Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

​A message from a colleague:

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ​A message from a colleague:

    A message from a colleague:

    If you allow me to carry my cynicism a bit further, I would describe the Paris agreement about climate change as a fig leaf. It allows everyone to continue doing what they want while being able to say they tried to stop the seas from rising. They can say to the people being drowned, "we did our best, so stop complaining". Meanwhile, fossil fuels will be phased out only as fast as is convenient and economically beneficial, as would have been the case without the agreement. Meanwhile, everyone can be happy for a little longer.

    Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

  • #2
    It's like any other liberal issue. It's all about feeling good about something.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
      It's like any other liberal issue. It's all about feeling good about something.

      What doesn't make sense to me is that I would have thought that environmental issues would not be just a left wing concern. One would think that it would also be a right wing concern since everyone has to live in the environment we pollute, or defile. But with conservatives, who have just one completely bonkers when it comes to an added expense for business, they seem to be against anything that would affect business, if business had to follow some rules that did not allow them to pollute our beds. And its not like the conservatives can stand on the argument that business in chasing the most profits have not poisoned the waterways, ground water, and lakes in the past. I have told a personal story about McKinley Creek that was the northern border to our farm, and which new chemical factory dumped chemicals into it, knowing full well it would kill all of the life living in that stream. There was a river up north around industry that before the gov't forced business to stop polluting could literally be set afire due to the concentration of flammable chemicals they had dumped in it.

      So do conservatives not feel good about cleaning up an environment? Or is it that its ok as long as business does not have to pay for it? Or is it that they are just against a draconian EPA that goes too far? I have heard some true stories about how the EPA just went too far, with one concerning a private pond on private land somewhere out west.

      Of course, I am with the conservatives when it comes to co2 and climate change, or man made warming. It's not that I am denying the science, so much as I just do not think the science has enough knowledge to make the claims they are making, given the outright fudging that has gone on with the historical stats and the fact that clearly they do not understand it enough to create accurate models that should predict accurately. For if they cannot create accurate models, then obviously their understanding is still far too limited, yet they still make claims, as if they actually understood it enough to make those claims. And it makes it worse when politicians and activists pull out the "certainty" card and play it. That in itself is antiscientific to do such a thing, given were climatology is today.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post


        What doesn't make sense to me is that I would have thought that environmental issues would not be just a left wing concern. One would think that it would also be a right wing concern since everyone has to live in the environment we pollute, or defile. But with conservatives, who have just one completely bonkers when it comes to an added expense for business, they seem to be against anything that would affect business, if business had to follow some rules that did not allow them to pollute our beds. And its not like the conservatives can stand on the argument that business in chasing the most profits have not poisoned the waterways, ground water, and lakes in the past. I have told a personal story about McKinley Creek that was the northern border to our farm, and which new chemical factory dumped chemicals into it, knowing full well it would kill all of the life living in that stream. There was a river up north around industry that before the gov't forced business to stop polluting could literally be set afire due to the concentration of flammable chemicals they had dumped in it.

        So do conservatives not feel good about cleaning up an environment? Or is it that its ok as long as business does not have to pay for it? Or is it that they are just against a draconian EPA that goes too far? I have heard some true stories about how the EPA just went too far, with one concerning a private pond on private land somewhere out west.

        Of course, I am with the conservatives when it comes to co2 and climate change, or man made warming. It's not that I am denying the science, so much as I just do not think the science has enough knowledge to make the claims they are making, given the outright fudging that has gone on with the historical stats and the fact that clearly they do not understand it enough to create accurate models that should predict accurately. For if they cannot create accurate models, then obviously their understanding is still far too limited, yet they still make claims, as if they actually understood it enough to make those claims. And it makes it worse when politicians and activists pull out the "certainty" card and play it. That in itself is antiscientific to do such a thing, given were climatology is today.

        The trouble is, this is not about cleaning up the environment. Its about redistributing wealth. Its an emotional issue, not a logical issue. None of the predictions have been realized. None of the computer models have proven accurate. It's a hoax stoked by people who want to feel good about doing something for the world.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          So you honestly think all the worlds governments who just signed an agreement in Paris are all part of a giant hoax?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
            So you honestly think all the worlds governments who just signed an agreement in Paris are all part of a giant hoax?

            Most of the countries that signed on did it for the money. The democratic countries signed on because its good politics. Politicians love it when the voters are scared about something. "Vote for me, I'll deal with it!" And they will spend as much of your money as they need to in order to convince you they are doing something about it. Whether its a real problem or not is irrelevant.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


              The trouble is, this is not about cleaning up the environment. Its about redistributing wealth. Its an emotional issue, not a logical issue. None of the predictions have been realized. None of the computer models have proven accurate. It's a hoax stoked by people who want to feel good about doing something for the world.
              If I was convinced and trusted the science here, of course I would certainly be for intelligently addressing this issue, but it would not be a scheme to redistribute working people's money to the banking cabal and MNCs. It would begin by the massive planting of trees all around the world to scrub some of this co2 out of the atmosphere. And it would be to pump money into research and development of something to replace fossil fuels burned for energy. So, it would be something that adds to economic activity, not something that would repress it.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                So you honestly think all the worlds governments who just signed an agreement in Paris are all part of a giant hoax?
                You think it isn't ?

                Why ?

                Maybe it's not completely correct to categorize it as a "hoax," but it certainly isn't based on real science or reality ... in any way !!

                It's like so many bad ideas that became widely accepted by sheep . . . I mean the masses (humans often do act like herd animals).

                Just because you might hear a lot of blather and noise about something, doesn't make that thing true, or even worthy of notice. But it's 'noticed' because 'everybody' is talking about it .. or at least some "important" people are.

                It's a big distraction that means nothing more than you getting to keep less of your earnings.

                That's all.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post


                  What doesn't make sense to me is that I would have thought that environmental issues would not be just a left wing concern. One would think that it would also be a right wing concern since everyone has to live in the environment we pollute, or defile. But with conservatives, who have just one completely bonkers when it comes to an added expense for business, they seem to be against anything that would affect business, if business had to follow some rules that did not allow them to pollute our beds. And its not like the conservatives can stand on the argument that business in chasing the most profits have not poisoned the waterways, ground water, and lakes in the past. I have told a personal story about McKinley Creek that was the northern border to our farm, and which new chemical factory dumped chemicals into it, knowing full well it would kill all of the life living in that stream. There was a river up north around industry that before the gov't forced business to stop polluting could literally be set afire due to the concentration of flammable chemicals they had dumped in it.

                  So do conservatives not feel good about cleaning up an environment? Or is it that its ok as long as business does not have to pay for it? Or is it that they are just against a draconian EPA that goes too far? I have heard some true stories about how the EPA just went too far, with one concerning a private pond on private land somewhere out west.

                  Of course, I am with the conservatives when it comes to co2 and climate change, or man made warming. It's not that I am denying the science, so much as I just do not think the science has enough knowledge to make the claims they are making, given the outright fudging that has gone on with the historical stats and the fact that clearly they do not understand it enough to create accurate models that should predict accurately. For if they cannot create accurate models, then obviously their understanding is still far too limited, yet they still make claims, as if they actually understood it enough to make those claims. And it makes it worse when politicians and activists pull out the "certainty" card and play it. That in itself is antiscientific to do such a thing, given were climatology is today.
                  No, conservatives are not against environmental protection. It in fact is because the EPA has gone to far. The climate change nonsense has devalued the EPA in reputation. Let's face it, if it mandatory to perfectly preserve the environment, All chemicals and All manufacturing would be outlawed. Protecting the environment has to be balanced with human survival end the economy.

                  And yes, dumping chemicals in area's that hurts the health of people and the life in the area is a crime that should be prosecuted. And not just by fines, but imprisonment for all who knew what they were doing. Harming people to save money is unacceptable. I don't believe any conservative would disagree. Many EPA laws are good and necessary. Some laws are unreasonable to accommodate tree huggers. And when I say tree huggers, I mean the over the top people that would let people die before they'd allow someone to cut down a tree.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                    The trouble is, this is not about cleaning up the environment. Its about redistributing wealth. Its an emotional issue, not a logical issue. None of the predictions have been realized. None of the computer models have proven accurate. It's a hoax stoked by people who want to feel good about doing something for the world.
                    Using the term with Alarmist at the end, I'd say, "Climate change alarmists". It irritates me that that term is only used when trying to devalue the interests of conservatives.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                      You think it isn't ?

                      Why ?

                      Maybe it's not completely correct to categorize it as a "hoax," but it certainly isn't based on real science or reality ... in any way !!

                      It's like so many bad ideas that became widely accepted by sheep . . . I mean the masses (humans often do act like herd animals).

                      Just because you might hear a lot of blather and noise about something, doesn't make that thing true, or even worthy of notice. But it's 'noticed' because 'everybody' is talking about it .. or at least some "important" people are.

                      It's a big distraction that means nothing more than you getting to keep less of your earnings.

                      That's all.
                      So you think the rest of the world has been duped and it's just you in the US conservatives who can see the plan.
                      You do realise the rest of the world has specialists and scientists who can verify and check stuff and we aren't all following just out of some odd mutual suicide pact by the industrialized world.
                      This brings me to the conclusion that no matter how many people get up and say climate change is a problem and needs to be tackled you guys won't accept it so I have a feeling the rest of the world will just go along without you. It's just a shame you guys have any political clout in a country as important as the US.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                        So you think the rest of the world has been duped and it's just you in the US conservatives who can see the plan.
                        You do realise the rest of the world has specialists and scientists who can verify and check stuff and we aren't all following just out of some odd mutual suicide pact by the industrialized world.
                        This brings me to the conclusion that no matter how many people get up and say climate change is a problem and needs to be tackled you guys won't accept it so I have a feeling the rest of the world will just go along without you. It's just a shame you guys have any political clout in a country as important as the US.

                        So, show us some real evidence of man made global warming. I have been listening to this tripe for the las 20 to 30 years and have seen no evidence. According to the first alarmists, the poles should have melted by now and New York City should be three feet under water. Crops should have been wiped out, people should be starving, hurricanes should be at record highs and most of us should be dead. I don't see it.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                          So, show us some real evidence of man made global warming. I have been listening to this tripe for the las 20 to 30 years and have seen no evidence. According to the first alarmists, the poles should have melted by now and New York City should be three feet under water. Crops should have been wiped out, people should be starving, hurricanes should be at record highs and most of us should be dead. I don't see it.
                          Lets not forget that before that, 'science' was explaining to us that we were all going to freeze to death in a coming ice age !

                          Science is science, it is not omniscience . . . and any scientist will tell you this.

                          ... as well as explain to us that we do not know if man made "global warming" is true or not because of the above fact.

                          It's something a busy body idiot politician made a movie about to get everyone thinking and worrying about it. Now a lot of brainwashed fools think it's settled science ... consensus blah blah blah.

                          All of it a lie.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                            So you think the rest of the world has been duped and it's just you in the US conservatives who can see the plan.

                            ....
                            No, the "rest of the world" has not been "duped."

                            A certain number of individuals all over the world have been of course.

                            It's also not "just [us] conservatives in the US" that recognize this business as just another alarmist fraud.

                            There are people all over the world (again, that all over the world thing), scientists and politicians included (again, from all over) that are aware of the facts. If you care to really study this issue, you will learn a great deal. I would encourage you to do so.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                              If I was convinced and trusted the science here, of course I would certainly be for intelligently addressing this issue, but it would not be a scheme to redistribute working people's money to the banking cabal and MNCs. It would begin by the massive planting of trees all around the world to scrub some of this co2 out of the atmosphere. And it would be to pump money into research and development of something to replace fossil fuels burned for energy. So, it would be something that adds to economic activity, not something that would repress it.
                              I'll have to agree with you here. That is the most reasonable thing we could do to protect our environment. Even without the global warming alarmists. So what is all the money going to now anyway? Really, what are they doing with it to stop global warming?

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X