Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
Maybe he's onto something. Let's suppose every dollar spent in his scheme is a complete waste and serves only to line the pockets of a few elites such as Gore himself. It's a fantasy that can only be afforded by the rich. It's an indulgence on par with Trump's gold toilets. Sucking $15T worth of productivity out of the global economy will, at the margins, harm the least advantaged members of that economy and indirectly, but ultimately, cause the death of millions of poor. This will negatively impact the growth of the poor population. This will reduce not only the carbon footprint of the total human population but will reduce pressure on other resources as well. Consider what $15T might buy in terms of water filtration, vaccination programs, new GMO crops that can grow in currently useless soils, and on and on. But all of those things will increase the population. Gore's approach is more Malthusian.
But, science!
- Thread starter joeyd999
- Start date
- Status
No, I didn't know that. Is that an Alabama law, or nation wide?
How about helmets and shields?
I think they should have let them fight.
California also has a law ... but the police out there CHOSE not to enforce current laws. Of course, if they were questioned, there might be a directive from those in charge of the police departments, and I don't mean the police chief's acting unilaterally.
Title 13 of Alabama, was first written in the 1949. Antifa found out about the law when the police confronted them and gave them the chance to unmask so they could protest. It's a misdemeanor, with a fine of $500 and up to a year in jail.
ROLL TIDE.
UC Berkley could be served for violating the civil rights of the collegiate groups which invited Ann Coulter. Auburn was also under the cloud of a lawsuit.
Title 13 of Alabama, was first written in the 1949. Antifa found out about the law when the police confronted them and gave them the chance to unmask so they could protest. It's a misdemeanor, with a fine of $500 and up to a year in jail.
ROLL TIDE.
UC Berkley could be served for violating the civil rights of the collegiate groups which invited Ann Coulter. Auburn was also under the cloud of a lawsuit.
Last edited:
Someone done pooped themselves trying to ... well, you know.
Ad mahna mahna hominem?
Fart in the wind?
Trollin' cancer?
When you have no position, only vile rants, that's all that's left.Circumstantial ad hominem
kv
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Yeah,
They should probably lock them up.
How about putting a charge on the tickets to provide adequate security?
There is a right to protest as well as a right to safety.
I have no sympathy for Coulter. She is just a hate monger trying to make some money.
Not claiming to have the answer, but if you look at the pictures it takes 10 or 20 cops to "capture" one protester and then they can't make a case on half of them.
Not only is bacon good for you, but salt, too!
So, if I decide never to trust any scientist (because, you know, science!) ever again, does that make me anti-science?
There is a right to protest. There is no right to destroy property or commit aggravated assault on your fellow citizens.
Lock them all up.
I hope Berkeley get's sued.
Colleges and Universities, according to the Supreme Court a very long time ago, are suppose to encourage free speech. I also hope the administrators also get sued.
Berkeley already charges for "security". Worked out well in the last incident involving Antifa ... didn't it. Maybe those who ponied up the money for that security needs to take the administration to court for theft. It wouldn't be small claims court either.
Lock them all up.
I hope Berkeley get's sued.
Colleges and Universities, according to the Supreme Court a very long time ago, are suppose to encourage free speech. I also hope the administrators also get sued.
Berkeley already charges for "security". Worked out well in the last incident involving Antifa ... didn't it. Maybe those who ponied up the money for that security needs to take the administration to court for theft. It wouldn't be small claims court either.
But, so often I see Circumstantial Ad Hominem used by the left on this site, concerning truth in advertising as well as those who make the loudest noise about Climate Change. The left I see are the biggest abusers.
You and @shortbus, @GopherT seem to repeat this over and over. Just because it's the left's view doesn't make it a reality. Some Science evidence is drown by liberal Media Bias or some slandered into the ground by the opposition, ruining reputations for bucking the system.
kv
Your a big boy. Go back and read his posts. Much less than 1/2 have any argument or debate about the subject. They are only crude language rants about people he doesn't agree with.
I'm actually not that big, nope it disintegrated with all the bogus post of people hitting others with personal comments and it still continues.
It's you who should go back and read.
kv
Just because I am not easily bullied does not mean I go looking for fights.
Just because I am not easily bullied does not mean I go looking for fights.
Right, <sar> go back and read all the posts.
kv
Edit: nvm, don't read them, it will disintegrate your view and personal liberal bias.
Last edited:
What I see starting now in the news and internet world is rather inline with most any suppressed truth. It's starting to leak out everywhere big time!
Those who don't want anyone to hear it suppress, slander and lamely attempt to discredit the data and its sources yet never even learn from past experiences that real honest data and the cold hard reality (or bright warm one) and those who provide it will always leak out eventually.
So far every major point the liberals have used to make their claims of doom and gloom have been proven to be either totally made up bullshit or worse and not proven wrong by just by those who they thought could be be bought or intimidated into silence for a while but by reality itself.
For the last 30 plus years we have been bombarded by outrageous claims of what the climate and world would be like and every single time reality and those who fought to defined it proved them disastrously wrong.
The hockey stick graph data was eventually proven to have been made from manipulated data points and does not represent anything in reality,
The predictions of weather and climate changes getting worse never came true and things have instead by and large improved on every major standard of measure,
The planet is getting greener not drying up,
Summer season weather patterns are longer and more favorable not hotter and worse and winter seasons that were terrible are generally shorter and less severe hence the reason the 'Average Global Mean Temperature Value' number going up yet not being an accurate representation what is behind it.
The oceans have not risen feet per decade but fractions of an inch as they should be and have been doing for centuries,
People are not starving to death but in fact there is a world wide food glut forming despite we are collectively farming on less land than ever before.
And above all, when properly measured against past historical data regarding known and anticipated climate changes that should follow a major planet wide ice age event everything is still very much right in line with the overall long term average rates and limits of change we know as geo historical fact almost as if us humans actually do have very little to no discernible negative influence on anything as a whole.
Now as for how these debates go they are so predictable its sad.
The liberals scream that this that and whatever is getting worse yet rarely ever produce any supporting data, outside of highly isolated and localized incidental references, that hasn't been thoroughly debunked then go on to scream that 'it's everyone else who is denying things and it's their data that been cooked' even when it's obvious it hasn't, then they deny anything that does not fit their narrow minded belief system and agenda while screaming it's everyone else who is in denial.
Then when that doesn't work they default to playing themselves to be so incredibly simple minded or outrightly stupid they can't understand what is being presented to them (the idiots three game as seen here countless times on multiple threads) even though everyone knows its a coward's ruiz and lie just to get out of having man up and accept that their agenda is full of more lies than truth.
After that, when that doesn't stop the debates they go after everyone who is calling them stupid and worse, despite the fact that is exactly how they willingly chose to portray themselves as being so and to the extreme at that, just to avoid having to put any effort into defending their belief system until whatever debate is going has been so thoroughly derailed no one will participate any more.
And from there once they have used the 'impenetrable ignorance' (too stupid to understand anything and proud of it) tactic to thoroughly derail the debate they then come back and throw a huge unending fit over those who called them stupid idiots, even though that is exactly what they portrayed themselves to be, in order to get out of having to own up and step up in their own defence of their claims.
Also, whenever they are not playing village idiot to the extreme to get out of having to explain themselves they toss a number of other idioti distraction tactics along the way like the ever failing and largely irrelevant 'Grammar Nazi' attacks and the like just to make sure everyone knows they aren't playing with a full deck by any means.
So that's why these debates don't go very far.
The suposed believers side always defaults to playing stupid and going into total denial of reality to point it's embarrassing to everyone, then throws fits for being called exactly what they portrayed themselves to be in earnest just to keep from having to own up to what they are defending is likely more of a scam than any representation of reality.
Last edited:
Who doesn't he agree with?
So you think Berkeley is at fault by association? Some people from Oakland run over because they have a chance to disrupt any big event and suddenly it is the University's fault?
I think you had a foot-fault when making that jump (to a conclusion).
The university has an unwritten policy where "controversial" speakers are given odd hours (during classes, or spring break), at off campus locations, and other demands not placed on others ... like the Mexican president Fox, or a former white house official. Both of those had "security concerns".
Ask yourself, why did the Berkeley police withdrawal? Why did the campus police withdrawal? Why didn't they enforce California statutes about masked protesters?
Did the "city manager" direct the police chief? Did the Administration direct the campus police?
All of it will come out. I'm sure the two police chief's will be scapegoats.
Are you saying the police didn't have the authority to enforce California statutes ... it doesn't matter where the people came from to a public event, and these speaking engagements are public events. What does the directive "intervene only in the case of imminent death?" really mean.
Do you think they can't enforce laws on people not living in their jurisdiction? Berkeley is Berkeley. Then need an awakening.
Ask yourself, why did the Berkeley police withdrawal? Why did the campus police withdrawal? Why didn't they enforce California statutes about masked protesters?
Did the "city manager" direct the police chief? Did the Administration direct the campus police?
All of it will come out. I'm sure the two police chief's will be scapegoats.
Are you saying the police didn't have the authority to enforce California statutes ... it doesn't matter where the people came from to a public event, and these speaking engagements are public events. What does the directive "intervene only in the case of imminent death?" really mean.
Do you think they can't enforce laws on people not living in their jurisdiction? Berkeley is Berkeley. Then need an awakening.
@JoeJester you've gone from suggesting Berkeley should get sued to return the "security" fee they charge speakers to now suggesting there is a multifaceted criminal conspiracy - all based on your interpretation of events without taking the time to investigate a single detail. Be careful, you may get sued for defamation. There are a lot of alumini who's reputation would be damaged by your claims and any of them can file.
- Status
