Should Insurance companies deny you insurance if youre gay? - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

todd93 · #61 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

How did this thread go from insurance companies and gays to global warming???????

I have no idea, I think I might be to blame Mrs. M. I said something in a post that went something like this:"Yes, and I suppose humans can cause global warming too" Keep in mind that's just a paraphrase, but it sparked something in here where it doesn't belong, after defending my statement, I tried to lead it back to the subject of this thread, but some people are trying to beat a dead horse on that. Again, I'm sorry, I'll take the blame for the global warming direction this thread has taken.

Mrs. M · #62 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by todd93

I have no idea, I think I might be to blame Mrs. M. I said something in a post that went something like this:"Yes, and I suppose humans can cause global warming too" Keep in mind that's just a paraphrase, but it sparked something in here where it doesn't belong, after defending my statement, I tried to lead it back to the subject of this thread, but some people are trying to beat a dead horse on that. Again, I'm sorry, I'll take the blame for the global warming direction this thread has taken.

LOL I thought it was a retarded thread anyway!!!!

pramjockey · #63 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by todd93

Frankly, I'd like to hear how we can destroy the earth using earthly materials.

What do you suppose would happen if all of the nuclear weapons currently in existence were used?

SMadsen · #64 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by todd93

I can, I have yet to see any evidence of humans actually causing it. I also have yet to see a threat of global warming doing damage, or killing anybody. History is on my side in this, there have always been warming and cooling cycles much MUCH worse than the warming cycle we're in, that can't be refuted or blamed on humans. Frankly, I'd like to hear how we can destroy the earth using earthly materials.

Great! Thanks.

What do you mean with destroying the earth? The stance is "merely" that we are capable to shift the balances so that the environment becomes inhabitable (and when humans talks of inhabitable environment, it usually means inhabitable to humans themselves).
So you don't believe we are capable of that? That's ok. But why is it important for you to refute claims that we are capable of it?

I can tell you why I think it's darn important to provide evidence of such claims. But even if it was possible to provide evidence that we can't wreck the environment on a global scale (which it isn't since we can't prove a negative) I don't see the point of attempting to provide such evidence. Why does it seem to be important to you?

todd93 · #65 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

LOL I thought it was a retarded thread anyway!!!!

I agree

todd93 · #66 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

What do you suppose would happen if all of the nuclear weapons currently in existence were used?

Pay close attention to what I say, I never said we couldn't destroy our lives, we can do that easily, but the earth would remain, and eventually recover.

todd93 · #67 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMadsen

Great! Thanks.

What do you mean with destroying the earth? The stance is "merely" that we are capable to shift the balances so that the environment becomes inhabitable (and when humans talks of inhabitable environment, it usually means inhabitable to humans themselves).
So you don't believe we are capable of that? That's ok. But why is it important for you to refute claims that we are capable of it?

Here's a quote and I can provide the link for this as well if you like, but it refutes the claim that there is evidence that humans are causing global warming.

Quote:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Quote:

I can tell you why I think it's darn important to provide evidence of such claims. But even if it was possible to provide evidence that we can't wreck the environment on a global scale (which it isn't since we can't prove a negative) I don't see the point of attempting to provide such evidence. Why does it seem to be important to you?

Because, like the quote above stated, there is no evidence to back the claim of human caused global warming.

steveox · #68 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Global warming is a bunch of hype. Its Nature taking its course. We had over heated Hot weather when dinosaurs roamed earth millions of years ago. Now how can that be mans fault?

todd93 · #69 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveox

Global warming is a bunch of hype. Its Nature taking its course. We had over heated Hot weather when dinosaurs roamed earth millions of years ago. Now how can that be mans fault?

I know, but Liberals can only win with victims and fear.

proUSA · #70 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by chathamfarmer

You forget about gay women. They have a very low risk for getting HIV. We should get discount insurance.

Aids can be transmitted through the use of dildos.

Steve · #71 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by todd93

I know, but Liberals can only win with victims and fear.

Actually, a lot of conservative (and primarily christian) folks here have been playing the "fear card" with regards to gay marriage. It's not like liberals have a monopoly on that...

todd93 · #72 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Actually, a lot of conservative (and primarily christian) folks here have been playing the "fear card" with regards to gay marriage. It's not like liberals have a monopoly on that...

I haven't seen any Conservatives playing the "fear card" as you've put it with the abomination that is gay marriage.

Steve · #73 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by todd93

I haven't seen any Conservatives playing the "fear card" as you've put it with the abomination that is gay marriage.

And people with thick accents don't believe they sound funny.

I wouldn't expect you to see it, as you're one of the worst offenders...

pramjockey · #74 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by todd93

Pay close attention to what I say, I never said we couldn't destroy our lives, we can do that easily, but the earth would remain, and eventually recover.

Unless we detonated them in the same area and punctured the crust.

Western Otto · #75 (**permalink**) 01-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by todd93

Algore was more accurate than someone who actually did the research and warned us of politicized science? Anytime you politicize science, you're looking for trouble. Algore mentioned a "consensus" of scientists in his movie (which bombed anyway). A consensus means nothing if they don't have the scientific data to back it up, and they don't. They just have a "consensus" which, just like pretty much everything that comes out of Algores mouth, it's pretty well useless.You need to read more science instead of posting so much.

I'm sorry about the coward thing, but Liberal and coward (mainly because of the Liberal fear-mongering about the war on terror) are starting to mean the same thing.Not to me.

Liberals win elections by playing on peoples fears, they need victims to promote their socialist agenda. Simple as that.

You need to read more science.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode