http://nypost.com/2017/06/14/trumps-pledge-to-wipe-out-ms-13-gang-paying-off-in-ny/


Thanks Don.

QuakerOats;1857868 wrote:Natural gas is cheap (because the long arm of liberal government has not completely caught up to it, yet). Coal was made more expensive by the obama administration via radical regulatory burdens.

Do you believe in climate change and that burning natural gas produces nearly half as much carbon dioxide as coal?

Earth's climate has been changing for millions of years; human activity has no bearing on this change, or an immeasurably small factor. Hopefully we are not going to go through this ridiculous debate again, only to prove the alarmist's models wrong yet again. One would think that millions of years of history would speak for itself.

QuakerOats;1859520 wrote:One would think that millions of years of history would speak for itself.

Reps for the "millions of years" part. Just throwing that out there.

QuakerOats;1859520 wrote:Earth's climate has been changing for millions of years; human activity has no bearing on this change, or an immeasurably small factor. Hopefully we are not going to go through this ridiculous debate again, only to prove the alarmist's models wrong yet again. One would think that millions of years of history would speak for itself.

Remove 'Climate Change' from the argument and let's just talk about "pollution". Maybe man made climate change isn't a thing but can't all sides of the political spectrum agree that man made pollution is a thing and that it's bad? So maybe saying we should roll back restrictions on dumping waste into streams because of "climate change" is a non starter but what about if the point were framed around pollution? Dumping waste into streams is bad for that streams ecosystem, it's bad for people drinking that water, it's bad for families that want to go fishing boating etc and enjoy nature. Conservatives started as the original conservationists (Teddy Roosevelt), it's right there in the root word of what defines them. Politicizing 'Climate Change' as some sort of lefty crusade has turned the party against its own history. This is the big business wing of the Republican party pushing its agenda and nothing more. It's also short sighted and greedy. It's sacrificing clean water, air etc for "jobs" and share holder gains today.

Polluting is an entirely different topic. Of course, republicans will probably forever be labeled as those wanting to pollute water and kill children, because scare tactics are the only things the left and the media have to offer.

rocketalum;1859619 wrote:Remove 'Climate Change' from the argument and let's just talk about "pollution". Maybe man made climate change isn't a thing but can't all sides of the political spectrum agree that man made pollution is a thing and that it's bad? So maybe saying we should roll back restrictions on dumping waste into streams because of "climate change" is a non starter but what about if the point were framed around pollution? Dumping waste into streams is bad for that streams ecosystem, it's bad for people drinking that water, it's bad for families that want to go fishing boating etc and enjoy nature. Conservatives started as the original conservationists (Teddy Roosevelt), it's right there in the root word of what defines them. Politicizing 'Climate Change' as some sort of lefty crusade has turned the party against its own history. This is the big business wing of the Republican party pushing its agenda and nothing more. It's also short sighted and greedy. It's sacrificing clean water, air etc for "jobs" and share holder gains today.

Sorry rocket, but you are really confusing the two.

I don't think anyone is calling for rolling back restrictions on actual pollution (streams, NOx, SOx, CO emissions, ground contamination, etc). These are real pollutants and can severely affect local ecosystems (NOx/SOx create smog, CO is a poison gas, water contamination is obviously bad, etc).

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant by these standards, and it was never considered a pollutant until the climate change hysteria started. CO2 does not harm animals to breathe, it is "plant food" in that they absorb it and use it in photosynthesis to create carbohydrates, and they eventually "emit" O2. In the end its the life cycle of the planet, animals take in O2 and breathe out CO2, plants take in CO2 and send out O2.

Matter of fact, greenhouses purposefully increase CO2 ppm inside to promote more plant growth. The green coverage of earth has increased due to the higher CO2 levels.

By no means am I saying "CO2 is AMAZEBALLS! We should just all start burning coal for fun in our back yard!". There is a limit/cap to the added plant growth due to higher CO2 levels. That will get capped off at some point (pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere will stop increasing plant growth at some point).

I actually drive a high efficient car (35 mpg) because I don't want to waste gas. Conservation of key resources is important, but hysteria over something that is not a pollutant is just that, hysteria.

We need to worry more about real pollutants (CFCs, NOx, SOx, CO, waste water plants being controlled properly at chemical plants, etc).

Again, I don't see anyone calling for killing restrictions for actual pollutants.

jmog;1859638 wrote:Sorry rocket, but you are really confusing the two.

I don't think anyone is calling for rolling back restrictions on actual pollution (streams, NOx, SOx, CO emissions, ground contamination, etc). These are real pollutants and can severely affect local ecosystems (NOx/SOx create smog, CO is a poison gas, water contamination is obviously bad, etc).

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant by these standards, and it was never considered a pollutant until the climate change hysteria started. CO2 does not harm animals to breathe, it is "plant food" in that they absorb it and use it in photosynthesis to create carbohydrates, and they eventually "emit" O2. In the end its the life cycle of the planet, animals take in O2 and breathe out CO2, plants take in CO2 and send out O2.

Matter of fact, greenhouses purposefully increase CO2 ppm inside to promote more plant growth. The green coverage of earth has increased due to the higher CO2 levels.

By no means am I saying "CO2 is AMAZEBALLS! We should just all start burning coal for fun in our back yard!". There is a limit/cap to the added plant growth due to higher CO2 levels. That will get capped off at some point (pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere will stop increasing plant growth at some point).

I actually drive a high efficient car (35 mpg) because I don't want to waste gas. Conservation of key resources is important, but hysteria over something that is not a pollutant is just that, hysteria.

We need to worry more about real pollutants (CFCs, NOx, SOx, CO, waste water plants being controlled properly at chemical plants, etc).

Again, I don't see anyone calling for killing restrictions for actual pollutants.

This was actually a really helpful post. Thank you. I'll admit I struggle to separate the two issues. To me it's always felt like arguing against climate change was an argument against a label and hid the underlying issue that isn't pollution bad even if it isn't causing climate change? More posts like this is what this forum needs. No vitriol or hyperbole just a reasoned response.

jmog;1859638 wrote: Matter of fact, greenhouses purposefully increase CO2 ppm inside to promote more plant growth. The green coverage of earth has increased due to the higher CO2 levels.

Before we started adding to CO2 levels, we were around 280ppm (I think) - 190 is the danger zone where we WOULD then be having sincere discussions about the end of life on Earth.

So put me in the camp that 420ppm is a much happier level. C02 was never a cause of massive warming, but BELIEVED to be a trigger that gets amplified by various positive feedbacks that give you 5-10X or more warming on top of the comparatively small warming directly attributable to CO2 (1 degree celsius for each doubling of CO2 according to the lab....but it might only be half that in the real world because of negative feedback interactions).

Suffice to say the last 15-20 years has largely debunked that "consensus" which was never good science but the amateur-hour belief that correlation is causation (probably never dawned on them that higher CO2 levels could be a correlated effect of warming, rather than a cause....probably because that didn't fit the global warming hysteria narrative).

I'm sorry, but it's a rather obvious fact that BILLIONS of dollars are poured into research by govts and "green companies" EVERY year (while Big OIL and other opponents spend about 1/100th of that)....That is a lot of money a lot of climate scientists depend on for their livelihood - it's not going anywhere when that "science" needs the govt and the govt needs that "science" to support it's taxation and control over the energy industry. It's crony science is what it is.

QuakerOats;1859635 wrote:Polluting is an entirely different topic. Of course, republicans will probably forever be labeled as those wanting to pollute water and kill children, because scare tactics are the only things the left and the media have to offer.

This is sadly very true. Liberalism is an appeal to emotion, not logic and fact (which is why they try so hard to identify themselves as the party of [faux] science....which is also why they make so much fun of religion and attempt to lump in all Republicans/conservatives with right-wing bible thumpers).

Funny to watch all the anti-capitalism, anti-corporatist liberals on the tech blogs worship companies like Tesla and Netflix. On a percentage basis, Elon Musk is probably the GOAT crony capitalist.

Yep. Wondering how the "'sustainability" libs ever fell in love with obamaKare, which is completely UN-sustainable.

Good to see another successful CEO summit at the WH today. I enjoyed the flattering comments by generally left-winger CEO's about the administration's policy initiatives and actual change already occurring.

Unfortunately, you will not find any of the nice comments made anywhere in the drive-by media reporting...................blows their narrative.

QuakerOats;1859695 wrote:Good to see another successful CEO summit at the WH today. I enjoyed the flattering comments by generally left-winger CEO's about the administration's policy initiatives and actual change already occurring.

Unfortunately, you will not find any of the nice comments made anywhere in the drive-by media reporting...................blows their narrative.

Here is a question for you and fellow ditto heads:

I assume the "drive by" media you (actually Limbaugh) refer to is the usual suspects: NY Times, Wash Post, MSNBC, CNN, networks, etc. You believe that this cabal has some sort of agreed upon narrative that they stick to and that none of them is willing to break this agreement under any circumstances. Now, this may be the most successful mass conspiracy of all time, but whatever, you believe it to be the case.

So my question is this: why don't you turn off or ignore the "drive by" media? No one forces you to watch/listen/read. In this day in age, you can get your news from any one of thousands of sources. I don't know anyone under the age of 50 who relies on some news source to present to them in isolation. Everyone I know seeks his/her news from a multitude of sources. That gives them the ability to discard what they deem unreliable. The idea that there most people are informed by only your "drive by" media and nothing else is ludicrous.

If it bothers you and others so much, why do you interact with it. Frankly I hear about those nameplate "drive by" media sources way more from my conservative friends than from my liberal friends. The conservatives I know are obsessed with outing these media. Seems like a huge waste of time to me.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1859697 wrote:Here is a question for you and fellow ditto heads:

I assume the "drive by" media you (actually Limbaugh) refer to is the usual suspects: NY Times, Wash Post, MSNBC, CNN, networks, etc. You believe that this cabal has some sort of agreed upon narrative that they stick to and that none of them is willing to break this agreement under any circumstances. Now, this may be the most successful mass conspiracy of all time, but whatever, you believe it to be the case.

So my question is this: why don't you turn off or ignore the "drive by" media? No one forces you to watch/listen/read. In this day in age, you can get your news from any one of thousands of sources. I don't know anyone under the age of 50 who relies on some news source to present to them in isolation. Everyone I know seeks his/her news from a multitude of sources. That gives them the ability to discard what they deem unreliable. The idea that there most people are informed by only your "drive by" media and nothing else is ludicrous.

If it bothers you and others so much, why do you interact with it. Frankly I hear about those nameplate "drive by" media sources way more from my conservative friends than from my liberal friends. The conservatives I know are obsessed with outing these media. Seems like a huge waste of time to me.

first off, yes it is a narative that is followed by the media, you can tell they are in this together in how they choose their words. For instance, illegals are never called that. THey are called immigrants.

Secondly its hard to "ignore". THe lack of journalism and the media bias leads most uneducated young people thinking that what they see and here every night on the news is real. Like the whole Russia BS....the left wing media conspiracy to push that narrative on every channel makes people think that it was actually true.

I rarely "interact with it"; however it is always good to keep an eye on your adversaries, say we shall say, so occasionally dropping in to witness their drivel/narratives is necessary.

The bias is sooo evident it would be comical if it wasn't so serious. They like to pretend they are the watchdog of government when republicans are in charge; when democrats are running the show they have carte blanche.

rocketalum;1859647 wrote:This was actually a really helpful post. Thank you. I'll admit I struggle to separate the two issues. To me it's always felt like arguing against climate change was an argument against a label and hid the underlying issue that isn't pollution bad even if it isn't causing climate change? More posts like this is what this forum needs. No vitriol or hyperbole just a reasoned response.

I kind of do that (help companies lower their actual pollutant emissions) for a living and have worked with the EPA (not for, with) many times over the years. Typically, however, I am the guy industrial companies call in BEFORE the EPA shows up, to help lower the emissions of their furnaces before the EPA visits.

Spock;1859698 wrote:For instance, illegals are never called that. THey are called immigrants.

No shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1859697 wrote:NY Times, Wash Post, MSNBC, CNN, networks, etc.... Everyone I know seeks his/her news from a multitude of sources.

But if you only use the sources you mention, while you have a "multitude" of sources, they all have a Democratic spin and bias...so they're really no more informed than the solo Fox watchers they like to mock. And I think we do know talking points get circulated among the media propagandist arms - so if you watch the Dem cheerleaders, you get Dem talking points. On Fox you get Repub talking points.

One colleague would listen to CNN radio every day. Literally gets worked up into a froth and cheerleading mode at times (quite annoying to have to put up with). Now he was a really smart guy, but so uber libtard that I don't believe he is even capable of watching or reading something on Fox objectively - he has fully convinced himself that anything he disagrees with is a lie (and the popular mistaking opinion he dislikes for a fact he believes to be a lie).

Spock;1859698 wrote:first off, yes it is a narative that is followed by the media, you can tell they are in this together in how they choose their words. For instance, illegals are never called that. THey are called immigrants.

Secondly its hard to "ignore". THe lack of journalism and the media bias leads most uneducated young people thinking that what they see and here every night on the news is real. Like the whole Russia BS....the left wing media conspiracy to push that narrative on every channel makes people think that it was actually true.

To your point:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/07/the_left_and_its_talking_point.html



And then to the notion that the drive-by media marches in lockstep with one another in their liberal bias; the montages are quite humorous:

As Rush Limbaugh Routinely Demonstrates: The Media's Lockstep ...

www.newsbusters.org/.../rush-limbaugh-routinely-demonstrates-medias-lockstep-leftis...


'Power Through': Watch the 32 Times Clinton Campaign, Media ...

www.theblaze.com/.../power-through-watch-the-32-times-clinton-campaign-media-ou...

Listen to the media use this new word over and over — and here's why ...

www.theblaze.com/.../listen-to-the-media-use-this-new-word-over-and-over-and-here...


LIMBAUGH: Anti-Trump Talking Points Are Created By The Media ...

dailyrushbo.com/limbaugh-anti-trump-talking-points-are-created-by-the-media-demo...

Anatomy Of A News Media Hoax: CNN/MSNBC 'Collusion' Montage ...

www.dailywire.com/.../anatomy-news-media-hoax-cnnmsnbc-collusion-montage-rob...

Rush Limbaugh: Media Montage on ZimmermanTrial - YouTube

[RIGHT]▶ 6:53[/RIGHT]
[INDENT=3]



[/INDENT]
Liberal Media Bias Clearest Case You Will Ever See! - YouTube

[RIGHT]▶ 3:43[/RIGHT]
[INDENT=3]




[/INDENT]
VIDEO: Every Liberal Media Outlet That Predicted a Hillary Landslide ...

thepoliticalinsider.com/watch-this-montage-video-liberals-predicting-hillary-landslide/


The Media's 10 Most Mortifying Moments of 2016 :: Grabien ...

https://news.grabien.com/story-montage-medias-10-most-mortifying-moments-2016


Its Talking Points - American Thinker

www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/07/the_left_and_its_talking_point.html

I honestly don't know how anybody can stand to listen/watch Limbaugh. In my mind, he's as bad as Glenn Beck - and on the other side of the coin - The View and Don Lemon.

gut;1859704 wrote:But if you only use the sources you mention, while you have a "multitude" of sources, they all have a Democratic spin and bias...so they're really no more informed than the solo Fox watchers they like to mock. And I think we do know talking points get circulated among the media propagandist arms - so if you watch the Dem cheerleaders, you get Dem talking points. On Fox you get Repub talking points.

One colleague would listen to CNN radio every day. Literally gets worked up into a froth and cheerleading mode at times (quite annoying to have to put up with). Now he was a really smart guy, but so uber libtard that I don't believe he is even capable of watching or reading something on Fox objectively - he has fully convinced himself that anything he disagrees with is a lie (and the popular mistaking opinion he dislikes for a fact he believes to be a lie).

I listed those sources because they are the main ones usually in the cross hairs of the whole "drive by" media conspiracy. For argument's sake, let's assume there is a vast conspiracy that keeps them all in lockstep at all times. My question is, why not avoid them? If it was 1990, that would be difficult. But in 2017, there is no reason to not proactively chose your information sources.

As for your friend at work who listens to CNN, I'm sure he is annoying as hell. He sounds just like guys I know who watch Fox News all day long and think the whole liberal world is out to get us. Can you see that this whole dynamic works both ways?

What I find stupid about it all is you're really only talking about the vocal minority of both sides of the spectrum. I contend that most people are not that extreme and closed to outside opinions. Most people recognize the nuance of the world and life, and that problems and answers come from everywhere and cannot be explained with simple talking points - whether read by O'Reilly or by Maddow - are a child's explanation of the world.

So CNN announced all day that the Georgia house seat was a referndum on trump. Well the R is winning.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1859713 wrote: Can you see that this whole dynamic works both ways?

Ummm, yeah, I said that practically verbatim in my post. Did you choose to ignore that, or did your subconscious prevent you from reading it because you actually believe only the right does this and you're just pretending to be neutral on the issue?

I'd agree most people are fairly even keeled, although most anyone I've had the conversation with that is liberal or leans left thinks Fox is complete garbage - so the liberal media has been at least as effective at convincing their followers that Fox is worse and to be dismissed and Fox and Rush have with their followers and the mainstream media.

And the fact remains, nearly all the media is very biased and prone to hyperbole and mistakes...and that's the mainstream ones were talking about (VOX, Breitbart and the like are practically on par with US Weekly and The National Enquirer). Comedians, talking heads and even tech bloggers are extremely polarized. So, sure, while the average person isn't uber partisan it's pretty difficult to find any news source that doesn't try really hard to pretend it isn't.

Conservative media says liberal media lies, and liberal media says conservative media is stupid (or racist,etc). One makes a fake appeal to moralism and family values, the other makes an intellectually dishonest appeal to academic and cultural elitism.

Spock;1859737 wrote:So CNN announced all day that the Georgia house seat was a referndum on trump. Well the R is winning.

Trump has launched a bull market for news and politicians. $50M+ spent on a run-off campaign!?! That's simply disgusting. Dems are desperate to claim one win as proof Trump is failing, and Repubs are desperate to keep saying Dems are failing all over.

But I think when you look at the coverage and money spent there in GA, this is the strongest argument anyone can make that Trump will be re-elected.

gut;1859770 wrote:Trump has launched a bull market for news and politicians. $50M+ spent on a run-off campaign!?! That's simply disgusting. Dems are desperate to claim one win as proof Trump is failing, and Repubs are desperate to keep saying Dems are failing all over.

But I think when you look at the coverage and money spent there in GA, this is the strongest argument anyone can make that Trump will be re-elected.

The Dems will still claim victory since it was so close and the R has held that seat for 30 years. As for money, I am sure that most of that $50 mil was spent by dems