Climate Change Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
/ Climate Change Discussion #321  
Tch, Tch, IH. No political comments. Besides, I'd rather ride with Ted (who probably never drives himself anymore) than hunt with Quick Draw Cheney.

Chuck
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #322  
So you would rather drown in a car while the driver waits hours to notify anyone that you are in there, than get a few pellets in the face and have immediate medical attention? Just trying to make sure I understand.

This discussion has skirted some pretty touch areas for lots of folks here and done so pretty well so far without bursting into flames. Coming back on an analogy that the first poster probably should not have made with a response that attaches a sarcastic nickname to one of the people involved doesn't seem productive.
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #324  
LMTC said:
So you would rather drown in a car while the driver waits hours to notify anyone that you are in there, than get a few pellets in the face and have immediate medical attention? Just trying to make sure I understand.

This discussion has skirted some pretty touch areas for lots of folks here and done so pretty well so far without bursting into flames. Coming back on an analogy that the first poster probably should not have made with a response that attaches a sarcastic nickname to one of the people involved doesn't seem productive.

Geez, I thought he was being kind with "quick draw" I could think of a few that would get me censored for sure!
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #325  
IH, no problem. LMTC, go back through the postings on this thread and count the times a certain prominent politician has been mentioned in less than complimentary terms. It's just somewhat amusing that political barbs are only political barbs in one direction. And, no, I don't think I'd be in any particular danger riding in the back seat with Ted while his driver handles the wheel. I'd walk if he were driving himself!

Chuck
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #326  
Chuck52 said:
IH, no problem. LMTC, go back through the postings on this thread and count the times a certain prominent politician has been mentioned in less than complimentary terms. It's just somewhat amusing that political barbs are only political barbs in one direction. And, no, I don't think I'd be in any particular danger riding in the back seat with Ted while his driver handles the wheel. I'd walk if he were driving himself!

Chuck
I have followed the entire thread. Please note my ENTIRE post in which I stated that I thought the original post, to which you were responding, probably should not have been made as well. How is that one direction?

The fact remains that any of those kinds of things just increase the chances of this thread bursting into flames, so why even go there? You seem to be saying "well, they threw a barb, so why can't I?" Well, I suppose you can if that's what you want to do. Have at it.
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #327  
There is one politician who's the main figure head for the Global Warming movement. We all know who he is without mentinoning his name.

He's also the biggest hypocryte about what we should do to stop Global Warming, while he's flying around in private jets and motorcades of SUV's. He has two mansions that he heats and cools year round without even living in eigther one for much of the year, yet he tells us to not cool our heat our homes.

Call it what you want, but nothing anybody has said can undo the damage his own actions have proven that he doesn't belive in what he's saying.

Right now he's spent over half a million dollars of his own money to get an Oscar for his movie. If his movie had any merrit, why would he have to be wining and dining the judges? He'll probably win an Oscor for it too.

Just because somebody calls it politics doesn't make it so. He's not in office and when he was in office, he didn't do anything that he's telling everybody else to do. Now that he's out of politics, he's got all the answers.

Those who have chosen to believe his contridictions, hypocry, and lies are the ones making this about politics. He's just making a ton of cash off of it and probably have a great time at it!!!

Eddie
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #328  
LMTC,

There are not supposed to be political discussions on this or any other forum on TBN, but you'd just about have to wear blinders not to see that snide comments about liberal politicians are routinely passed by without comment, while any response draws flack. I choose, occasionally, to respond to these in the vain hope that those who so trespass will see the light. Call me naive. I don't have a real problem with IH344 and his comment, which is why I responded in what I thought to be a light-hearted manner. And now here you are supporting my thesis. Yes indeedie, tit for tat is childish, but sometimes you just want to point out that tat IS tat.

Chuck
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #329  
Kennedy killed a woman while driving drunk. Today in NC he would be charged with at least a misdomeaner and very possbily a Second Degree Homicide.

Cheney was involved in a hunting accident not a criminal act.

There is just a slight difference between the two men's actions . Both of these actions are not pertinent to the Global Warming discussion that I can see at the moment.

Gore is making money off of Global Warming and it looks like he might get a Ph.d because of his movie. Seems like he fits into the Global Warming conversation and could be used to support either side of the discussion.

Being given a Ph.d for a movie is kinda interesting on a bunch of different levels.

Later,
Dan
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #330  
Ok, here is the solution if someone can figure out how to get it on the "Reply to thread" button.
 

Attachments

  • Lock for thread.pdf
    21.6 KB · Views: 138
/ Climate Change Discussion #333  
To be completely fair and impartial to both:
1. They had both been drinking when the accidents occured.:eek:
2. Neither one reported it to the press untill the next day.:eek:
3. Neither incident contributed highly to Climate Change.:D
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #334  
tallyho8 said:
To be completely fair and impartial to both:
1. They had both been drinking when the accidents occured.:eek:
2. Neither one reported it to the press untill the next day.:eek:
3. Neither incident contributed highly to Climate Change.:D

Number 2 is not required in EITHER case.

However, the car accident does have to be reported to the authorities. Last time I checked that was not the press though they surely would like us to think so. Not sure if the hunting accident needs to be reported but it was since law enforcement saw the incident and the victim got prompt attention. Kennedy left the women to drown.

Later,
Dan
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #335  
Gore is also spending BIG bucks lobbying with the Academy to get an Oscar for his movie. At least that is what Rushbo said...for what its worth.
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #336  
N80 said:
Gore is also spending BIG bucks lobbying with the Academy to get an Oscar for his movie. At least that is what Rushbo said...for what its worth.

Speaking of fair and impartial reporting:rolleyes:
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #337  
turbo36 said:
Speaking of fair and impartial reporting:rolleyes:

True, but Rush is a talking head not a Journalist so he does not have to be fair or impartial. However the Journalists ARE supposed to be fair and impartial yet they are not by any measure. And THAT is part of the Global Warming discussion. :D

I suppose it too much to ask that we get fair and impartial reporting on Global Warming or any other subject at the moment since the Journalists are busy "reporting" on the hugely important subjects of Britney cutting her hair and who gets to bury Anna Nicole Smith.

I have only heard Rush's show once back around 1990 so I can hardly be called even a listener of his show. And his comment may very well be true since film companies spend lots of money promoting their product in the hopes of winning an Oscar since they would then make more money.

Later,
Dan
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #338  
dmccarty said:
True, but Rush is a talking head not a Journalist so he does not have to be fair or impartial. However the Journalists ARE supposed to be fair and impartial yet they are not by any measure. And THAT is part of the Global Warming discussion. :D

I suppose it too much to ask that we get fair and impartial reporting on Global Warming or any other subject at the moment since the Journalists are busy "reporting" on the hugely important subjects of Britney cutting her hair and who gets to bury Anna Nicole Smith.



Later,
Dan
I think this is a large part of the problem (GW and otherwise). The various media sources present there "News" as facts, when for the most part it is just entertainment designed to earn the most advertising dollars.
Truth and common sense are rarely the top earners. Tune in at 6 O'Clock for the Evening Circus.
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #339  
dmccarty said:
True, but Rush is a talking head not a Journalist

Ahh, that is the paradox isn't it? He acts and sounds like a journalist and some people even think he is a journalist and quote him like a journalist but in reality he is just an actor (his words, not mine). This is the beautiful set up he can spout all the venom he wants and profess it to be the truth but when he is caught in a bold face lie he just says "just kidding" folks.
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #340  
turbo36 said:
... he can spout all the venom he wants and profess it to be the truth but when he is caught in a bold face lie he just says "just kidding" folks.
When has he done this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Marketplace Items

PROPANE TANK CAGE (A62131)
PROPANE TANK CAGE...
2022 Ford F-150 Pickup Truck (A61568)
2022 Ford F-150...
1998 FORD F-150 SINGLE CAB TRUCK (A62130)
1998 FORD F-150...
2023 CATERPILLAR 150 AWD MOTORGRADER (A63276)
2023 CATERPILLAR...
2014 Dodge Charger Sedan (A61569)
2014 Dodge Charger...
2016 Dodge Grand Caravan Van (A61569)
2016 Dodge Grand...
 
Top