Global Warming? My A$$ Its Cold Outside

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by dmek25

if it was part of my job, then yes, i would explain. he gets paid to explain his stance on the issues

No, our representatives get paid to REPRESENT our stances. In MOST cases, representatives should vote the way their constituents tell them to. Unless there is something completely hidden from public record (which there shouldn't be) and they need to vote against the peoples' will because of the knowledge of that, they need to listen to us. If they do vote against our intentions, yeah, they BETTER have a good explanation.

Considering how many Americans are against the ObamaCare plan, we can see that a lot of Senators ignored the public's will when it passes in the Senate.

Massachusetts was a backlash and not-so-friendly reminder that they are employed BY US to do what WE tell them to.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i don't know? everyone around here was just glad that a Rep. won. no one was talking about his stance on the issues

To be honest I forgot about this election until about two weeks before the election and he was making up ground on whats her name. I'm just glad he won to help stop this bad bribe everyone health care bill.

[GMScud]

World may not be warming, say scientists - Times Online

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

[firstdown]

So we have spent millions and millions of federal dollars for this reserch and this a$$ wipe treats it like trash. I thought science was only as good as its data to back up its conclusion. Oh, I guess that's not true with global warming.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So we have spent millions and millions of federal dollars for this reserch and this a$$ wipe treats it like trash. I thought science was only as good as its data to back up its conclusion. Oh, I guess that's not true with global warming.

Not the first and sure won't be the last thing that we waste millions on, including climate-based research. Let's take a look at health care, defense, welfare, etc and see where the real waste is going.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Not the first and sure won't be the last thing that we waste millions on, including climate-based research. Let's take a look at health care, defense, welfare, etc and see where the real waste is going.

We could broaden the category, and say let's look at government and see where the waste is going! Good thing we don't have to worry

[tryfuhl]

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

When you're offering green jobs, let me know. I've a few friends that need work. Until then . . . .

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

When you're offering green jobs, let me know. I've a few friends that need work. Until then . . . .

I know a couple of guys that do consulting

tell them to look on their own, I'm having enough job issues

these could be things to come.. as are the other items on the list if you pay attention

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

I know a couple of guys that do consulting

tell them to look on their own, I'm having enough job issues

these could be things to come.. as are the other items on the list if you pay attention

You actually believe that rubbish. We already have the EPA. Climate change is just a phrase the Robber Barrons use to fix prices. You probably believe that GE is for helping out the little guy too?

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

You actually believe that rubbish. We already have the EPA. Climate change is just a phrase the Robber Barrons use to fix prices. You probably believe that GE is for helping out the little guy too?

You've just taken the argument to another dimension.

You don't think that changes that might have less of an impact on the climate, increase domestic production, etc are beneficial, whether global warming is as pronounced as they say.. or not at all?

I don't get it.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

You've just taken the argument to another dimension.

You don't think that changes that might have less of an impact on the climate, increase domestic production, etc are beneficial, whether global warming is as pronounced as they say.. or not at all?

I don't get it.

We already have an EPA to make sure the rivers are clean, children are healthy, and everyone breathes clean air. That's already the law. Let Dupont get caught dumping into the James; that's Federal time and millions in lawsuits, guaranteed.

Global warming and its new phrase, "climate change", is a ponzi scheme. It's like Coca Cola and Pepsi having a meeting to cut production while demand is high. What happens? The price goes up as does the profit. Coca Cola and Pepsi basically own the soda pop industry, so who's going to say anything? It's the same with the energy companies. It's basically a confederated monopoly. All they need is a Jolly Roger flag.

You actually believe that these dirtbags give two fat shits about you or me, let alone the freaking planet? They care about one thing, power. We're just numbers to them.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

You've just taken the argument to another dimension.

You don't think that changes that might have less of an impact on the climate, increase domestic production, etc are beneficial, whether global warming is as pronounced as they say.. or not at all?

I don't get it.

I understand why you don't get it, because I can't explain it in a way that you will, because--- you fundamentally trust science/government. (yes I am making a guess about that).

If you realize that government is run by people, specifically people who want to guide (or control) your life, and they will use science as a new religion (science proves it, hence it must be so) to that end then you may start to see a reason why some people don't like ceding even more national rights to the world quasi -government or the world politicians.

It's not that the changes are in and of themselves bad, but instead that the motive behind them is covered over and made to look sweet, when there is a bitter truth behind much of it.

I am not saying govt should not exist, only that its authority and extent of control should be extremely limited. That is what our constitution as originally written created. It is not what our government - which sees 90+ year old men holding on to their powerful senate seats, or the federal government forcing the state, and thus the individual to abide by a restrictive law ie seatbelts (not a "bad" or evil law, but certainly restricting a decision that in and of itself has no bearing on our national security) - lives up to today.

[tryfuhl]

So much of the argument is outside of politics though. Politics do eventually if not instantaneously flood whatever cause, of course.

I will agree that motives can be at question, I'm a strange mixture of an idealist and a realist I guess that you can say. I'm more than aware that most decisions are made out of politics and outside of the greater good, it's unfortunate. Most of what I argue is more out of idealism.

I've argued for a youth movement in the govt as well as committees needing unbiased leadership, but who knows how many kinks that would throw into the balance.

The day that I see the end of bipartisanship will be the day that I lend more of my heart instead of my ear to the government, until then, who knows.

[MTK]

It's been an early spring in my area, no global warming my A$$