24
   

Congratulations, House Republicans!

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 11:32 am
@coldjoint,
I already said I agree that you are a small minded sycophant.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 01:24 pm
@parados,
Not even 'small-minded.' He has nothing that resembles a human brain. A parrot is smarter by 10 points IQ.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 07:16 pm
@parados,
Quote:
I already said I agree that you are a small minded sycophant.


I am CJ not CI
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 07:35 pm
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9H2Lghr9HMA/U3_mt-Y_7sI/AAAAAAABWCk/o69LeUlK2pc/s600/likeachaunceygardiner%5B1%5D.png
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 08:43 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
So is a shithole when your looking for ****.


I accept your expertise in shitholes, I mean you certainly have that air about you, but facts are facts whether they come from the RNC or Worker's Daily. "Obama sucks" isn't a fact in spite of however many blogs you quote. "7% unemployment" is fact whether you quote Fox or the White House.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 08:45 pm
@coldjoint,
No, you are, twit.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 08:45 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
We're feeding the troll; cj is ice brain. In other words, frozen or dead.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 08:46 pm
@parados,
Ask him by what possible mechanism the Fed is putting money into the stock market. What does that even mean?
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 08:47 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
"7% unemployment" is fact


A fact due to Obama numbers. No dropouts from workforce or benefits expired,or under employed included. Actual unemployment is between 12 to 16%.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 08:49 pm
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/23/house_bans_the_military_from_acknowledging_climate_science_national_security_be_damned/

Friday, May 23, 2014 12:45 PM CST
House bans the military from acknowledging climate science, national security be damned
A budget amendment forbids the Pentagon fromspending to study or prepare for the impacts of climate change
Lindsay Abrams



Topics: climate change denialism, climate skeptics, House Science Committee, House Republicans, Department of Defense, Pentagon, U.S. Military, Sustainability News, Politics News
House bans the military from acknowledging climate science, national security be damned (Credit: Aekkaphob/Shutterstock)

The notoriously anti-science House Science Committee has hit a new low, voting on Thursday to approve a spending bill amendment that “would prohibit defense spending on climate change research and the social cost of carbon analysis.” Translated: The Pentagon is being ordered to ignore climate science.

Specifically, the amendment, which was introduced by Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., forbids the Department of Defense from in any way utilizing the findings and recommendations of the National Climate Assessment or the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment on climate change, two landmark, comprehensive reports reflecting the work of hundreds of the world’s top climate scientists and experts — or, as McKinley referred to it, “ideology.” In so doing, it renders all that knowledge and understanding effectively irrelevant to national defense.
advertisement

This is a problem, because understanding and preparing for climate change is an important thing the Department of Defense needs to be able to do, in order to, you know, defend us. Their words: “DOD expects climate change to challenge its ability to fulfill its mission in the future.” Natural disaster response, increased conflict tied to drought and food and water security and other “non-traditional” security challenges are all things the military’s been actively working to address. In its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, as a recent example, the Pentagon identified the impacts of climate change as “threat multipliers” that “may increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of future missions.” It’s even looking for ways to reduce its own carbon footprint, by cutting back on energy use and switching to renewables.

Not necessary, according to McKinley. “Climate change alarmists contend that man-made CO2 is the cause of climate change,” he explained on the floor. “Most people may not realize that 96 percent of all the CO2 emissions occur naturally.”

The bill passed Friday, and is now on its way to the Senate, where, for all of our sakes, it will hopefully die.
Lindsay Abrams

Lindsay Abrams is an assistant editor at Salon, focusing on all things sustainable. Follow her on Twitter @readingirl, email [email protected].
Follow
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 08:50 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
Lindsay Abrams is an assistant editor at Salon,
http://www.acidpulse.net/images/smilies/lolol.gif
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 09:22 pm

Pat Sajak: People Who Believe in Climate Change Are ‘Unpatriotic Racists’
by Evan McMurry | 2:07 pm, May 20th, 2014 POL_R BE_RS


Wheel of Fortune host Pat Sajak, whose Twitter feed is often a site of conservative views and “kids these days” grousing, signed off Monday night with his final word on climate change: namely, if you believe in it, go back to Russia:

I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.

— Pat Sajak (@patsajak) May 20, 2014

Sajak’s remarks came as California Governor Jerry Brown told CNN that climate change was lengthening California’s fire seasons.



——
>> Follow Evan McMurry (@evanmcmurry) on Twitter
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 09:30 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
cj's guesses aren't even close to facts. He's one dumb ass who should be caged with parrots.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 10:17 pm
@coldjoint,
So asshole you really think the GOP didn't do it, Salon's making it up.

Here you go asswad:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/05/23/House-bans-Pentagon-from-preparing-for-climate-change/5391400882186/

House bans Pentagon from preparing for climate change
Representatives: Amendment “is science denial at its worst and it fails our moral obligation to our children and grandchildren.”
By JC Sevcik
| May 23, 2014 at 7:24 PM | Comments

The Pentagon. The House of Representatives passed an amendment forbidding the Pentagon from acknowledging climate change Thursday. (Wiki/CC)

WASHINGTON, May 23 (UPI) --The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted mostly along party lines Thursday to approve an amendment to the $600 billion National Defense Authorization Act which prohibits the Pentagon from using any of its budget to address climate change and specifically instructs the Department of Defense to ignore the latest scientific reports on the threats posed by global warming.

The amendment, sponsored by Rep. David McKinley, a Republican whose home state of West Virginia's economy is heavily leveraged in coal mining, reads:

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation's Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order.

The data the amendment is forcing the Pentagon to ignore are the most recent and comprehensive reports on the dangers the United States faces as a consequence of climate change.

John Holdren of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy said. "Climate change is not a distant threat -- It already is affecting every region of the country and key sectors of the economy."

These reports warn that extreme conditions brought on by global warming will pose security threats as the resulting shortage of resources could lead to conflict.

"In Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, we are already seeing how the impacts of extreme weather, such as prolonged drought and flooding -- and resulting food shortages, desertification, population dislocation and mass migration, and sea level rise -- are posing security challenges to these regions' governments. We see these trends growing and accelerating," reads a report from the Center for Naval Analyses Military Advisory Board .

The Pentagon itself in its later 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review said: "Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating."

In a letter to the House before Thursday's vote, Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman and Bobby Rush wrote the "McKinley amendment" is "science denial at its worst and it fails our moral obligation to our children and grandchildren."

The bill passed Friday and will now be heard by the Democratic-controlled Senate where it could be voted down.
Topics: Henry Waxman, Bobby Rush
© 2014 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI's prior written consent.


Got a link to Fox if you'd like it, too, little man.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2014 10:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What do you have against parrots?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 07:19 am
@coldjoint,
The Pink Prevaricator wrote:

Quote:
I already said I agree that you are a small minded sycophant.


I am CJ not CI

It seems you missed our conversation. You said you were a small minded sycophant. I agreed. You again said you were a small minded sycophant. I said I still agree.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 07:23 am
@coldjoint,
The Pink Prevaricator wrote:

Quote:
"7% unemployment" is fact


A fact due to Obama numbers. No dropouts from workforce or benefits expired,or under employed included. Actual unemployment is between 12 to 16%.

Once again, you prove you have **** for brains.

Unemployment numbers never count who is receiving benefits. They don't ask that question. That is a separate survey of unemployment benefits that comes out at a different time.

Drop outs from the work force are included in the numbers. They are just counted as not looking for work because they aren't looking for work. The unemployment numbers have always only counted those looking for work as unemployed. Trying to demand we look at different numbers because you don't like certain numbers is nothing but deflection on your part.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2014 10:53 am
@parados,
Quote:
They are just counted as not looking for work because they aren't looking for work.


And this administration has made it that way for them. The point is they are still unemployed. And the numbers Obama touts are a lie plain and simple.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 08:22 am
@coldjoint,
The Pink Prevaricator wrote:

Quote:
They are just counted as not looking for work because they aren't looking for work.


And this administration has made it that way for them. The point is they are still unemployed. And the numbers Obama touts are a lie plain and simple.

Once again, you prove you have **** for brains. The numbers are calculated the same way they have been calculated for decades. Obama didn't create the formula.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2014 10:39 am
@parados,
Quote:
The numbers are calculated the same way they have been calculated for decades.


http://www.acidpulse.net/images/smilies/wut.png

Sure thing, Shill.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/20/2024 at 01:43:00