Azalin

You mean like Obama supporters and their "cultish" support? Or the "cultish" support that Bush supporters had for GW? Or like the "cultish" support that Clinton supporters had for Bill? Or for Reagan? What about the Bernie, Warren, Hillary, etc "cultists"? Why do you find it necessary to describe peoples' support for Trump as "cultish in their devotion"? Does that make it easier for you to wave off their support for Trump as being something irrational?

That is so refreshing to see. So few people have the balls to say that on television nowadays. Anyone here surprised that it's an older guy that said it? Cheers, Mr Morgan. Cheers.

The world is now a lot less silly for losing him. RIP Terry Jones.

It would really make things a lot more pleasant around here if people would stop feeding the trolls. It would be even better if they stopped quoting them, too.

You sure make it difficult to argue, my friend.

I don't know, man. We frequently agree, but I hope you're wrong.

I'm familiar with that argument, but seeing how we're talking about Puerto Rico, a US territory, I'm inclined to advocate for removal from office and criminal charges be levied.

This illustrates perfectly that the press at large isn't necessarily liberal. There's such a huge difference between the political philosophies espoused by people like JFK or LBJ when compared with democrats of today. This shows that it's purely partisan - political values and philosophy have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Folks are getting wise to the tactics.

It would require a coup; a renegade takeover of the republic in order to take away rights that are guaranteed to us by our creator. That would be cause for an immediate call to arms.

Nothing like a little mass-murder to get your democracy back on track, eh?

You may feel differently. If so, fair enough. If there is anything that implicated Schiff in doing illegal drugs or poisoning African Americans, then absolutely nail his as to the wall.

Those responsible for withholding all that aid need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

I just think that's a classless, ***** thing to do. I also happen to think that Schiff is a classless, ***** person, and I would expect something like that from him. It's not something that I "support" one way or another as a political tactic. If someone has odd taste in their sexual indulgences, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, then I don't think it's anybody else's business.

Same here. Proof of illegal activity is one thing, but if this is just Schiff getting caught doing something embarrassing, then I think it's a bad look for Republicans if they release whatever it is that they have.

I'm independent because of what I said above: there's little difference between the parties in reality and they both lie to us constantly. I only commented on your post because you seemed to be painting with a rather broad brush in describing your experiences with independents.

Seeing how the bulk of the national Republican party is as pro-deficit/big spending as the Democrats are, many of us are independent because we do not believe in supporting a party that lies to us.

" This is the new political climate. It is obvious that both George W. Bush and Barack Obama could easily have been impeached under such protocols after they lost their party’s majority in the House of Representative. From now on, their successors will likely enjoy no such exemptions." Because they didn't learn a ***** thing about precedent from Harry ***** Reid.

Well said. I agree completely. That said, I apparently miss a lot of crap that happens here. I saw Tom's "goodbye" post, but have no idea what inspired him to leave. I hope he comes back - despite his cantankerous, know-it-all nature, he adds a lot to the board. I'm completely in the dark with regard to anyone being doxxed, but that crap absolutely should not be allowed under any circumstances. It's probably also a good idea for folks to bear in mind that maintaining anonymity also means that you may not know anything about who is reading your posts, so a little thoughtful discretion could go a long way. If someone among us, present or future, has indeed committed a serious crime that could affect the discourse here, then yes - let's share it with the folks. It happens. I was around here for the first year or so, then bailed. It took around twelve years for me to even start lurking again.

Impossible. The science is already settled, and they never said anything about this while they were settling it. In fact, what do we even need climate scientists for any more?

That's an excellent point. If the science is settled, then not another dime of anyone's tax dollars needs to be spent on climate research. That needs to become the new mantra: "The science is settled, no taxes for research!" If that actually became a thing, watch how quickly the "settled science" BS is dropped and the science becomes "ongoing" again.

No, your second sentence contradicts your first. More study, possibly a lot more, is needed before we know definitively what kind of effect humanity is having on the climate. Consequently, one shouldn't assume that we're not having some kind of effect, and that it wouldn't do us good to pursue newer and better means of generating energy. Also you used the example of cleaning up waters, etc again to make your point. Again, I remind you that all we had to do was use our own eyes to see the very obvious results of chemical pollution in our lakes and rivers. Yes, the science was new back then, but it hadn't become politicized as an issue yet and it didn't rely largely on doomsday predictions or computer models to sell it to the public.

I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with this. We're nearly 250 pages into this thread, and just about every imaginable argument on the subject has been offered and dissected. All I can add for the moment is that with something as large as Earth's atmosphere and the relatively new science of climatology, the most unscientific approach to take is one that claims that "the science is settled". That couldn't be further from the truth, and anyone who makes that claim, whether denier or alarmist, is wrong. I have no problem with supporting the development of new or alternative energy sources, but I am against any energy policies or taxes that have a negative impact on the economy, especially ones based on knee-jerk reactionary environmental claims.

Everything in your list of examples is an issue that was changed due to empirical evidence of its harm to both people and nature . Humanity's effect on global climate change is based on computer models and incomplete/inaccurate data, not to mention that the issue has become politicized to the point where nobody believes anything that "the other side" does.

It's easier to do that than it is to cover your ears and say "lalalalalala I can't hear you" all the time.