Here's what I can't comprehend.

That article isn’t relevant because it does nothing to prove there weren’t good people there. We’ve been through this.

 

Which people among the tiki torch wielding mob yelling "You will not replace us" were the very fine ones?

If you want to believe people who attended a gathering organized by Richard Spencer and other neo-nazi white supremacists..........

............preceded by this display of tolerance and love for one's fellow man...........



were very fine people yet had no problem associating themselves with said violent neo-nazis, I have a bridge in the Mojave Desert to sell you.

I find it curious how some people who claim not to be Trumper's find themselves defending some of the more outrageously indefensible things he has done. Have a great weekend.

 

There’s nothing to defend. Continuing to talk about neo nazis etc. when everyone including Trump says they aren’t the “fine people” is just silly. Since you make the claim, you prove everyone there was a nazi or white supremacist. Shouldn’t be hard.

 

It wasn't. The hard part comes in getting Trump apologists to acknowledge those who attend a Unite the Right rally on the side of its neo-nazi organizers are therefore disqualified from the characterization of very fine people. Unless, like Trump, one thinks protesting along side the likes of the Richard Spencer's in the world is "perfect."

 

So you are arguing that neither side is innocent and perfect? But all you mention is conservatives. Discussion only takes place when reasonable people can talk. Nobody is perfect- but when you magnify all your opponents flaws, or make flaws out of normality, and minimize or ignore your own- it has nothing to do with discussion. It is the pursuit of feeling superior or victorious in one's own mind. Frankly- it's all we're seeing from the left these days, and they seem to be so bonded to that process that they can't see beyond it or question it. IF a conservative were to say "Yes, Trump has a problem with that" the left immediately seizes that as proof of guilt or incompetence or something. If we point out criminal issues with people on the left- they are defended and dismissed as irrelevant. Conservatives are not OK with corruption, but it's clear the left sees nothing wrong with it's own. That ends any hope of discussion- you can't be fair and one-sided at the same time.

Global warming- yes, empirical evidence shows..... But, in the 70's a large number of environmental scientists said it showed we were rapidly entering a new ice age and the signs of it were everywhere. Predictions of global disasters from weather aren't new, and none of them have ever come true. "Empirical evidence" consists of a very small amount of statistical facts, and a great deal of interpolation from tiny fragments with a lot of assumptions used to achieve it. In the terms of the geological clock- we are trying to predict the next fraction of a second, based on the last few fractions of a second, and a few glimpses of things that we associated meanings to based on things like ice samples from bore holes that recover something from 10,000 years ago. There is more evidence for impact of asteroids wiping out life than for global warming doing that. We all know weather changes- we speculate as to why, but we do that with shreds of data and lots of "expert opinion". Unprecedented global warming... yet we DO know that a few thousand years ago glaciers covered much of what is now the United States. Nobody mentions that there must have been some incredible global warming trend involved in melting them- which of course clearly proves that global warming happens and has been happening for millions of years. It's not that global warming isn't happening. But- the idea that the world will end in 12 years if we don't do insane things immediately is pure hogwash being sold for political advantages. I can look at your views and it's perfectly clear that your views are biased with the pre-determined conclusion that Trump is behind everything you believe is wrong. That's not discussion either.

Are you familiar with the old fable about "The boy who cried wolf"?

From an article on Doomsday predictions that didn't happen...
"The dire predictions, often repeated in the media, warned of a variety of impending disasters – famine, drought, an ice age, and even disappearing nations – if the world failed to act on climate change.

An Associated Press headline from 1989 read "Rising seas could obliterate nations: U.N. officials." The article detailed a U.N. environmental official warning that entire nations would be eliminated if the world failed to reverse warming by 2000.

Then there were the fears that the world would experience a never-ending "cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere." That claim came from an "international team of specialists" cited by The New York Times in 1978.

Just years prior, Time magazine echoed other media outlets in suggesting that "another ice age" was imminent. "Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest," the magazine warned in 1974. The Guardian similarly warned in 1974 that "Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast."

In 1970, The Boston Globe ran the headline, "Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century." The Washington Post, for its part, published a Columbia University scientist's claim that the world could be "as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age."

There's always a global threat of some kind that is about to imminently destroy the world, always based on selectively collected evidence. Always promoted by people who want to use it to gain power or defeat power in place.....

 

Factually incorrect. They are coming true right before our eyes.

 

Gratuitous insults, as in "gifts" to the man who refers to the president of the United States as the "Orange Turd", "The idiot in chief" and a long list of slander as the prelude to discussion of anything?
Nothing gratuitous here.

 

Why do you take my references to President Shithole personally? They aren't directed at you.

 

Honestly... there's so much more, gotta wonder how he settled on this non issue?

Here's something I don't get... how does anybody take Dems serious anymore?

 

But you didn’t prove everyone there was a Nazi or white supremacist. Richard Spencer is irrelevant.

 

They might be. Have you not noticed the emotional tie? It is why they ignore facts. The emotional bond they feel for Tweaker Trump blinds them to facts that disagree with what they believe, as belief is an emotion. Emotions are personal.

 

The other day I ran into a guy I know. He seemed to have drunk a few too many. Anyhow, in front of the group he kept going on about the nature of light, as if he were an expert. Mostly he was just spewing nonsense. But no one questioned him no one told him he was wrong. They just let him talk. That is how conservatives tend to be.


By the way, if anyone is interested, here is a simple explanation about what light really is. Take a length of rope. Lay it out in a straight line. Pick up one end and give it a good jerk. Notice how a wave ripples down the the rope. That is essentially what light and other electromagnetic waves are. It has all the characteristics, a wave packet as well as a wave motion, frequency, momentum, and energy. Just stand at the far end of a whip to experience the energy and momentum transfer.

Now imagine that this rope, instead of a straight line, instead is a field that expands in all directions and completely fills all of space. We call this the electromagnetic field.

All matter vibrates. It is just the way it is. The more energy matter has the faster it vibrates. When matter vibrates it jerks the electromagnetic field which causes a photon, a chunk of energy, to propagate across the field. If these vibrations are at the frequencies that our eyes can detect, we see light.

It is the energy in the electromagnetic field that is being captured in the atmosphere that is causing the current warming. A nice big hydrogen and carbon blanket.

 

Now that is the kind of comment that explains the whole situation. And you haven't a clue....

 

And that of course explains the history of climate changes the world has experienced over the millions of years before man was even here.
Those who are the most sure of themselves are the ones who make the biggest mistakes, because they refuse to consider any possibility except what they have already endorsed.

Is the earth currently in a warming trend? I think we can all agree on that data, it's current and extensive.
Does the mixture of gasses in the atmosphere influence our temperatures? Pretty sure it does.
Does man contribute to those gasses? Pretty sure we agree on that.
But then so do the gasses that are produced by volcanoes, cattle, elephants, trees, algae in the ocean and a hundred other things.
Can we say how much of the change is due to what humans can regulate? No. We have people making estimates, but that is not accurate data.

Are the hard-case global warming people considering that they aren't considering the whole picture? I haven't seen any sign they are paying attention to anything except what confirms what they have chosen to believe- and that is blindness.

For example, from a report on Science Daily:

"The world's oceans could harbor an unpleasant surprise for global warming, based on new research that shows how naturally occurring carbon gases trapped in reservoirs atop the seafloor escaped to superheat the planet in prehistory.


Scientists say events that began on the ocean bottom thousands of years ago so disrupted the Earth's atmosphere that it melted away the ice age. Those new findings challenge a long-standing paradigm that ocean water alone regulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during glacial cycles. Instead, the study shows geologic processes can dramatically upset the carbon cycle and cause global change."

Given that the surface of the world has three times more ocean than land, and the much of the land is not occupied by people at all or very slightly, it would make sense to assume that the potential for the ocean's contribution just might be far in excess of that made by man- and that if the US were to bankrupt itself in a mad rush to stop all carbon generation, the impact would have such a tiny impact on the process that nothing would change at all. Except- the welfare of the human race in this country.

Then consider that for decades, we HAVE been making changes and progress. Cars used to average 15MPG- now it's over 30. Not only the volume of fuels consumed has fallen, but the efficiency of engines is such that each gallon of fuel produces far less pollution. It won't be too many years before electric cars dominate the auto industry, and eliminate auto exhaust altogether. The furnace you bought in 1980 was 80% efficient. The one you buy today will be 95%. The insulation in houses, even the glass in windows- has changed, with dramatic effect on the consumption of energy and the fuels that generate it. Electrical generation and other plants that consume fossil fuels now have scrubber systems that remove contaminants from smokestacks. Billions have and are being spent to reduce the ways we add to pollution- this is a work in progress.This kind of thing is in process right now- not only in America, but many of the industrialized nations. The climate extremists would have us believing that none of that matters- and invariably, that is attached to the desire to politically control everyone and everything.

You see we understand a lot about global warming that you apparently do not. Humans are a factor- but not the whole enchilada by a long shot. We are not sitting on our thumbs, either- we are improving our situation at a steady pace, and accelerating.

The boy cries wolf far too often. It is the calm people who get things done correctly- and the panicky ones who screw it up.

 

Vox? LMFAO!

 

yeah, he didn't say white nationalists are very fine people.

You threw out a video that doesn't match your complaint.

Any other videos you might have that actually prove what you're trying to say?

 

Another Trumper who can't refute a thing in the article. LMFAO!

 

you literally defended trump and embarrassed the left (again) by posting that entire clip. should have stuck to the out of context version like most do.

regarding the OP. the first sentence was all I needed, TDS still affects you, so reading the rest is a waste of time, and responding is a lost cause.

carry on, have another bowl of hate for lunch.

 

Another Trumper who can't factually refute a thing I've posted. Sad.

 

And yet Republicans (many of them still in Congress) persecuted Clinton over a civil matter that occurred years before he was President

 

didnt vote for him. the left's outrageous overreacting to everything and taking crap out of context repeatedly is putting me in the "never dem" category and I might never return.

But I don't want to discourage you please keep it up you are driving Americans away from the Democratic party faster and more efficiently than I can and I support that.

good job!

 

Example please.

 

Your first sentence and the video you posted, this has been covered already.

you might as well have posted a video of last year's Super Bowl and announced "the Dolphins won, see proof here!"

why are you trying so hard to embarrass the Democrats?

 

So..........like so many Trump acolytes.........you've got nothing. If you can refute what I said, please proceed.

 

yeah well, persecution isn't prosecution. Presidents know they're not going to be loved by everybody. It's just how that job goes.

Clinton was prosecuted for a process crime (lying while under oath) while he was President, but persecution is just part of the job.