Guest Posted 1 September 2017 Posted 1 September 2017 11 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: Is this a test? Have I passed? Stop manipulating me with your clever, grandiose oversight. ?
Merging Cultures Posted 2 September 2017 Posted 2 September 2017 https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-walks-back-trumps-promise-to-give-1-million-of-his-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-4691cf5e6dd6/amp/White House walks back promise about Trump donating his ‘personal money’ to Harvey victims
Buce Posted 2 September 2017 Posted 2 September 2017 9 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said: https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-walks-back-trumps-promise-to-give-1-million-of-his-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-4691cf5e6dd6/amp/ White House walks back promise about Trump donating his ‘personal money’ to Harvey victims Fake news, obviously.
Guest Posted 2 September 2017 Posted 2 September 2017 How an obstruction of justice case may be shaping up against Trump https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/02/donald-trump-russia-investigation-obstruction-of-justice?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Buce Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 A White House statement also said that Washington would defend itself and its allies "using the full range of diplomatic, conventional, and nuclear capabilities at our disposal". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41144356 The hypocricy is astounding.
Buce Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 1 minute ago, Countryfox said: He's really getting mad now ... That's not Trump - its cock is too big...
Countryfox Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 1 minute ago, Buce said: That's not Trump - its cock is too big... He's just one giant cock ! ... and will be remembered in history as the man who .. no, no, I'm not going to tempt fate and say it ! ... sorry, got to go now ... these nuclear shelters don't build themselves you know.
Monk Posted 4 September 2017 Posted 4 September 2017 Trump will feel he needs a war to save his presidency - he probably knows it's his only chance of being remembered for anything. Same with Bush and Iraq. I wouldnt be surprised in the slightest if the US launched an attack.
leicsmac Posted 12 September 2017 Posted 12 September 2017 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41231288 It's an interesting day when the Pope speaks more sense than the head of an organisation designed to safeguard the environment.
Guest MattP Posted 12 September 2017 Posted 12 September 2017 Just realised no one has posted for a week until it was just bumped. Weird how a natural disaster can either be awful for a President or good, he's done quite well out of this.
Guest MattP Posted 12 September 2017 Posted 12 September 2017 Was listening to a small piece on the first few months of the Macron reign yesterday, in just sixth months he's claimed French Guyana was an island despite it being on mainland South America, was caught on camera joking about the migrant boats on which 10,000 have died and at the G20 said Africa faced civilisation problems. Couldn't help cross my mind about how the incidents would have been treated everywhere had Trump done or said any of it. His resignation would have been demanded by pretty much everyone.
leicsmac Posted 12 September 2017 Posted 12 September 2017 8 minutes ago, MattP said: Just realised no one has posted for a week until it was just bumped. Weird how a natural disaster can either be awful for a President or good, he's done quite well out of this. Hmmm...from the point of view that there were no major gaffes ala Bush/Katrina and it provides a distraction from other issues, I'd probably agree with that. I do wish he'd take the environmental stuff at least vaguely seriously rather than the states having to take it into their own hands, though. 4 minutes ago, MattP said: Was listening to a small piece on the first few months of the Macron reign yesterday, in just sixth months he's claimed French Guyana was an island despite it being on mainland South America, was caught on camera joking about the migrant boats on which 10,000 have died and at the G20 said Africa faced civilisation problems. Couldn't help cross my mind about how the incidents would have been treated everywhere had Trump done or said any of it. His resignation would have been demanded by pretty much everyone. TBH I'm really not enamoured by any of the world leaders right now (with the possible exception of Trudeau) but yeah, the attitudes towards some compared to others are very different. That shouldn't distract from the mess being made over here, though.
leicsmac Posted 12 September 2017 Posted 12 September 2017 On a slightly different note, I actually agree mostly with Bannon here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41230118 If Trump doesn't let his ego get in the way and doesn't fire Comey, then the special counsel doesn't go crawling up his backside with a microscope.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 12 September 2017 Posted 12 September 2017 14 minutes ago, leicsmac said: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41231288 It's an interesting day when the Pope speaks more sense than the head of an organisation designed to safeguard the environment. I don't actually see how "current speculation "on the cause and effect of the storm... is misplaced" isn't speaking sense. Yes, no doubt, some of it will have been made worse by human actions (rising sea levels) but there's many arguments to be made that suggest climate change shouldn't be the de facto position on why this happened.
leicsmac Posted 12 September 2017 Posted 12 September 2017 16 minutes ago, KingGTF said: I don't actually see how "current speculation "on the cause and effect of the storm... is misplaced" isn't speaking sense. Yes, no doubt, some of it will have been made worse by human actions (rising sea levels) but there's many arguments to be made that suggest climate change shouldn't be the de facto position on why this happened. Because it's trying to nullify debate on the issue at this time and also in the future by appealing to base principles, viz. "we should be thinking of the X right now". Of course Pruitt may well deny that if directly questioned but it's reasonably obvious and well-used tactic. I'd certainly agree that what happened here might not be part of a greater climate shift or if it is that humans may or may not have contributed, but Pruitt is trying to ensure the debate doesn't happen at all in order to appeal to his administration and those in the non-renewable businesses that back it to keep the money flowing. That has been his position all along, renewed here, and tbh I'm rather astounded that folks aren't getting that yet.
Guest MattP Posted 12 September 2017 Posted 12 September 2017 You can see why people get sceptical though can't you Mac, the exaggeration that comes with it often absurd. As soon anything happens now it's almost like we have to believe it's man made climate change until proven otherwise when it should be the other way around. It's basically been this..... 2006: "Hurricanes will become more frequent and destructive thanks to climate change" 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017: "See, we told you so."
leicsmac Posted 12 September 2017 Posted 12 September 2017 2 minutes ago, MattP said: You can see why people get sceptical though can't you Mac, the exaggeration that comes with it often absurd. As soon anything happens now it's almost like we have to believe it's man made climate change until proven otherwise when it should be the other way around. It's basically been this..... 2006: "Hurricanes will become more frequent and destructive thanks to climate change" 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017: "See, we told you so." Oh, absolutely. There have been so many hyperbolic claims - normally through scientific data blown out of all proportion by the media - that I can certainly understand the skepticism. It's really really annoying, simply because as you say it makes people inured to the real changes that may well be happening and makes your guy in the street not trust the kind of people who are patiently interpreting the data and are usually trustworthy. However...as I've said so many times before, the predictions only have to be right and be ignored once to cause massive problems, and at the end of the Boy Who Cried Wolf the wolf does actually come and fvck things up for everyone. And if/when that happens, the skeptics will still take a lot of responsibility for it (provided we haven't got our hands full dealing with the problem, if indeed we can). Pruitts attitude of there not being any debate on the matter at all and everything is going to be fine as we are is what irks me really. As an addenum, as I've also said before I'm unsure of how much of a role human activity is playing in changing temperatures of water and air and increased CO2 contributions that may result in problems later...but I think it's irrelevant anyway because arguing about responsibility in these matters is like being on the Titanic and arguing about who just drove into that massive fvcking iceberg.
lifted*fox Posted 12 September 2017 Posted 12 September 2017 It's quite clear that man and the technology / information age are massively responsible for increases in ocean temperature through - there's plenty of scientific data to back up the claims. I can't remember exactly but we've seen a temperature increase/decrease on Earth of between 1 to minus 1 degrees over thousands of years - in the last 50 years alone we've seen over a degree of increase. It's not about the amount of increase either, it's about the time period in which it happens - and whilst the earth can withstand and has withstood climate change before it's been over hundreds if not thousands of years. What it can't stand however is the rapid increase in a short time frame. We are destroying the planet quicker than ever before - for selfish reasons. People need to work very hard, very quickly if we're going to reverse the current trend and the effects that come from it - it can still be reversed but massive changes need to happen. Renewable energy needs to become the main source of energy immediately and we need to stop cutting down the ****ing rain-forests for oil and beef - it's insane. Anyone who denies climate change is a ****ing idiot and deserves to be swept up in the first tornado / hurricane that comes along.
Guest Posted 12 September 2017 Posted 12 September 2017 2 hours ago, lifted*fox said: It's quite clear that man and the technology / information age are massively responsible for increases in ocean temperature through - there's plenty of scientific data to back up the claims. I can't remember exactly but we've seen a temperature increase/decrease on Earth of between 1 to minus 1 degrees over thousands of years - in the last 50 years alone we've seen over a degree of increase. It's not about the amount of increase either, it's about the time period in which it happens - and whilst the earth can withstand and has withstood climate change before it's been over hundreds if not thousands of years. What it can't stand however is the rapid increase in a short time frame. We are destroying the planet quicker than ever before - for selfish reasons. People need to work very hard, very quickly if we're going to reverse the current trend and the effects that come from it - it can still be reversed but massive changes need to happen. Renewable energy needs to become the main source of energy immediately and we need to stop cutting down the ****ing rain-forests for oil and beef - it's insane. Anyone who denies climate change is a ****ing idiot and deserves to be swept up in the first tornado / hurricane that comes along. Absolutely. Anybody who doesn't believe the 'hype' needs to read the UN climate change reports. Things are going to get very ugly over the next few decades.
leicsmac Posted 13 September 2017 Posted 13 September 2017 9 hours ago, toddybad said: Absolutely. Anybody who doesn't believe the 'hype' needs to read the UN climate change reports. Things are going to get very ugly over the next few decades. Well, the probability is there anyway. The simple fact is that the Earth doesn't care if people "believe" in what it's going to do next and how horrible it might be. It'll do it anyway.
Guest MattP Posted 13 September 2017 Posted 13 September 2017 I've got no doubt Clinton's book will 300 pages of blaming everyone else for why she lost, but this page did make me laugh as it was exactly how I saw it.
Merging Cultures Posted 13 September 2017 Posted 13 September 2017 23 hours ago, MattP said: Just realised no one has posted for a week until it was just bumped. Weird how a natural disaster can either be awful for a President or good, he's done quite well out of this. Yeah, he came across quite well, and was his usual eloquent self! “We have a lot to discuss, including the fact that there is a new and seems to be record-breaking hurricane heading right toward Florida and Puerto Rico and other places,” he told reporters. “We’ll see what happens. We’ll know in a very short period of time. But it looks like it could be something that will be not good. Believe me, not good."
leicsmac Posted 13 September 2017 Posted 13 September 2017 5 hours ago, MattP said: I've got no doubt Clinton's book will 300 pages of blaming everyone else for why she lost, but this page did make me laugh as it was exactly how I saw it. Yeah. Remember us talking about the "Bernie or Bust" lot way before the election and how they might be a factor? I'm still not convinced about exactly how much of a factor they were...but definitely played a part. If you take a look at the winners of recent elections and then at the associated turnout among various demographics you quickly realise that disunity and so apathy amongst the Dems is by far the greatest weapon the Repubs have.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.