Comments

  • Ukraine Crisis
    The proponents of the theory 'it is all because of NATO expansion' are just content with stating that he suddenly in 2008 started to see Ukraine in NATO as a vital threat, while he was and is perfectly calm about the Baltics or the Scandinavian countries. They feel no need to explain that difference, even though such view is absurdly irrational. — Jabberwock

    It’s not all because of NATO expansion. But that’s the most direct cause.

    Also, it wasn’t “sudden.” As explained earlier. You seem to ignore changes from 2002 to 2008.

    Lastly, the differences are obvious. Russia doesn’t like any of it, as they were promised NATO wouldnt expand in the 90s, but Ukraine is unique. Look at a map and you’ll see why.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    if it was not a vital threat in 2002, why would it be in 2008? — Jabberwock

    He didn’t say it wasn’t a threat in 2002. But recall this was after 9/11, and the issue was terrorism. Yes, things changed between 2002 and 2008. Is that not obvious?

    What happened? The Orange Revolution, for one. But there were other tensions, including issues with Nosovo at the beginning of 2008. Any cooperation with NATO was out the window long before the Bucharest summit.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    This is a non sequitur. — neomac

    Learn what these words mean before using them.

    your dismissive attitude toward overwhelming historical evidences — neomac

    Nope. That was your projection.

    Pls fill in a few of the most unequivocal quotes from Putin 2000-2008 presidency explaining why Ukraine is a “red line” and what that implies, what is going to happen if it is crossed — neomac

    I just did above. Plenty more.

    The appearance on our borders of a powerful military bloc ... will be considered by Russia as a direct threat to our country's security,

    Again what do you mean by “Russia was such a threat”, — neomac

    That Russia has imperial ambitions, that they seek to conquer not just Ukraine but other countries, etc. Claims that have been made by the US and others since 2014, and retroactively made as justification for 2008 — which isn’t true.

    NATO is a hegemonic security supplier and Ukraine is a non-hegemonic security seeker (from Russian threats), that is how they met each other. Anyone with a working brain would get that knowing the history of Russia and the history of Ukraine. — neomac

    I’ve already acknowledged this.

    Indeed American as any hegemon can commit mistakes and very big ones, but even in this case that doesn’t necessarily mean that NATO involvement was not justified AT ALL. It can simply mean that NATO involvement was poorly planned and/or executed. — neomac

    It wasn’t poorly planned, and of course there are reasons and justifications given. The actual reason is that the US wanted to make Eastern Europe like Western Europe, and figured Russia was to weak to do anything about it. So in 2008, despite warnings, they started the process anyway.

    You can buy the US rationale if you want to. I don’t. But either way, the outcome was clear: it would provoke Russia. This was known since the early 90s, in fact.

    but the latter PRESUPPOSES that Russia was interested in preventing NATO expansion in Ukraine — neomac

    Are you really not convinced that at least by 2008, Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be threatening to Russian security? They said so explicitly. It’s not about what you or I feel, it’s about how they felt about it. The US knew, and has known for years, and made the decision to go forward with expansion anyway. So Crimea and now the Ukraine War shouldn’t be a mystery.

    As I quoted above, the US’s own ambassador knew this and warned the secretary of state (Rice):

    Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.


    your guru Mearsheimer) — neomac

    your guru Mearsheimer — neomac

    your guru Mearsheimer — neomac

    You seem obsessed with this guy. I haven’t cited him once— except in response to your referencing him. He’s hardly a “guru” of mine, although he’s a valuable resource.

    So, are you just ignorant or what? Hard to take you seriously when you repeatedly sound so silly. Makes it easier to ignore most of your cumbersome writing though.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Jabberwock


    "The appearance on our borders of a powerful military bloc ... will be considered by Russia as a direct threat to our country's security,"

    That’s fairly straightforward. This is 2008.

    It wasn’t just Putin, of course.

    The US ambassador, William Burns, said as much in his memo to the secretary of state:

    Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

    https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/28/did-the-us-really-take-russias-nato-concerns-very-seriously/
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Jabberwock


    But President Putin stressed that Russia’s position on the expansion of the bloc remained unchanged. — President of Russia

    And what was that position exactly?
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Agree-to-Disagree


    Good one?

    ↪Agree-to-Disagree


    https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1201781387/climate-change-emissions-report-offers-hope
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Agree-to-Disagree


    Does daftness get tiresome?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Why stupid provocation? — neomac

    Because Russia had stated, for years, that NATO membership in Ukraine was considered a red line. There was no reason to do so.

    You’re confusing the very real tensions between Ukraine and Russia, which Mearsheimer discusses, and the justification for NATO involvement, which today is claimed to be the threat of Russian imperialism — which is incorrect, and which is why the very same person (Mearsheimer) was rightly against it all along, including 1993.

    If Russia was such a threat, surely that would have been mentioned in 2008. But even if kept secret for whatever reason, anyone with a working brain would see that NATO involvement would only exacerbate the issue, thus creating a self fulfilling prophecy.

    But then what was the point of having Ukraine joining NATO? — neomac

    US hegemony. To make Ukraine a “Western bulwark on Russian borders.” Russia was believed to be too WEAK to prevent NATO expansion at that point, in 2008.

    It certainly wasn’t because of a Russian imperialist threat. Which is why none of that was mentioned, and which is why Putin was himself at the summit. Any talk of Russian threats as justification for NATO wasn’t even mentioned until 2014.

    I’ll skip the rest of your jumbled ramblings. You’ve not shown you even understand what’s being argued. I’m talking about Putin’s Russia, 2000-2008, and about NATO. I’m not talking about historical relations or ancient history or 90s reactions to the dissolution of the USSR. That’s your own diversion.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.

    Where is the mention of Russian imperialism? Where is the Russian threat that warranted NATO membership, after it was made clear this would be considered by Russia to be a provocation?

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

    I guess it’ll just never be admitted that the US provoked this war long ago, out of fear that this somehow makes Putin inculpable. Which it doesn’t.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    mine was just a typo — neomac

    It wasn’t a typo. 1993 and 2013 are vastly different. You simply misread the fact that the article was accessed in the 2010s. You just carelessly used it in the hopes it would support your case, failing to notice it supports exactly what I mentioned — and which you can’t seem to follow (or won’t allow yourself to). But your poor reading comprehension isn’t my fault.

    But good to know you can’t even own up to mistakes, and that I’m basically dealing with a child. Your poor writing skills and silly attempts at insults were proof enough. I appreciate the extra confirmation though. :up:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Yes it is, indeed this is what was argued to support NATO — neomac

    70 years ago.

    That’s not what was argued in 2008.

    After the collapse of Soviet Union, the US didn’t fear imminent hegemonic competition from Russia OBVIOUSLY. — neomac

    Right— which makes the Bucharest Summit an unnecessary and stupid provocation.

    So Russia was considered “such a threat” by many prominent/influential Western analysts and East European countries — neomac

    No, it wasn’t.

    Nor was Russian imperialism cited as a reason in 2008.

    Indeed I cited it precisely because it talks about Russian threats prior 2008 — neomac

    No, it doesn’t. You’re inability to comprehend what you read isn’t my problem. I’ll help:

    No one was claiming Putin had imperialist ambitions back then. — Mikie

    Which is true. Which your falsely-dated reference outlines very well:

    Political will aside, extending NATO’s security umbrella into the heart of the old Soviet Union is not wise. It is sure to enrage the Russians and cause them to act belligerently. — The Article You Quoted But Didn’t Understand

    Which is exactly what happened 15 years after this article, at the Bucharest Summit. It’s laughable you still think this somehow supports all the smoke you blow

    your guru Mearsheimer

    He’s not my guru. You’re the one citing him, not me.

    I’m more partial to the late Stephen Cohen. I’d recommended his analysis too.
  • Climate change denial
    with the $2.2 TRILLION that the US is spending to slow global warming? — Agree-to-Disagree

    You’ve been corrected on this several times now. The US government is NOT spending 2.2 trillion on climate change. Not even close. And that figure is from a bill that didn’t pass anyway.

    Stop deliberately spreading misinformation.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Michael


    What a shocker.

    This lawsuit should have happened decades ago. He’s been a degenerate fraud since at least the 80s, after all.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    relevant evidences to fix security dilemmas in geopolitics (have you ever heard of Mearsheimer's offensive realism?). — neomac

    The same Mearsheimer who agrees there was no evidence whatsoever of Putin’s imperialism for the NATO provocation in 2008? Sure.

    Russian history? That’s like arguing that we should surround the nation of Germany because, you know…stuff that happened 80+ years ago. If that’s what you mean, no I don’t consider that evidence for why NATO needed expansion at the Bucharest summit in April of 2008. A meeting in which Putin was invited. (Odd move if he was considered such a threat.)

    The narrative of Russian imperialism prior to 2008 necessitating the expansion of NATO is revisionism. That’s not what happened. Which is why you and people like you can give no evidence of it, and have to report to vague statements like “Russian history.”

    So much so that you guru Mearsheimer wrote an article about it in Summer 2013 — neomac

    No he didn’t. He wrote that in 1993. And he never once advocates for Ukraine becoming a member of NATO— in fact accurately predicts that any tensions between the countries would only escalate if that happened. Which is exactly what happened. He states this clearly in the paper you cite but apparently didn’t read.

    Try to get the basic facts right at least.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Still, after 510 pages, no one has given a shred of evidence for the “Russian threat” prior to 2008, when the NATO provocation began.

    No one was claiming Putin had imperialist ambitions back then. Now the story has changed retroactively, ignoring historical fact to justify the continuation of war and take a sizable responsibility off the US.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac


    Weren’t you the one claiming that Putin was an imperialist trying to take over the world a while back? Right…
  • Ukraine Crisis
    A year and a half into the US-provoked war*, and they’re fighting hard with Ukrainian lives to keep the war going. It’s been a windfall for defense contractors, so it’s all good politically.

    Interesting to watch Republicans claiming they’re against funding…see how long that lasts.

    Reveal
    * Pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc., all while Russia was repeatedly calling it a red line (acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative).
  • Climate change denial
    In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:

    EuniceFoote_Illustration_lrg.jpg

    Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

    What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:

    b546cb12-a273-4f7a-90f2-a2eec56fcb98.jpg

    That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

    That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

    So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

    One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

    Turns out there is.

    Over 100 years:

    temp-CO2.png

    And over 800 thousand years:

    graph-co2-temp-nasa.gif?ssl=1

    Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

    The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

    But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

    But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

    So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

    Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

    I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

    In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

    Reveal
    Borrowed from a prior post of mine a few months back.
  • Climate change denial
    Just worth throwing these out here again:

    w7ywnt7w9a0iokym.jpeg

    rctiru1neoskvidk.png
  • Climate change denial
    The Earth is much bigger and more complex than a house. — Agree-to-Disagree

    :ok:

    Nevermind. Bye.
  • Climate change denial
    What you did forget about Mikie is that MANY locations on Earth will be better because of a little global-warming. — Agree-to-Disagree

    :snicker: Yeah we’ve gone over this already. I think @unenlightened did a good job unpacking that statement.

    My house burning down has positive aspects too— like creating lots of briquettes.

    Anything else to say or are we now at the repeating BS state?

    Would be great: — jorndoe

    Indeed.
  • Climate change denial
    That means things are getting better, because nearer to God. — unenlightened

    Nearly forgot about him. God and free markets. Two foundational beliefs.
  • Climate change denial
    "In history" you say, that is quite an absurd exaggeration. — Merkwurdichliebe

    No, it isn’t.

    the world coming to an end — Merkwurdichliebe

    Strawman.

    ccp — Merkwurdichliebe

    China deflection.

    Actually the CCP are doing far more than the Republicans. And they also don’t pretend climate change isn’t happening. Whatever their failings, they don’t hold a candle to the most dangerous organization in history.

    But way to go exhuming that old diversion. :clap:
  • Climate change denial
    bazwe2tpd2luncob.png

    Another conspiracy narrative graph.

    But how do we REALLY know there’s that much CO2 or that the temperatures have risen? Have YOU seen the thermometers or ice core samples? Have YOU been to Mauna Loa?

    Science has been wrong before! We should question the overwhelming evidence narratives! And I say this because I’m super smart and free thinking. Unlike the dupes that listen to these “climate scientist” types.

    But Heritage Foundation is cool. And trustworthy. Because they have no reason whatsoever to undermine trust in science or deliberately manufacture doubt.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Just because Ukraine has Nazi paramilitaries and just because it's impossible to take photos of Ukrainian soldiers without capturing Nazi insignia and just because Ukrainian Nazis get applauded in parliament doesn't mean we're on the side of the Nazis, you crazy Russian shill. — Johnstone
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Agree-to-Disagree


    No, I just have little tolerance for climate deniers spreading propaganda from the Heritage Foundation. There’s no “black and white” fallacy. And the attempts to portray those who listen to the counter scientists and overwhelming evidence is, as usual, quite pathetic.

    Anyway — do you have anything left to add to this thread? Any more Koch propaganda you’d like to share? If not, consider running along.
  • Climate change denial
    That source that you're pulling from, that conservative Christian think tank, has received nearly a million dollars from Exxon mobile. Let's follow that money. — flannel jesus

    No no! Remember he said not to question the person or the institution. So that’s ruled out. Except when dealing with scientists and scientific institutions around the world — that’s where the real conspiracy lies.

    NASA and the Royal Society? Questionable sources — never mind the evidence.

    The Heritage Foundation? Hey stick with what’s said.
  • Climate change denial
    If nearly a trillion dollars has been spent, and almost no progress has been made, who has been getting lots of money for producing next to nothing. We definitely need to follow the climate change money. — Agree-to-Disagree

    Except plenty of progress has been made, and Moore’s claims that anyone is saying otherwise is, as usual, complete nonsense that you lap up unquestioningly.

    For someone so skeptical of climate science, you sure do put a lot of trust in the Heritage Foundation and non-climate scientists.

    It’s almost as if this were selective skepticism.

    Moore rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2009, he described climate change as "the biggest scam of the last two decades."[25] In columns and op-eds, Moore called those with concerns about climate change "Stalinistic" and has accused climate scientists of being part of a global conspiracy to obtain money via research grants.[26][27] In an April 2019 interview, Moore said that the Federal Reserve should not consider the economic impacts of climate change in decision-making.[28]

    Just a non-biased source bravely questioning the establishment, the groupthink of scientists around the world who are just faking the data for research grants, and who don’t dare present the “evidence” disproving climate change.

    People believe this stuff. Do people this ignorant really exist or am I being punk’d?
  • Climate change denial
    How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.

    What “research” dares to question it? All I’m seeing is the usual claims of “maybe data is being suppressed because of Big Climate” conspiracies. No research whatsoever. Just stupid claim after stupid claim by an economic commentator for a conservative think tank.

    While it’s funny that he accurately describes himself, plenty of con man do the same thing. “I’m not gonna steal your money — what do you think I am, a con man?”

    Naomi Oreskes has documented this very well.
    — Mikie

    :rofl:     — Agree-to-Disagree

    What’s funny about that?

    Oh wait, you’re just imitating me, like a child. My bad— I forgot who I was dealing with.

    Fits right in with everything else you’ve written. “Big oil” — no, “big climate!” :rofl:
  • Climate change denial
    bgvj8ot0my582omw.jpeg

    Is this graph too hard to understand? Is it a narrative? Is it the result of scientific groupthink? Is it all based on made-up data? Is it really nothing to worry about?

    It’s no coincidence that right wing/ conservative/libertarian/Christian evangelical ideology is usually at the heart of climate denial. Naomi Oreskes has documented this very well.

    Thus the well-qualified “skeptics” here making fools of themselves are the very same people who defend Donald Trump, who constantly harp against communism and socialism, are always whining about big government, and/or are devout Christians.

    Have they simply been groomed by Koch propaganda? Sure. But it goes beyond climate denial.
  • Climate change denial
    Good data and reliable information — javi2541997

    Oh? Like what?

    Because so far you’ve shown excellent judgment.

    ↪Merkwurdichliebe
    ↪javi2541997

    ↪Agree-to-Disagree


    Why don’t you three geniuses start a thread about how climate change is a Chinese hoax or whatever. :up:
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Agree-to-Disagree


    I’m glad you’ve now given up on any pretext of caring about climate science and have now gone full climate denial. Awesome.

    Quoting the heritage foundation and an imbecile and proven fraud like Stephen Moore for “evidence” of a global conspiracy. A new low.

    Climate Change Industrial Complex.

    :rofl:

    But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us.

    So just typical selective skepticism, trying to imply that it’s the thousands of scientists around the world who are biased, not the shills for fossil fuels like Stephen Moore and Heritage.

    The funding to adapt to climate change has nothing to do with physics and climate science. And the IPCC doesn’t talk about “apocalypse.” That’s just a stupid strawman.

    If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.

    Ohhh I see— so this mysterious evidence that the crisis isn’t happening is suppressed globally. But Stephen Moore must know what that evidence is…he’s an expert in all this, of course…and definitely someone we should be listening to on this matter.

    Good god you’re pathetic.

    Fine — it’s not happening. Or it’s not a crisis…or can’t be solved…or whatever the latest claim is. Whatever makes you happy. Just please stop embarrassing yourself any further. Go read more of what conservative, fossil fuel funded think tanks tell you. This way you can feel special in your “skepticism.” Be well.
  • A List of Intense Annoyances
    Did I mention reaction videos?

    Here’s another two from Twitter:

    - People using the form “x: bla blah blah ; y: hold my beer”

    - people ending their posts with “That’s it. That’s the post.”

    Ughh…it’s so stupid and conformist it makes me hostile. Who does this stuff?

    I need to stop even skimming Twitter anymore.
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Merkwurdichliebe


    No, that’s not a red herring, that’s completely relevant and important when talking about climate change and climate projections.

    When talking about the statement “The Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in history,” citing things the party did in the 1870s are irrelevant and a red herring. Because we’re not talking about the Republican Party from the 1870s. We’re talking about the current party.

    If you can’t keep up with the conversation, better to just stifle yourself.
  • Climate change denial
    The World Bank Group delivered a record $31.7 billion in fiscal year 2022 to help countries address climate change. — Agree-to-Disagree

    Most of which goes towards adaptation and resiliency. How nefarious!

    The New York Times says that the US “took a major step toward fighting climate change” on Friday when the House of Representatives approved a $2.2 TRILLION spending bill that “includes the largest expenditures ever made by the federal government to slow global warming”. — Agree-to-Disagree

    Except this was from two years ago. And, incidentally, DIDN’T PASS. Would have been great if it did— it would have invested nearly $600 million in climate solutions, over 10 years, which is far less than is needed but still something.

    But— again — it didn’t pass. So once again you’re just making engaging in your topical buffoonery.
  • Climate change denial
    So what sort of "science" is produced by scientists who are funded by "Big Climate"? — Agree-to-Disagree

    :rofl:
  • Climate change denial
    World history is always relevant to today's world — Merkwurdichliebe

    It’s not relevant here— at all. Red herring.

    Are republicans the only ones accelerating it? — Merkwurdichliebe

    Of the two major political parties, they want to accelerate it. Which is why they’re the most dangerous organization in history. Unless of course there’s some organization I missed that explicitly states they want to push for more usage of nuclear weapons.

    any reasons it could be denied that it is the end of the world, — Merkwurdichliebe

    I never once made that statement. Strawman.

    any reasonable scientific argument will prevail in due time. — Merkwurdichliebe

    It already has. That time is long over. We’re in the process of implementing measures to adapt to it and hopefully slow it/stop it. Sorry that you’re still stuck in the past — but that’s not my business.

    I object to the evidence because it appears unconvincing, — Merkwurdichliebe

    You haven’t once mentioned the evidence.

    The evidence is overwhelming. For one “not to be convinced” requires real effort.

    Don’t try to frame this as if your conclusion isn’t foregone. No one is buying that. And no one buys that you have a clue about the evidence— which is undeniable if one actually takes a look.

    What you’ve done is chosen to listen to political commentators and the manufactured doubt of the industry (which is well documented). I’ve encountered plenty like this. Dime a dozen.
  • Walking & Thinking
    My personal assistant (ChatGPT) should actually be thanked for all the thinking and elaboration. :snicker: — praxis

    Well damn you for that!

    Just kidding. If that was really ChatGBT that’s pretty cool. Fooled me.
  • Climate change denial
    Republicans, for all their faults, were instrumental in the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. I don't know about you, but I think that was pretty nice on their part, and it definitely counterbalances any negativity one might perceive from their policy on climate change. — Merkwurdichliebe

    Apparently it’s not clear to you that I’m talking about the today’s world— not the 1870s.

    Republicans are a far cry from being anything like these, — Merkwurdichliebe

    Nazism was still localized. Climate change isn’t. Republicans want to accelerate it.

    Again— those who can’t ackowledge the truth of this rather obvious point are those who don’t believe climate change is much of a problem to begin with.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    My intention is not to support Trump, just to "flex" and act as an internet troll. — javi2541997

    You are allowed to insult me — javi2541997

    Hey you’re the one calling yourself a troll. I just happen to think you’re correct.
Home » Mikie