America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 22 months ago by Brewha. 88 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
350+ Shooting this Weekend
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
RayR Offline
#51 Posted: Mon, Jul 25 2022, 8:26 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,888
MACS wrote:
Remember when the UN said, in 1989, that because of global warming sea rise would bury some countries by the year 2000?

Yeeeeaahhhh... over 2 decades ago. No countries sank or were covered by water. Clearly that was some fake news. Lie and lie and lie trying to scare people and they will think your full of chit.


Al Gore is back to his usual stupid chit...


"Climate deniers are really in some ways similar to all of those almost 400 law enforcement officers in Uvalde, Texas, who were waiting outside an unlocked door while the children were being massacred," he said.


Al Gore blasted for ‘climate denier’-Uvalde shooting comparison: ‘A real sicko’

https://www.foxnews.com/media/al-gore-blasted-climate-denier-uvalde-shooting-comparison-real-sicko


Al Gore: Mother Nature Has Already Declared A ‘Global Emergency’ On Climate

Quote:
Former Vice President Al Gore said Sunday that even if President Joe Biden hesitated on declaring a national emergency to address climate change, Mother Nature had already done so and the planet was feeling the effects of a warming world with dire consequences.

Gore made the comments on ABC’s “This Week,” telling host Jonathan Karl shattered heat records, Antarctic ice melt and the ongoing devastation of drought, flooding and wildfires were hitting the world “hard” and with immediate effect.

“We’re seeing this global emergency play out and it’s getting worse more quickly than was predicted,” Gore said Sunday. “This should be a moment for a global epiphany and the voters and the publics in countries around the world need to put a lot more pressure on their political leaders.”

https://news.yahoo.com/al-gore-mother-nature-already-074925127.html
8trackdisco Offline
#52 Posted: Mon, Jul 25 2022, 8:50 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,075
MACS wrote:
Remember when the UN said, in 1989, that because of global warming sea rise would bury some countries by the year 2000.


That one really is one which damages the case worst of all.
Can recall all of the shrieking about Armageddon if we don’t do something big to combat climate change by year 2000.

Now it’s 22 years later, and now the left is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really serious.

That is Chicken Little or the Boy Who Called Wolf x22 sealed both their fate and the fate of the planet.

For me, I do believe in climate change/unsustainable heating of the planet.
Believe it is a combination of natural and man made causes getting us here.
Old rich people probably know it is real too, but they know they will be dead ahead of the planet dying.

And their spoiled brat kids will all have yachts, so wtf do they care?
HockeyDad Offline
#53 Posted: Mon, Jul 25 2022, 10:48 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,130
The people who scream that climate change is an existential threat also buy beachfront property.
Brewha Offline
#54 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 9:08 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
8trackdisco wrote:
That one really is one which damages the case worst of all.
Can recall all of the shrieking about Armageddon if we don’t do something big to combat climate change by year 2000.

Now it’s 22 years later, and now the left is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really serious.

That is Chicken Little or the Boy Who Called Wolf x22 sealed both their fate and the fate of the planet.

For me, I do believe in climate change/unsustainable heating of the planet.
Believe it is a combination of natural and man made causes getting us here.
Old rich people probably know it is real too, but they know they will be dead ahead of the planet dying.

And their spoiled brat kids will all have yachts, so wtf do they care?

It is little surprise that so few understand the effects of pollution on the earths climate. We have embraced the culture of discounting science, or scientific organizations, that tell us things we don't want to hear by labeling it "political".

Add to that people/companies with a vested interest in not changing over to green solutions, and you see a ton of YouTube videos and TV commentary saying climate change is fake news (that is why a joke about fake news).

All things being equal everyone would want clean energy - but now wanting it makes you a "lefty".
bgz Offline
#55 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 9:11 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I've always been under the opinion that natural advancement in tech would lead us in better directions overall. I still think that.
Brewha Offline
#56 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 9:12 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
bgz wrote:
I've always been under the opinion that natural advancement in tech would lead us in better directions overall. I still think that.

Are you floating the idea that Progressive=good?
HockeyDad Offline
#57 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 9:36 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,130
Brewha wrote:
Are you floating the idea that Progressive=good?


Progressive technology and progressive politics are not related.
Brewha Offline
#58 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 9:39 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
HockeyDad wrote:
Progressive technology and progressive politics are not related.

So...progressing to green energy is not political?
HockeyDad Offline
#59 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 10:05 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,130
We could progress to green technologies through free market innovation. We are not but we were for a time.

The energy sector is a special case for free markets since it is strategic to national interests and is heavily government influenced/manipulated. As you say there are people/companies with a vested interest in not changing over to green solutions, there are also many with a vested interest in changing over to green solutions. Follow the money. Climate change is a gold mine.
RayR Offline
#60 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 10:12 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,888
No sense in talking to Brewha, he's a lefty corporate welfare fascist.
Brewha Offline
#61 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 10:23 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
HockeyDad wrote:
We could progress to green technologies through free market innovation. We are not but we were for a time.

The energy sector is a special case for free markets since it is strategic to national interests and is heavily government influenced/manipulated. As you say there are people/companies with a vested interest in not changing over to green solutions, there are also many with a vested interest in changing over to green solutions. Follow the money. Climate change is a gold mine.

No argument there. Lots of money to be made re-tooling and changing over. New jobs too.

But big oil will always sell it as politics and the sky is falling.

I guess we should use our smarts (gulp!) to do the right thing.
(sometimes I crack myself up)
burning_sticks Offline
#62 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 10:53 AM EST
Joined: 08-17-2020
Posts: 152
Brewha wrote:
Maybe they should just issue guns - you know, like Obama phones?


I frequented a bar in Panama City, if you didn't have a gun when you came in, you could get a loaner.

I will take George Carlins stand that planet is gonna be fine, it's us that have a problem.
RayR Offline
#63 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 11:37 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,888
Brewha still doesn't get it, that those "green technologies" he dreams about, the ones that Joey B told him would create new jobs by just "re-tooling and changing over" are not so green and not very cost efficient and in fact are a recipe for more poverty and other economic and environmental disasters. To bring about this instant brave new world the lefties want so badly would not be one that would emerge organically from the free market innovation of capitalism like the fossil fuel industry did so long ago.
No, they aren't interested and don't have the patience for that, their faith is in government socialism directing the course of technology now. Declare a climate emergency, the sky is falling, corporate welfare now for donors to the DNC. Lefty politicians know best, so economic fascism is the only way to a green future!
HockeyDad Offline
#64 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 12:17 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,130
Brewha wrote:
No argument there. Lots of money to be made re-tooling and changing over. New jobs too.

But big oil will always sell it as politics and the sky is falling.

I guess we should use our smarts (gulp!) to do the right thing.
(sometimes I crack myself up)


You would actually be surprised at how much money big oil is dumping into green technologies. The problem big oil has is inconsistent energy policy. Big oil invests billions into projects that will produce profits in 5 years. If you’ve got a billion to invest right now do you invest in green technologies because Biden says he’s going to put oil and gas out of business or do you invest in building a new refinery because Biden says we need to lower gasoline prices by increasing supply? Nobody builds new refineries in the US.
HockeyDad Offline
#65 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 12:18 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,130
RayR wrote:
No sense in talking to Brewha, he's a lefty corporate welfare fascist.


There’s plenty of room at the trough!

Signed: righty corporate welfare fascist.
MACS Offline
#66 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 12:28 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
CA had very clean energy and a lot of it, too... they closed down their nuclear plants and now charge an arm, a leg, and a firstborn child per kwh... for wind? Solar? Or is it fossil fuels?

Look it up.
Brewha Offline
#67 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 2:02 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
HockeyDad wrote:
You would actually be surprised at how much money big oil is dumping into green technologies. The problem big oil has is inconsistent energy policy. Big oil invests billions into projects that will produce profits in 5 years. If you’ve got a billion to invest right now do you invest in green technologies because Biden says he’s going to put oil and gas out of business or do you invest in building a new refinery because Biden says we need to lower gasoline prices by increasing supply? Nobody builds new refineries in the US.

I agree the inconsistent polies are hurting everyone. Trump rolling pack emission standards was a d1ck move.
RayR Offline
#68 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 2:17 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,888
HockeyDad wrote:
There’s plenty of room at the trough!

Signed: righty corporate welfare fascist.


There is no such thing as a righty corporate welfare fascist.
Neocon corporate welfare fascists...YES
I hear some of them are in the Republican Party
They are just lefties in denial of their roots and drooling at the trough with the lefties.
8trackdisco Offline
#69 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 7:20 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,075
HockeyDad wrote:
We could progress to green technologies through free market innovation. We are not but we were for a time.

The energy sector is a special case for free markets since it is strategic to national interests and is heavily government influenced/manipulated. As you say there are people/companies with a vested interest in not changing over to green solutions, there are also many with a vested interest in changing over to green solutions. Follow the money. Climate change is a gold mine.


That is a lot of vests.
8trackdisco Offline
#70 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 7:33 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,075
Brewha wrote:
It is little surprise that so few understand the effects of pollution on the earths climate. We have embraced the culture of discounting science, or scientific organizations, that tell us things we don't want to hear.


That is a slippery one. I still see some Biden signs out with We Believe in Science.

“The Science” only fits when it serves the purposes of the political party.

Dems decried Big Pharma, and weren’t going to take the ‘Trump Vaccine’.
The virus came from a lab was the only possibility. Saying it could have been genetically developed in a lab got you banned on social media.

The Science then said Take the Shot. Both shots. Then a booster, no another booster, while hiding the data for the next 75 years. How is that transparent?

Original science Don’t Wear A Mask. Followed by Everyone Wear a Mask. Then “The Science” said masks provide little to no protection. What do the Dems say? … wear a mask.

And the whole time, both party politicians have filled their pockets.

And don’t even let me start with the CDC and WHO. They are too sad to be laughing stocks.

You can’t really wonder why people think so much of this bull chit is… well, bull chit.

Can you?
8trackdisco Offline
#71 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 7:36 PM EST
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,075
MACS wrote:
CA had very clean energy and a lot of it, too... they closed down their nuclear plants and now charge an arm, a leg, and a firstborn child per kwh... for wind? Solar? Or is it fossil fuels?

Look it up.


First born? Thought they aborted the first one to show their dedication to the cause.
zitotczito Offline
#72 Posted: Tue, Jul 26 2022, 8:47 PM EST
Joined: 08-21-2006
Posts: 6,441
Brewha wrote:
Just to get out in front of the Right here, let me be the first to say:

"Guns are NEVER the problem"


Here I fixed it for you: "Guns are NEVER the problem except when in the hands of Democrats who are mostly criminal's."
Krazeehorse Offline
#73 Posted: Wed, Jul 27 2022, 7:27 AM EST
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
Brewha wrote:
And they shoot people somewhat less.....


Only somewhat.
Krazeehorse Offline
#74 Posted: Wed, Jul 27 2022, 7:28 AM EST
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
Brewha wrote:
And there we have it. Guns are not the problem.

It takes people to use a gun so people must be the problem.



Correct.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#75 Posted: Wed, Jul 27 2022, 7:36 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
8trackdisco wrote:
That is a slippery one. I still see some Biden signs out with We Believe in Science.

“The Science” only fits when it serves the purposes of the political party.

Dems decried Big Pharma, and weren’t going to take the ‘Trump Vaccine’.
The virus came from a lab was the only possibility. Saying it could have been genetically developed in a lab got you banned on social media.

The Science then said Take the Shot. Both shots. Then a booster, no another booster, while hiding the data for the next 75 years. How is that transparent?

Original science Don’t Wear A Mask. Followed by Everyone Wear a Mask. Then “The Science” said masks provide little to no protection. What do the Dems say? … wear a mask.

And the whole time, both party politicians have filled their pockets.

And don’t even let me start with the CDC and WHO. They are too sad to be laughing stocks.

You can’t really wonder why people think so much of this bull chit is… well, bull chit.

Can you?



And the little tyrant wants to play it both ways now that he's been proven a liar...someone that can be bought and a mass murderer!

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/recent-fauci-claims-dismantled-former-cdc-director-and-faucis-own-words
Brewha Offline
#76 Posted: Wed, Jul 27 2022, 12:31 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
8trackdisco wrote:
That is a slippery one. I still see some Biden signs out with We Believe in Science.

“The Science” only fits when it serves the purposes of the political party.

Dems decried Big Pharma, and weren’t going to take the ‘Trump Vaccine’.
The virus came from a lab was the only possibility. Saying it could have been genetically developed in a lab got you banned on social media.

The Science then said Take the Shot. Both shots. Then a booster, no another booster, while hiding the data for the next 75 years. How is that transparent?

Original science Don’t Wear A Mask. Followed by Everyone Wear a Mask. Then “The Science” said masks provide little to no protection. What do the Dems say? … wear a mask.

And the whole time, both party politicians have filled their pockets.

And don’t even let me start with the CDC and WHO. They are too sad to be laughing stocks.

You can’t really wonder why people think so much of this bull chit is… well, bull chit.

Can you?

Yes, I can.

Seems the problem is with people listening to "science" from anyone who proports to have it. One guy here posts opinion pieces he found on YouTube and proclaims them indisputable truth of science fact - when even a cursory watching shows them to be emotion and opinion, both uninformed. Many here disregard the best Doctors , Scientist and organizations because they don't like what they say.

Add to that the common wisdom that changing recommendations based on new research or data means "science knows nothing".
Brewha Offline
#77 Posted: Wed, Jul 27 2022, 12:38 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
Krazeehorse wrote:
Correct.

Going for a Pulitzer?
Brewha Offline
#78 Posted: Wed, Jul 27 2022, 12:39 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
zitotczito wrote:
Here I fixed it for you: "Guns are NEVER the problem except when in the hands of Democrats who are mostly criminal's."

Wait - YOU'RE a Democrat???


You should change parties...
MACS Offline
#79 Posted: Wed, Jul 27 2022, 3:35 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
Never thought these words would leave my lips... at least not unless I was being sarcastic... but, thank you, Jerry Nadless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWH45W_3E2I
Mr. Jones Offline
#80 Posted: Wed, Jul 27 2022, 7:26 PM EST
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,421
Just wondering???

What was the # of peeps shot and killed in
DAMASCUS , SYRIA last weekend???

Higher?

Or

Lower?
MACS Offline
#81 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2022, 10:49 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
Brewha wrote:
It is little surprise that so few understand the effects of pollution on the earths climate. We have embraced the culture of discounting science, or scientific organizations, that tell us things we don't want to hear by labeling it "political".

Add to that people/companies with a vested interest in not changing over to green solutions, and you see a ton of YouTube videos and TV commentary saying climate change is fake news (that is why a joke about fake news).

All things being equal everyone would want clean energy - but now wanting it makes you a "lefty".


Oh, okay Mr. Science... how many genders are there? If the vast majority of biologists say life begins at conception (and they do)... does it? Or is it just a clump of cells? Can men bear children?

Don't point fingers about science deniers when your party are the freakin' kings and queens (and weirdos) of it.
DrafterX Offline
#82 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2022, 10:54 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
I heard the earth is gonna die in a couple years... Mellow
bgz Offline
#83 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2022, 11:11 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
MACS wrote:
Oh, okay Mr. Science... how many genders are there? If the vast majority of biologists say life begins at conception (and they do)... does it? Or is it just a clump of cells? Can men bear children?

Don't point fingers about science deniers when your party are the freakin' kings and queens (and weirdos) of it.


Pretty sure most biologists would say life begins at the cellular level... Or possibly even sooner than that...

You're just moving the goal post up a bit to a specific cell.

No egg left behind.
zitotczito Offline
#84 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2022, 1:37 PM EST
Joined: 08-21-2006
Posts: 6,441
Brewha wrote:
Wait - YOU'RE a Democrat???


You should change parties...


I said before that I was testing what it is like being a Democrat. Tons of benefits to it. lots of free stuff, illegals to do my yard work, able to commit crimes with impunity and no consequences. What's not to love. Maybe we should get together for a drink and smoke so you can teach me the finer points.
MACS Offline
#85 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2022, 3:00 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
bgz wrote:
Pretty sure most biologists would say life begins at the cellular level... Or possibly even sooner than that...

You're just moving the goal post up a bit to a specific cell.

No egg left behind.


You'd be wrong. Again. But hey... you think you're the smartest guy in the room, so you must be right.

Survey says! BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong.

"Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. There are two distinct interpretations of the question: descriptive (i.e., ‘When is a fetus classified as a human?’) and normative (i.e., ‘When ought a fetus be worthy of ethical and legal consideration?’). To determine if one view is more prevalent today, 2,899 American adults were surveyed and asked to select the group most qualified to answer the question of when a human’s life begins. The majority selected biologists (81%), which suggested Americans primarily hold a descriptive view. Indeed, the majority justified their selection by describing biologists as objective scientists that can use their biological expertise to determine when a human's life begins. Academic biologists were recruited to participate in a study on their descriptive view of when life begins. A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements representing the biological view ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’. This view was used because previous polls and surveys suggest many Americans and medical experts hold this view. Each of the three statements representing that view was affirmed by a consensus of biologists (75-91%). The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502). Historically, the descriptive view on when life begins has dictated the normative view that drives America's abortion laws: (1) abortion was illegal at ‘quickening’ under 18th century common law, (2) abortion was illegal at ‘conception’ in state laws from the late 1800’s to the mid-1900’s, and (3) abortion is currently legal before ‘viability’ due to 20th century U.S. Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While this article’s findings suggest a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization, this descriptive view does not entail the normative view that fetuses deserve legal consideration throughout pregnancy. Contemporary ethical and legal concepts that motivate reproductive rights might cause Americans to disregard the descriptive view or disentangle it from the normative view. However, these findings can help Americans move past the factual dispute on when life begins and focus on the operative question of when a fetus deserves legal consideration."

Steven Andrew Jacobs
Northwestern Prizker School of Law; University of Chicago - Department of Comparative Human Development
MACS Offline
#86 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2022, 3:03 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
Begins at "fertilization"... otherwise known as "conception". When the woman's egg and the man's sperm join to make a human life.

Just like they used to teach in biology... ya know... before the wokies took over school curriculum, and told your kids it was just a "clump of cells".

Science denier.

LMAO!
Sunoverbeach Offline
#87 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2022, 4:18 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,665
Anatomy of a Shooting Themed Thread
An independent study by the Sons O Beaches Foundation

*Shooting statistic stated* Uh huh. Makes sense
*Rehashed arguments made for/against gun rights/control* Yep, check.
*Left/right political shade thrown* Expected
*Climate change enters the chat* Wait, wut?!?
*COVID Vaccine arguments begin* Cbid, what are you doing?
*Transgender theory comes out (of the closet?)* STAHP!!!
*Firmly entrenched in abortion argument* Oy vey! d'oh!

Empirical evidence has shown that one single thread covers all of your political woes. Y'all are just spamming now
Brewha Offline
#88 Posted: Fri, Jul 29 2022, 4:44 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,173
MACS wrote:
Oh, okay Mr. Science... how many genders are there? If the vast majority of biologists say life begins at conception (and they do)... does it? Or is it just a clump of cells? Can men bear children?

Don't point fingers about science deniers when your party are the freakin' kings and queens (and weirdos) of it.

In the animal kingdom there are males, females, hermaphrodites, and asexual animals. So, four. Although classically two is considered the most correct answer.

At conception, two living things become one living thing. Then cells divide.

The question of when does a human life begins is far less simple than you are thinking. After conception, as before, it is human life, but not a human proper. When does it become a Being is a better question.

It seems reasonable to me that once the fertilized egg grows to a viable level, say second or third trimester, it is responsible to call it a Being.



Btw, I think you are mixing up people that deny science and those who are ignorant of it.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Back to Top