Trumps family duel relations

[Trungep99]

Originally Posted by eadric [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Climate Change "scientists" are the new priest class. They are only interested in protecting their status within the new priesthood, not with scientific facts. The mathematical manipulations used to exaggerate the impact of CO2 on global temperature have been proven by the few courageous enough to speak the truth.

Unfortunately, most people aren't intelligent enough to analyze the math for themselves, or even to follow as someone else points out the manipulation and errors. They just trust the priests to do their thinking for them. Here's Christopher Monckton's presentation, with an easy to follow analysis of exactly where the priests manipulated the formula. http://www.deluxetech.co.uk/wp-conte...sensi-cm16.pdf

Yeah say that to Venus, not too much CO2 there eh? If not for climate change, clean energy should be used to decrease pollution which will also decrease the need for additional health care cost. I mean really, the rain forest are depleting and our consuming of fossil fuels is increasing as our population increases.

And I know 98% of scientist agree that climate change is a fact, I've seen plenty of evidence and studies along the way. The climate has been studied for many decades now showing an increase in temperature slowly as the years go by with coordination to CO2 being represented as a variable.
It is not about grants although very needed to keep the scientist able to monitor climate change.

Vice News had really great coverage of how it's being studied, and the findings . Also how oil lobbist are involved with promoting it as a hoax. I ask you why would only oil companies fund those deniers, plenty of independent scientist of a conservative background found climate change to be fact.

[Trungep99]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually, that would be democrats. Seriously, read a book. I recommend Dinesh D'Souza's Hillary's America as a place to start. He compiles a great deal of history there.

Since you obviously don't read, you could take the easy route and watch the documentary.

excuse me, the Conservative party , which ever it may be during the decade you are thinking of has had the white nationalism background. Thank you for allowing me to make it more clear.currently the Conservative party happens to be republicans.

And I'm sure you reading had zero bias lol

[Trungep99]

again, the concern as to if you need proof in if trump is racist or not can be found in his cabinet picks. Despite everything I posted before.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-emer...net-1479513607

Or

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5d0_story.html

Michael Flynn being my bigger concern. Had a photo of him with Putin & has alarming statements regarding Muslims. But i question why is he also working as a lobbist for Turkey as we speak , since he said some harsh things about Muslims on Twitter. Isn't it a conflict of interest to accept pay,ent from a foreign government and work for the USA government, I guess he will have to give up his side lobbist job.

But sessions is kind of scary too “If you have nostalgia for the days when blacks kept quiet, gays were in the closet, immigrants were invisible and women stayed in the kitchen, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions is your man,” Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said in a statement. “No senator has fought harder against the hopes and aspirations of Latinos, immigrants, and people of color than Sen. Sessions.”

Can't Trump at least pick someone without baggage.

[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by Trungep99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah say that to Venus, not too much CO2 there eh? If not for climate change, clean energy should be used to decrease pollution which will also decrease the need for additional health care cost. I mean really, the rain forest are depleting and our consuming of fossil fuels is increasing as our population increases.

And I know 98% of scientist agree that climate change is a fact, I've seen plenty of evidence and studies along the way. The climate has been studied for many decades now showing an increase in temperature slowly as the years go by with coordination to CO2 being represented as a variable.
It is not about grants although very needed to keep the scientist able to monitor climate change.

Vice News had really great coverage of how it's being studied, and the findings . Also how oil lobbist are involved with promoting it as a hoax. I ask you why would only oil companies fund those deniers, plenty of independent scientist of a conservative background found climate change to be fact.

Originally Posted by Trungep99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

excuse me, the Conservative party , which ever it may be during the decade you are thinking of has had the white nationalism background. Thank you for allowing me to make it more clear.currently the Conservative party happens to be republicans.

And I'm sure you reading had zero bias lol

Originally Posted by Trungep99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

again, the concern as to if you need proof in if trump is racist or not can be found in his cabinet picks. Despite everything I posted before.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-emer...net-1479513607

Or

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5d0_story.html

Michael Flynn being my bigger concern. Had a photo of him with Putin & has alarming statements regarding Muslims.

But sessions is kind of scary too “If you have nostalgia for the days when blacks kept quiet, gays were in the closet, immigrants were invisible and women stayed in the kitchen, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions is your man,” Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said in a statement. “No senator has fought harder against the hopes and aspirations of Latinos, immigrants, and people of color than Sen. Sessions.”

Can't he at least pick someone without baggage.

did not read 1 word

[eadric]

Originally Posted by Trungep99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah say that to Venus, not too much CO2 there eh? If not for climate change, clean energy should be used to decrease pollution which will also decrease the need for additional health care cost. I mean really, the rain forest are depleting and our consuming of fossil fuels is increasing as our population increases.

Those are legitimate environmental issues, which are often overlooked in favor of climate change hysteria. I'm all for real environmentalism, from more advanced, cleaner energy sources, to protecting forests, and holding nuclear power companies accountable for their waste products.

And I know 98% of scientist agree that climate change is a fact, I've seen plenty of evidence and studies along the way. The climate has been studied for many decades now showing an increase in temperature slowly as the years go by with coordination to CO2 being represented as a variable.
It is not about grants although very needed to keep the scientist able to monitor climate change.

Maybe 98% choose to stay between the lines for one reason or another. There are certainly plenty of incentives not to question the status quo. As for those "studies" and the predictions they make, they invariably end up being proven wrong. Read the link I posted for one explanation why they are always wrong.

Or ignore me, and keep cheering for a carbon tax and carbon credits, which will only favor the biggest corporations and peddlers of sophisticated financial instruments (wall st, city of london), to the detriment of their small and medium sized competitors, and all the rest of humanity.

[Trungep99]

Originally Posted by eadric [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Those are legitimate environmental issues, which are often overlooked in favor of climate change hysteria. I'm all for real environmentalism, from more advanced, cleaner energy sources, to protecting forests, and holding nuclear power companies accountable for their waste products.


Maybe 98% choose to stay between the lines for one reason or another. There are certainly plenty of incentives not to question the status quo. As for those "studies" and the predictions they make, they invariably end up being proven wrong. Read the link I posted for one explanation why they are always wrong.

Or ignore me, and keep cheering for a carbon tax and carbon credits, which will only favor the biggest corporations and peddlers of sophisticated financial instruments (wall st, city of london), to the detriment of their small and medium sized competitors, and all the rest of humanity.

I'll take a gander later. I haven't seen what is said but I do think the basic concept of increased CO2 admissions + the decline of the rain forest can change the atmosphere.

[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by eadric [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Those are legitimate environmental issues, which are often overlooked in favor of climate change hysteria. I'm all for real environmentalism, from more advanced, cleaner energy sources, to protecting forests, and holding nuclear power companies accountable for their waste products.


Maybe 98% choose to stay between the lines for one reason or another. There are certainly plenty of incentives not to question the status quo. As for those "studies" and the predictions they make, they invariably end up being proven wrong. Read the link I posted for one explanation why they are always wrong.

Or ignore me, and keep cheering for a carbon tax and carbon credits, which will only favor the biggest corporations and peddlers of sophisticated financial instruments (wall st, city of london), to the detriment of their small and medium sized competitors, and all the rest of humanity.

yikes dude don't admit to reading that

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Trungep99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not really , this entire forum is trolls and republicans

Well the troll is obvious, but who are all the republicans you speak of?

Wow, such a fail troll. ...or just really plain failure.

[Angushjalmur]

Originally Posted by Trungep99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

only if a candidate is racist. But I'm just saying republicans have a long history of white nationalism , many who campaigned on it within the last 100 years and trump is the modern version of a republican using fear of minority's to scare voters

Republicans ended slavery and the Klan was made of democrats

Try again

[Angushjalmur]

I think grunge might be a social worker. Many are paid shills on the side because pushing liberal agendas gets their programs more money than they need