This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Kinder Graham
1
« on: February 07, 2015, 11:39:25 AM »
t4r
2
« on: February 07, 2015, 11:38:20 AM »
*sigh*
3
« on: February 07, 2015, 11:37:52 AM »
BasedLove is better than you, though. He doesn't go all bitch-beta mode and tries to pick up ugly trannies online. He also doesn't lie about being a fat cunt on the internet.
Somebody sounds obsessed and upset
Nah, I'm just pointing out the facts.
You must be compensating for your severe obesity
When people say you're speaking into a mirror, I mean it this time, you really are speaking into a mirror, lol.
I'm 6'3"ft and 152lbs, for the record.
Lying on the internet won't make you feel better about your shit life
Fucking hell man, talking to mirrors isn't healthy.
So why are you talking to them?
How much did you cry when Noel didn't respond to your messages?
How much did you cry when you got your hand cut off by your dad?
4
« on: February 01, 2015, 11:31:44 AM »
I take medication to treat anxiety which is also used as an anti-depressant
lol
omg stahp opreseng me pls
5
« on: February 01, 2015, 11:18:22 AM »
Because not everybody hates people that protects lives
I know this is bait but I still think you should kill yourself
Unlike you, I know what it means to be a patriotic American. Bet you're some ISIS sympathizer. Better call Cruz and inform him
So, Mr. True Patriot, why haven't you taken the oath I did four years ago then?
I take medication to treat anxiety which is also used as an anti-depressant
6
« on: February 01, 2015, 11:17:55 AM »
Because not everybody hates people that protects lives
So do cops and firefighters but they don't have a day.
I know what it means to be a patriotic American Which is what? Also since you're such a patriotic American why don't you go join the Army like your hero Chris? After all that's the truest way to serve your country.
http://www.firefightersday.org/http://www.policeweek.org/I take medication to treat anxiety which is also used as an anti-depressant
7
« on: February 01, 2015, 10:06:19 AM »
Because not everybody hates people that protects lives
I know this is bait but I still think you should kill yourself
Unlike you, I know what it means to be a patriotic American. Bet you're some ISIS sympathizer. Better call Cruz and inform him
8
« on: February 01, 2015, 10:03:55 AM »
So did they teach about Shariah Law and Muhammad?
9
« on: February 01, 2015, 10:03:22 AM »
10
« on: February 01, 2015, 10:00:31 AM »
Because not everybody hates people that protects lives
11
« on: February 01, 2015, 09:53:19 AM »
And this is, of course, coming from a former anarcho-communist.
Well, shouldn't you understand what led you to be a filthy red for a while?
I do, sadly. I hate myself for it
12
« on: February 01, 2015, 09:52:10 AM »
>ted cruz
take my keks
13
« on: February 01, 2015, 09:51:12 AM »
The rise of Christianity was inevitable. Unlike the Roman-Greco gods, Christianity promised an afterlife, forgiveness, and undying love all of which greatly aided the spread of Christianity, especially under the rule of Nero where the people learned that Christians were being put to death not for starting the fire (one that happened under Nero) but to cover Nero's crimes and to sate his appetite for cruelty. Compassion for the meek followers of Jesus, whose blameless conduct was apparent to many, led to a new wave of conversions.
14
« on: February 01, 2015, 09:47:33 AM »
I believe this says enough.
>mfw this biased piece of shit chart leaves out the islamic golden age >mfw the dark ages was a result of the collapse of rome, not christianity >mfw the dark ages wasn't even that dark >mfw the catholic church has always sponsored and funded science
15
« on: January 31, 2015, 08:59:22 PM »
bummacure
16
« on: January 31, 2015, 08:56:30 PM »
You have a FB?
And this was the moment Kinder realized he could find my Facebook page and post a link to it on ED for the lulz.
And just in case you try to deny it I already know you admitted to doing it to Cheat/Psy.
I'd do it again also 
17
« on: January 31, 2015, 01:47:42 PM »
not to mention the police officers who weren’t armed Wait, there's police that are not even armed?
fucking kek
That's not unusual for Europe.
No British police officer carries a firearm unless they're part of a special unit.
Yeah, going to rethink my whole European vacation plans now
18
« on: January 31, 2015, 11:01:35 AM »
not to mention the police officers who weren’t armed Wait, there's police that are not even armed? fucking kek
19
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:57:51 PM »
Further regulations will kill the economy and force hundreds of thousands of people out of work. Nobody's talking about that.
And I'm not disagreeing that humans impact the climate, but I don't beleive we're the sole cause of it We are.
Icy mentioned further regulations If there wasn't previous global climate changes, then I would agree
20
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:55:55 PM »
Serious question. Is Challenger's spirit animal a wall? Because it feels like I'm talking with one
21
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:54:21 PM »
Climate change has been happening before humans even industrialized. Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Age and Little Ice Age?
Ever heard of carbon dioxide and how it's a heat trapping gas? Ever hear about the fact that the majority of our technology emits carbon dioxide?
Seriously, you have to actually wilfully try to deny anthropogenic climate change. Fuck. Turn your fucking brain on.
I'm not denying climate change exists, I'm questioning that history and science has shown multiple times in the past that change in the environment is natural. A study conducted in 2003 showed that temperatures 1000-1100 AD are comparable to the temperatures from 1900-1990. Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from "carbon sinks" such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra. Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2. Human releases of CO2 cannot cause climate change as any increases in CO2 are eventually balanced by nature. CO2 gets absorbed by oceans, forests, and other "carbon sinks" that increase their biological activity to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, has already been absorbed
[Citation needed]
I'll be awaiting your pseudo science source.
Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007
Willie Soon, PhD, and Sallie Baliunas, PhD, "Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years" (660 KB) , Climate Research, 2003
Anders Moberg, PhD, et al., "Highly Variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed From Low and High Resolution Proxy Data," Nature, Feb. 2005
Timothy Ball, PhD, "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?," www.canadafreepress.com, Feb. 5, 2007
Nicholas Caillon, PhD, and Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, PhD, et al., "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III," Science, Mar. 14, 2003
US Senate Minority Environment and Public Works Committee, "US Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007," epw.senate.go, Dec. 20, 2007
Willie Soon, PhD, "Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future,” Physical Geography, 2007
Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007
It took me like 20 minutes to gather everything that was wrong with the sources in your response. I'm not sure how many of these were published in what could be considered a peer-reviewed journal. Consider this post the short response:
Arthur Brouhard "Art" Robinson (born March 24, 1942[1]) is an American biochemist, politician and member of the Republican Party from the U.S. State of Oregon.
For the papers referencing Soon and/or Baliunas, see here.
Moberg Anders is primarily a businessman, so there's obviously a potential conflict of interest.
Timothy Ball was funded by Friends of Science which he founded, and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, both of which oppose the idea of climate change.
The paper published by the US Senate Minority Environment and Public Works Committee was written by Jim Inhofe, a notorious climate change denier in the Senate:
Since 2003, when he was first elected Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Inhofe has been the foremost Republican promoting arguments for climate change denial in the global warming controversy. He famously said in the Senate that global warming is a hoax, has invited contrarians to testify in Committee hearings, and spread his views both via the Committee website run by Marc Morano, and through his access to conservative media such as Fox News.
The only paper that seemed to have any semblance of validity was Caillon and Severinghaus.
So because a person is a business man and others have a differing opinion, it's automatically wrong?
No - when a person has a certified interest in pushing for denial of human impact in climate change, to avoid further regulations - that is what makes it wrong.
Also, the fact that is the only thing you could come up with after Kupo's post, not even defending your sources, is quite laughable.
Further regulations will kill the economy and force hundreds of thousands of people out of work. And I'm not disagreeing that humans impact the climate, but I don't beleive we're the sole cause of it Challenger doesn't do it :^)
22
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:52:17 PM »
I don't want to be rude because I like you, but you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. The republicans want to do nothing but run America into the ground and have done so almost every time they've been elected.
I like you too, but you're incredibly partisan, at least when it's against Republicans. Republicans, quite clearly, don't want to run the U.S. into the ground, and whether you think their policies will do that is an interesting discussion.
But let's be honest here, the Democrats who've 'endowed' the country with good economic growth have done so largely by adopting centrist/conservative policies; Kennedy's tax-cuts (ruined by the Great Society and LBJ), Clinton's appointment of Robert Rubin as head of the CEA and the maintenance of PAYGO rules. And when Republicans have fucked the economy, it's been because of profligacy a la Bush, which I have a hard time categorising as conservative.
I didn't even come out for the Republicans in my post, anyway, I just said Rubio was better than Hillary.
Of course I'm partisan when there are only two parties and one of them wants to destroy America for everybody who isn't rich. Sorry, but you're wrong. There has almost never been a time conservatism has caused progress for humanity or created a stable economy. They actively deny climate change, it's the party of racists, they're incredibly classist, they hate immigrants. There's nothing good about them.
You're seriously delusional if you think the goal of a party is to ruin a country. There's no logic behind that reasoning.
The logic is they do what benefits them and nobody else, effectively ruining the economy.
You have an unhealthy and ignorant bias Hey Camnator.
that proves Meta's thread correct when liberals are more close-mined than conservatives. That was the most bullshit study I've ever seen and I wouldn't have believed it if it was saying the opposite either.
The Democrats want to make people that work hard feel like the bad guys by taxing them to hell. So people working minimum wage don't work hard? But of course, give the poor millionaires a break.
If you SERIOUSLY think Republicans have never benefited the economy, are racisists, xenophobes, etc I don't think, I know. They're against immigration reform, they're against same sex marriage, republican politicians have said racist things countless times and have tried bringing back Jim Crow laws.
then you're the definition of ignorance and it's disgusting you're acting in a fascist manner
>mfw you randomly string together words trying to insult me
Great, and so do Democrats. You keep ignoring that both parties only care about lining their pockets
To a far lesser extent than the Republicans.
dat fucking damage control. It's pretty evident with your delusional Republican hate that you would jump all over it if it said conservatives were more close-minded No, because I don't need a study to show me something so obvious. It's fact Republicans are anti gay, anti women, anti immigrants, and anti black.
People that don't actively search for jobs and just collect benefits don't do jack shit and Democrats reward that behavior. So because some people take advantage of welfare we should get rid of it completely when people who need it don't abuse it?
News Flash: The purpose of taxation is NOT to hurt and humiliate a specific class like the Democrats want to do to the upper-class, the point of taxation is to raise revenue in a FAIR manner. It's not fair to tax the wealthy more than the poor and middle class?
In fact, a large portion of millionaire only stay such for a short period then others take the position; it's a cycle and heavily taxing the upper-class makes people afraid of working to make money and instead stay middle-class Yes. That must be it. People are afraid of being rich.
No, you don't know. If you think Republicans are all what you claim then you're an uneducated ignorant child that has no business discussing politics when you type like a Mother Jones article
Funny how the majority of discrimination and pro life bullshit is in the hick- I mean Republican states. Don't forget you guys use all the welfare too :^)
I can't understand how you can be this thick-minded No, not a far lesser extent to Republicans. Both are equal. Stop trying to suck up to the Democrats already It is not fact that Republicans are what you claim. If it was fact then EVERY Republican would hate blacks, gays, immigrants, etc. Guess fucking what? Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are Hispanics that come from immigrant families and are Republicans. Ben Carson and Tim Scott are black and are Republicans. Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman are women and Republicans. Carl DeMaio and Richard Tisei are gays and Republicans. You're completely insane to think for one second the Republicans are what you think they are Keep twisting my words. Where did I fucking say to get rid of welfare? Point it out No, it's not fair. It's the same as punishing a kid for making honor roll Yes, they are, especially when they are demonized by the left for working to the American dream Pro-life isn't bullshit. If you think people can kill an innocent life then you're disgusting. And the north is far more discriminatory than the south. Like, what sense would it make for majority of blacks to live in the south when it's supposedly racist? Can you comprehend that? Actually, we don't use all the welfare
23
« on: January 29, 2015, 01:40:17 PM »
Climate change has been happening before humans even industrialized. Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Age and Little Ice Age?
Ever heard of carbon dioxide and how it's a heat trapping gas? Ever hear about the fact that the majority of our technology emits carbon dioxide?
Seriously, you have to actually wilfully try to deny anthropogenic climate change. Fuck. Turn your fucking brain on.
I'm not denying climate change exists, I'm questioning that history and science has shown multiple times in the past that change in the environment is natural. A study conducted in 2003 showed that temperatures 1000-1100 AD are comparable to the temperatures from 1900-1990. Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from "carbon sinks" such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra. Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2. Human releases of CO2 cannot cause climate change as any increases in CO2 are eventually balanced by nature. CO2 gets absorbed by oceans, forests, and other "carbon sinks" that increase their biological activity to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, has already been absorbed
[Citation needed]
I'll be awaiting your pseudo science source.
Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007
Willie Soon, PhD, and Sallie Baliunas, PhD, "Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years" (660 KB) , Climate Research, 2003
Anders Moberg, PhD, et al., "Highly Variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed From Low and High Resolution Proxy Data," Nature, Feb. 2005
Timothy Ball, PhD, "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?," www.canadafreepress.com, Feb. 5, 2007
Nicholas Caillon, PhD, and Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, PhD, et al., "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III," Science, Mar. 14, 2003
US Senate Minority Environment and Public Works Committee, "US Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007," epw.senate.go, Dec. 20, 2007
Willie Soon, PhD, "Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future,” Physical Geography, 2007
Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007
It took me like 20 minutes to gather everything that was wrong with the sources in your response. I'm not sure how many of these were published in what could be considered a peer-reviewed journal. Consider this post the short response:
Arthur Brouhard "Art" Robinson (born March 24, 1942[1]) is an American biochemist, politician and member of the Republican Party from the U.S. State of Oregon.
For the papers referencing Soon and/or Baliunas, see here.
Moberg Anders is primarily a businessman, so there's obviously a potential conflict of interest.
Timothy Ball was funded by Friends of Science which he founded, and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, both of which oppose the idea of climate change.
The paper published by the US Senate Minority Environment and Public Works Committee was written by Jim Inhofe, a notorious climate change denier in the Senate:
Since 2003, when he was first elected Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Inhofe has been the foremost Republican promoting arguments for climate change denial in the global warming controversy. He famously said in the Senate that global warming is a hoax, has invited contrarians to testify in Committee hearings, and spread his views both via the Committee website run by Marc Morano, and through his access to conservative media such as Fox News.
The only paper that seemed to have any semblance of validity was Caillon and Severinghaus.
So because a person is a business man and others have a differing opinion, it's automatically wrong?
24
« on: January 29, 2015, 12:11:52 PM »
I don't want to be rude because I like you, but you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. The republicans want to do nothing but run America into the ground and have done so almost every time they've been elected.
I like you too, but you're incredibly partisan, at least when it's against Republicans. Republicans, quite clearly, don't want to run the U.S. into the ground, and whether you think their policies will do that is an interesting discussion.
But let's be honest here, the Democrats who've 'endowed' the country with good economic growth have done so largely by adopting centrist/conservative policies; Kennedy's tax-cuts (ruined by the Great Society and LBJ), Clinton's appointment of Robert Rubin as head of the CEA and the maintenance of PAYGO rules. And when Republicans have fucked the economy, it's been because of profligacy a la Bush, which I have a hard time categorising as conservative.
I didn't even come out for the Republicans in my post, anyway, I just said Rubio was better than Hillary.
Of course I'm partisan when there are only two parties and one of them wants to destroy America for everybody who isn't rich. Sorry, but you're wrong. There has almost never been a time conservatism has caused progress for humanity or created a stable economy. They actively deny climate change, it's the party of racists, they're incredibly classist, they hate immigrants. There's nothing good about them.
You're seriously delusional if you think the goal of a party is to ruin a country. There's no logic behind that reasoning.
The logic is they do what benefits them and nobody else, effectively ruining the economy.
You have an unhealthy and ignorant bias Hey Camnator.
that proves Meta's thread correct when liberals are more close-mined than conservatives. That was the most bullshit study I've ever seen and I wouldn't have believed it if it was saying the opposite either.
The Democrats want to make people that work hard feel like the bad guys by taxing them to hell. So people working minimum wage don't work hard? But of course, give the poor millionaires a break.
If you SERIOUSLY think Republicans have never benefited the economy, are racisists, xenophobes, etc I don't think, I know. They're against immigration reform, they're against same sex marriage, republican politicians have said racist things countless times and have tried bringing back Jim Crow laws.
then you're the definition of ignorance and it's disgusting you're acting in a fascist manner
>mfw you randomly string together words trying to insult me
Great, and so do Democrats. You keep ignoring that both parties only care about lining their pockets dat fucking damage control. It's pretty evident with your delusional Republican hate that you would jump all over it if it said conservatives were more close-minded People that don't actively search for jobs and just collect benefits don't do jack shit and Democrats reward that behavior. News Flash: The purpose of taxation is NOT to hurt and humiliate a specific class like the Democrats want to do to the upper-class, the point of taxation is to raise revenue in a FAIR manner. In fact, a large portion of millionaire only stay such for a short period then others take the position; it's a cycle and heavily taxing the upper-class makes people afraid of working to make money and instead stay middle-class No, you don't know. If you think Republicans are all what you claim then you're an uneducated ignorant child that has no business discussing politics when you type like a Mother Jones article
25
« on: January 29, 2015, 12:06:03 PM »
Let me ask - what is so bad about Clinton? She has some fairly shit opinions. I don't have the sheet on me at the moment that I made comparing Clinton, Rubio and Gary Johnson but Clinton was by far and away the worst there.
I don't want to be rude because I like you, but you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. The republicans want to do nothing but run America into the ground and have done so almost every time they've been elected.
Good to know indoctrination is a real thing
Democrats are running this country into the ground. It's a fucking blessing they lost control of the Senate
The irony.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10
For one, the Federal Reserve ruined the economy in the 70s and 80s
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm
Inflation was increasing since 1965, which led to economic situations later on
But here's a study, not some "insider", saying the Democrats ruined the economy
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-confirms-economy-was-destroyed-by-democrat-policies
If you want some added fun, only a mere 250K something jobs added since 2009 up til now was a collective 49 states+D.C; The conservative stronghold of Texas added the majority of over 1 million jobs since 2009
>complete lies
>bullshit study misrepresenting the facts and straight up lying
This "insider" you're disregarding is David Stockman, "President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget". It's incredible how hard you deny the facts and then how vehemently you accuse others of what you do. Republicans nearly collapsed America.
tl;dr: Chally instead of refuting uses his typical "lalalala i can't hear you" attitude when facts are shown that discredit him. God, grow up already. I bet if I told you the grass was green then you would call that a lie because that IS your attitude
LOL Sure thing kiddo.
So because he has some fancy title, he's automatically the most "credibe" source on the planet? By that logic, the Republican in-charge of the environmental committee must be the most credible person on the climate Misrepresentation of the facts again :^)
No, it's that he was director of the Office of Management and Budget and is actively saying Republican economics are destroying America.
You're the one denying facts as the fact is inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms. Because if you seriously think the president has total control of the economy then you're totally damn wrong
>Reagan didn't have anything to do with the economy
Good stuff as always Bueno.
Anybody that can read can see my point of your inability to refute Not misrepresenting of anything. You pointed out his title like it was of great importance. And I'll give a little tip: what some person claims, in this case your insider, doesn't mean it's total fact; that's called anecdotal Instead of refuting, once a again, you instead twist my words when I said the president doesn't have total control. But again, twisting words is your specialty
26
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:44:43 AM »
Can't exactly run around calling itself the land of the free when it doesn't combat discrimination.
Can't do it if it's forcing people to perform services they don't want to perform, either.
Freedom is for the freedom loving.
>goes to talk about FREDOOM >says before hand would like to see government restrict freedom of churches mysides.jpg
27
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:39:38 AM »
Let me ask - what is so bad about Clinton? She has some fairly shit opinions. I don't have the sheet on me at the moment that I made comparing Clinton, Rubio and Gary Johnson but Clinton was by far and away the worst there.
I don't want to be rude because I like you, but you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. The republicans want to do nothing but run America into the ground and have done so almost every time they've been elected.
Good to know indoctrination is a real thing
Democrats are running this country into the ground. It's a fucking blessing they lost control of the Senate
The irony.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10
For one, the Federal Reserve ruined the economy in the 70s and 80s
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm
Inflation was increasing since 1965, which led to economic situations later on
But here's a study, not some "insider", saying the Democrats ruined the economy
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-confirms-economy-was-destroyed-by-democrat-policies
If you want some added fun, only a mere 250K something jobs added since 2009 up til now was a collective 49 states+D.C; The conservative stronghold of Texas added the majority of over 1 million jobs since 2009
>complete lies
>bullshit study misrepresenting the facts and straight up lying
This "insider" you're disregarding is David Stockman, "President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget". It's incredible how hard you deny the facts and then how vehemently you accuse others of what you do. Republicans nearly collapsed America.
tl;dr: Chally instead of refuting uses his typical "lalalala i can't hear you" attitude when facts are shown that discredit him. God, grow up already. I bet if I told you the grass was green then you would call that a lie because that IS your attitude So because he has some fancy title, he's automatically the most "credibe" source on the planet? By that logic, the Republican in-charge of the environmental committee must be the most credible person on the climate You're the one denying facts as the fact is inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms. Because if you seriously think the president has total control of the economy then you're totally damn wrong
28
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:31:35 AM »
I don't want to be rude because I like you, but you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. The republicans want to do nothing but run America into the ground and have done so almost every time they've been elected.
I like you too, but you're incredibly partisan, at least when it's against Republicans. Republicans, quite clearly, don't want to run the U.S. into the ground, and whether you think their policies will do that is an interesting discussion.
But let's be honest here, the Democrats who've 'endowed' the country with good economic growth have done so largely by adopting centrist/conservative policies; Kennedy's tax-cuts (ruined by the Great Society and LBJ), Clinton's appointment of Robert Rubin as head of the CEA and the maintenance of PAYGO rules. And when Republicans have fucked the economy, it's been because of profligacy a la Bush, which I have a hard time categorising as conservative.
I didn't even come out for the Republicans in my post, anyway, I just said Rubio was better than Hillary.
Of course I'm partisan when there are only two parties and one of them wants to destroy America for everybody who isn't rich. Sorry, but you're wrong. There has almost never been a time conservatism has caused progress for humanity or created a stable economy. They actively deny climate change, it's the party of racists, they're incredibly classist, they hate immigrants. There's nothing good about them.
You're seriously delusional if you think the goal of a party is to ruin a country. There's no logic behind that reasoning. You have an unhealthy and ignorant bias that proves Meta's thread correct when liberals are more close-mined than conservatives. The Democrats want to make people that work hard feel like the bad guys by taxing them to hell. If you SERIOUSLY think Republicans have never benefited the economy, are racisists, xenophobes, etc then you're the definition of ignorance and it's disgusting you're acting in a fascist manner
29
« on: January 29, 2015, 10:01:48 AM »
Climate change has been happening before humans even industrialized. Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Age and Little Ice Age?
Ever heard of carbon dioxide and how it's a heat trapping gas? Ever hear about the fact that the majority of our technology emits carbon dioxide?
Seriously, you have to actually wilfully try to deny anthropogenic climate change. Fuck. Turn your fucking brain on.
I'm not denying climate change exists, I'm questioning that history and science has shown multiple times in the past that change in the environment is natural. A study conducted in 2003 showed that temperatures 1000-1100 AD are comparable to the temperatures from 1900-1990. Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from "carbon sinks" such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra. Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2. Human releases of CO2 cannot cause climate change as any increases in CO2 are eventually balanced by nature. CO2 gets absorbed by oceans, forests, and other "carbon sinks" that increase their biological activity to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, has already been absorbed
[Citation needed]
I'll be awaiting your pseudo science source.
Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007 Willie Soon, PhD, and Sallie Baliunas, PhD, "Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years" (660 KB) , Climate Research, 2003 Anders Moberg, PhD, et al., "Highly Variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed From Low and High Resolution Proxy Data," Nature, Feb. 2005 Timothy Ball, PhD, "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?," www.canadafreepress.com, Feb. 5, 2007 Nicholas Caillon, PhD, and Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, PhD, et al., "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III," Science, Mar. 14, 2003 US Senate Minority Environment and Public Works Committee, "US Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007," epw.senate.go, Dec. 20, 2007 Willie Soon, PhD, "Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future,” Physical Geography, 2007 Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007
30
« on: January 29, 2015, 09:48:11 AM »
Climate change has been happening before humans even industrialized. Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Age and Little Ice Age?
Ever heard of carbon dioxide and how it's a heat trapping gas? Ever hear about the fact that the majority of our technology emits carbon dioxide?
Seriously, you have to actually wilfully try to deny anthropogenic climate change. Fuck. Turn your fucking brain on.
I'm not denying climate change exists, I'm questioning that history and science has shown multiple times in the past that change in the environment is natural. A study conducted in 2003 showed that temperatures 1000-1100 AD are comparable to the temperatures from 1900-1990. Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from "carbon sinks" such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra. Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2. Human releases of CO2 cannot cause climate change as any increases in CO2 are eventually balanced by nature. CO2 gets absorbed by oceans, forests, and other "carbon sinks" that increase their biological activity to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, has already been absorbed
|
Show Posts