear populations are growing but says they are not thriving.  You cannot have one without the other.  If they were not thriving, the population would not be growing.

I don't dispute the loss of sea ice in the Arctic.  That has been apparent for a number of years but again we were truly unable to anaylze it before this last century.  We have historical statements in the past about the Northwest Passage  being closed up until the last few years. The climate does change.  I don't argue that.  But to blame it on carbon dioxide, well, that is a leap I cannot make.

Actually core samples have given a good deal of information going back 1000's of years.

Look I am not a scientist. I don't have all the answers, I do maintain that the overall consensus is overwhelming. You're a bright guy, don't let the conceit of intelligence stop you from considering other points of view.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

How much money does the government want to take away from me and where does government want to insert to itself on climate change? Outside of that, couldn't give a fuck less about it.

I think climate change is such a scam.

I respect everyones opinion and I'm not condemning anyone. But whenever someone starts going off on climate change, especially in a political context, my eyes roll up into my skull and I realize they're trying to fuck me out of something either consciously or unconsciously.

My biggest laugh from the second debate was HillNasty saying climate change is our biggest problem.

[21st Century Man]

Actually core samples have given a good deal of information going back 1000's of years.

Look I am not a scientist. I don't have all the answers, I do maintain that the overall consensus is overwhelming. You're a bright guy, don't let the conceit of intelligence stop you from considering other points of view.

Thanks for the compliment.    I consider you the same.  I pride myself on keeping an open mind.  I take a step back if I find my mind closed on a subject. My beef is that politicians have used climate change as an excuse to exercise more control over our lives.  I resent this.  I agree in common sense measures to control pollution.  God, living in southern California in the 1970's left no doubt in my mind that measures needed to be taken to control pollution and I'm glad that has been addressed.  I do think they went a bit overboard by proposing bans on outdoor grilling but overall the state government did a great job reducing pollution.