Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

[Salty_Aus]

I'm not blaming you personally, nor am I blaming the right or the left. But dropping bombs on folks and the perpetual wars your country participate in might be the reason these folks are radicalized?
It's simply cause and effect. *shrugs*

Have a nice day.

Okay. Do a little research as to when this radicalism started and you'll get what I'm saying. And forget about not worrying about suicide bombers if they had real bombs you and I would both be dead right now. I'm not blaming anyone, you're the one laying blame. It's religion. Out of our control.

I agree, religion is a huge issue and certainly contributes. I personally have great disdain for most if not all religions and avoid religious folks.

Yes, I blame your government for much of the radicalized suicide bombers and head choppers we're now dealing with.

The biggest terrorist attack on your soil and 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis, yet they get a pass.
Just look at Yemen, why the fuck are you selling hundreds of billions of dollars of arms to the Saudis?... I'm sure you know the answer.
Ohhh yeah, don't expect OPEC to limit supply, the Saudis owe Trump some cheap oil for turning a blind eye to the royal families involvement in murdering Khashoggi.

[Pooh]

Okay. Do a little research as to when this radicalism started and you'll get what I'm saying. And forget about not worrying about suicide bombers if they had real bombs you and I would both be dead right now. I'm not blaming anyone, you're the one laying blame. It's religion. Out of our control.

I agree, religion is a huge issue and certainly contributes. I personally have great disdain for most if not all religions and avoid religious folks.

Yes, I blame your government for much of the radicalized suicide bombers and head choppers we're now dealing with.

The biggest terrorist attack on your soil and 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis, yet they get a pass.
Just look at Yemen, why the fuck are you selling hundreds of billions of dollars of arms to the Saudis?... I'm sure you know the answer.
Ohhh yeah, don't expect OPEC to limit supply, the Saudis owe Trump some cheap oil for turning a blind eye to the royal families involvement in murdering Khashoggi.

Yeah I hope you're wrong on that last point but I don't disagree.

[Pooh]

You can make a pretty strong case they've already given him cheap oil and this is his payback to them for it. Their balanced budget is close to $88 Brent. $60 isn't cutting it for them not even close.

If I recall correctly he just sent a thank you tweet to them for keeping oil prices low.

[sonatine]

First they had global warming. That was disproved.

if your sources for 'news' are alex jones, rush limbaugh, todd witteles, and the bible, you're playing great i guess.

[limitles]

I think the whole mental disorder thing comes from actually believing man has destroyed a planet that has been here for 4.5 billion years in 50. That's just stupid. Apparently the left just can't fathom the whole 4.5 billion years thing and going strong thing. First they had global warming. That was disproved. Then they shifted to global cooling. That was lol'd as well. So they went to general climate change. Okay. That works because by definition climate is changing. That's what it's done since the beginning of time. OMG the ice caps are melting like that hasn't happened a million times before man even existed. Gimme a fucking break.

But climate change isn't totally unbearable. It's annoying only because there are a handful of schmucks like Gore who laughed their asses off to the bank for you clowns believing in the shit they spewed. The real dangerous one is the whole let the world live as one bull shit. That is flat out dangerous and has been proven since forever. Most of the countries in the world can't get a long with their own neighbors yet these leftist clowns want us to invite whoever the fuck wants to come with no vetting at all. Recipe for fucking disaster. I feel for some of these people who are stuck in a place they maybe don't belong but I'm not about to apologize for shit I can't control like where I was born. Us conservatives aren't against immigration like so many say. We're against illegal immigration. We only want to be able to leave our houses not having to worry about getting blown the fuck up by a suicide bomber.

Believing in socialism is the greatest lol. Like that has ever worked. You have two types of socialists. The ultimate life loser who's never accomplished a thing in their lives and wants the government to tell them even how to wipe their ass and the punch drunk power hungry politician who believes they have all the answers to run the world. In a different time, Trump could be real trouble. Socialism tho, lol. Hey Jim Jones was a great guy too I guess. Until he decided he wanted to fuck your wife.

Don't you just love it when Pooh decides to post again. You know it won't be long before a mini rant based on ignorance is just around the corner. I'll come back to some of the gold here but alas, I'm taking the dog to the beach before it comes to me

[Pooh]

I think the whole mental disorder thing comes from actually believing man has destroyed a planet that has been here for 4.5 billion years in 50. That's just stupid. Apparently the left just can't fathom the whole 4.5 billion years thing and going strong thing. First they had global warming. That was disproved. Then they shifted to global cooling. That was lol'd as well. So they went to general climate change. Okay. That works because by definition climate is changing. That's what it's done since the beginning of time. OMG the ice caps are melting like that hasn't happened a million times before man even existed. Gimme a fucking break.

But climate change isn't totally unbearable. It's annoying only because there are a handful of schmucks like Gore who laughed their asses off to the bank for you clowns believing in the shit they spewed. The real dangerous one is the whole let the world live as one bull shit. That is flat out dangerous and has been proven since forever. Most of the countries in the world can't get a long with their own neighbors yet these leftist clowns want us to invite whoever the fuck wants to come with no vetting at all. Recipe for fucking disaster. I feel for some of these people who are stuck in a place they maybe don't belong but I'm not about to apologize for shit I can't control like where I was born. Us conservatives aren't against immigration like so many say. We're against illegal immigration. We only want to be able to leave our houses not having to worry about getting blown the fuck up by a suicide bomber.

Believing in socialism is the greatest lol. Like that has ever worked. You have two types of socialists. The ultimate life loser who's never accomplished a thing in their lives and wants the government to tell them even how to wipe their ass and the punch drunk power hungry politician who believes they have all the answers to run the world. In a different time, Trump could be real trouble. Socialism tho, lol. Hey Jim Jones was a great guy too I guess. Until he decided he wanted to fuck your wife.

Don't you just love it when Pooh decides to post again. You know it won't be long before a mini rant based on ignorance is just around the corner. I'll come back to some of the gold here but alas, I'm taking the dog to the beach before it comes to me

n-word lover

[MumblesBadly]

Remember when the ozone was being vaporized 20 years ago and the world was ending in ten? Yeah me neither.

That’s because the governments around the world, including the US, correctly recognized the warning given by the scientific community and banned the ozone-depleting chemicals from commercial/industrial use relatively quickly. They haven’t come anywhere close to addressing the impact of fossil fuel emissions on the environment.

And you are just plain ignorant, referencing a specious relative length of time argument (50 years versus 4.5 billion) to dismiss the effect our fossil fuel use is changing the environment for the worse. And at a pace never seen before in any prior geological era. I’d share a link to a video series on the subject published by a highly respected veteran science journalist, but you’d certainly ignore it given your parochial self-interested willful ignorance.

[Dan Druff]

Any time we have any form of unusual weather, the left blames it on "climate change" and swears it's from manmade cause.

I brought up the fires in LA before. I had an argument today with some leftist on Twitter about this, who doesn't even live in the US.

They have fewer than 150 years of data for rain totals in Los Angeles. That's very little. What we do know for sure is that LA has always had high variance in the amount of precipitation received, ranging between 3 and 37 inches per year, with the average being around 15.

In the last five years, aside from the 2016-17 season, we've had far below average precipitation, which was a contributing factor (though not the main factor) to the fires.

Amazingly, the left is saying that this is climate change due to man-made factors.

How? Why?

Here we have an area with a very high variance in precipitation AND only 142 seasons' worth of data. Nothing can be concluded about the dryness of the 2010s in LA at this point, just like you can't say poker is rigged because you lost 6 of the last 7 hands you played.

But I've got tards insisting that this is permanent, man-induced climate change, and that LA will be far drier than average from now on.

I asked how LA had a record rain year in 2004-2005 (37 inches), and I got crickets.

Let's not forget the dire "hurricanes are going to be far more frequent and far worse" panic in 2005, only to have the following years end up quiet and below average intensity.

[MumblesBadly]

Any time we have any form of unusual weather, the left blames it on "climate change" and swears it's from manmade cause.

I brought up the fires in LA before. I had an argument today with some leftist on Twitter about this, who doesn't even live in the US.

They have fewer than 150 years of data for rain totals in Los Angeles. That's very little. What we do know for sure is that LA has always had high variance in the amount of precipitation received, ranging between 3 and 37 inches per year, with the average being around 15.

In the last five years, aside from the 2016-17 season, we've had far below average precipitation, which was a contributing factor (though not the main factor) to the fires.

Amazingly, the left is saying that this is climate change due to man-made factors.

How? Why?

Here we have an area with a very high variance in precipitation AND only 142 seasons' worth of data. Nothing can be concluded about the dryness of the 2010s in LA at this point, just like you can't say poker is rigged because you lost 6 of the last 7 hands you played.

But I've got tards insisting that this is permanent, man-induced climate change, and that LA will be far drier than average from now on.

I asked how LA had a record rain year in 2004-2005 (37 inches), and I got crickets.

Let's not forget the dire "hurricanes are going to be far more frequent and far worse" panic in 2005, only to have the following years end up quiet and below average intensity.

JFC, Druff!!! Pointing to the claims of some “Leftist on Twitter” regarding the impact of man-made climate change regarding California weather as a means to ignore the longer term changes that are coming down the pike is ludicrous. It is a disingenuous distraction that allows you to smugly claim that we needed do anything NOW to try to mitigate the climatological shitstorm that is brewing due to rising greenhouse gas emissions.

[limitles]

Any time we have any form of unusual weather, the left blames it on "climate change" and swears it's from manmade cause.

I brought up the fires in LA before. I had an argument today with some leftist on Twitter about this, who doesn't even live in the US.

They have fewer than 150 years of data for rain totals in Los Angeles. That's very little. What we do know for sure is that LA has always had high variance in the amount of precipitation received, ranging between 3 and 37 inches per year, with the average being around 15.

In the last five years, aside from the 2016-17 season, we've had far below average precipitation, which was a contributing factor (though not the main factor) to the fires.

Amazingly, the left is saying that this is climate change due to man-made factors.

How? Why?

Here we have an area with a very high variance in precipitation AND only 142 seasons' worth of data. Nothing can be concluded about the dryness of the 2010s in LA at this point, just like you can't say poker is rigged because you lost 6 of the last 7 hands you played.

But I've got tards insisting that this is permanent, man-induced climate change, and that LA will be far drier than average from now on.

I asked how LA had a record rain year in 2004-2005 (37 inches), and I got crickets.

Let's not forget the dire "hurricanes are going to be far more frequent and far worse" panic in 2005, only to have the following years end up quiet and below average intensity.

You want some how and why read the article linked below

here's a part of it

It’s true. At least two decades ago—perhaps as long as a century—fire researchers were warning that increasing atmospheric CO₂ would mean bigger wildfires. History confirmed at least the latter hypothesis; using data like fire scars and tree ring sizes, researchers have shown that before Europeans came to North America, fires were relatively frequent but relatively small, and indigenous people like the Pueblo used lots of wood for fuel and small-diameter trees for construction. When the Spaniards arrived, spreading disease and forcing people out of their villages, the population crashed by perhaps as much as 90 percent and the forests went back to their natural fire pattern—less frequent, low intensity, and widespread. By the late 19th century, the land changed to livestock grazing and its users had no tolerance for fire at all.

“So in the late 20th and early 21st century, with these hot droughts, fires are ripping now with a severity and ferocity that’s unprecedented,” says Tom Swetnam, a dendrochronologist who did a lot of that tree-ring work. A fire in the Jemez Mountains Swetnam studies burned 40,000 acres in 12 hours, a “horizontal roll vortex fire” that had two wind-driven counter-rotating vortices of flame. “That thing left a canopy hole with no trees over 30,000 acres. A giant hole with no trees,” he says. “There’s no archaeological evidence of that happening in at least 500 years.”

https://www.wired.com/story/the-only...ill-get-worse/

[Salty_Aus]

Any time we have any form of unusual weather, the left blames it on "climate change" and swears it's from manmade cause.

I brought up the fires in LA before. I had an argument today with some leftist on Twitter about this, who doesn't even live in the US.

They have fewer than 150 years of data for rain totals in Los Angeles. That's very little. What we do know for sure is that LA has always had high variance in the amount of precipitation received, ranging between 3 and 37 inches per year, with the average being around 15.

In the last five years, aside from the 2016-17 season, we've had far below average precipitation, which was a contributing factor (though not the main factor) to the fires.

Amazingly, the left is saying that this is climate change due to man-made factors.

How? Why?

Here we have an area with a very high variance in precipitation AND only 142 seasons' worth of data. Nothing can be concluded about the dryness of the 2010s in LA at this point, just like you can't say poker is rigged because you lost 6 of the last 7 hands you played.

But I've got tards insisting that this is permanent, man-induced climate change, and that LA will be far drier than average from now on.

I asked how LA had a record rain year in 2004-2005 (37 inches), and I got crickets.

Let's not forget the dire "hurricanes are going to be far more frequent and far worse" panic in 2005, only to have the following years end up quiet and below average intensity.

You want some how and why read the article linked below

here's a part of it

It’s true. At least two decades ago—perhaps as long as a century—fire researchers were warning that increasing atmospheric CO₂ would mean bigger wildfires. History confirmed at least the latter hypothesis; using data like fire scars and tree ring sizes, researchers have shown that before Europeans came to North America, fires were relatively frequent but relatively small, and indigenous people like the Pueblo used lots of wood for fuel and small-diameter trees for construction. When the Spaniards arrived, spreading disease and forcing people out of their villages, the population crashed by perhaps as much as 90 percent and the forests went back to their natural fire pattern—less frequent, low intensity, and widespread. By the late 19th century, the land changed to livestock grazing and its users had no tolerance for fire at all.

“So in the late 20th and early 21st century, with these hot droughts, fires are ripping now with a severity and ferocity that’s unprecedented,” says Tom Swetnam, a dendrochronologist who did a lot of that tree-ring work. A fire in the Jemez Mountains Swetnam studies burned 40,000 acres in 12 hours, a “horizontal roll vortex fire” that had two wind-driven counter-rotating vortices of flame. “That thing left a canopy hole with no trees over 30,000 acres. A giant hole with no trees,” he says. “There’s no archaeological evidence of that happening in at least 500 years.”

https://www.wired.com/story/the-only...ill-get-worse/

I don't think there is any conclusive proof that global warming as a result of humans, has significantly increased/decreased the number and intensity of wildfires. Modern land management practises on the other hand certainly have.

These sort of arguments are just clouding, and misleading the facts.

[limitles]

You want some how and why read the article linked below

here's a part of it

It’s true. At least two decades ago—perhaps as long as a century—fire researchers were warning that increasing atmospheric CO₂ would mean bigger wildfires. History confirmed at least the latter hypothesis; using data like fire scars and tree ring sizes, researchers have shown that before Europeans came to North America, fires were relatively frequent but relatively small, and indigenous people like the Pueblo used lots of wood for fuel and small-diameter trees for construction. When the Spaniards arrived, spreading disease and forcing people out of their villages, the population crashed by perhaps as much as 90 percent and the forests went back to their natural fire pattern—less frequent, low intensity, and widespread. By the late 19th century, the land changed to livestock grazing and its users had no tolerance for fire at all.

“So in the late 20th and early 21st century, with these hot droughts, fires are ripping now with a severity and ferocity that’s unprecedented,” says Tom Swetnam, a dendrochronologist who did a lot of that tree-ring work. A fire in the Jemez Mountains Swetnam studies burned 40,000 acres in 12 hours, a “horizontal roll vortex fire” that had two wind-driven counter-rotating vortices of flame. “That thing left a canopy hole with no trees over 30,000 acres. A giant hole with no trees,” he says. “There’s no archaeological evidence of that happening in at least 500 years.”

https://www.wired.com/story/the-only...ill-get-worse/

I don't think there is any conclusive proof that global warming as a result of humans, has significantly increased/decreased the number and intensity of wildfires. Modern land management practises on the other hand certainly have.

These sort of arguments are just clouding, and misleading the facts.

You sound like you didn't read the whole article and have read nothing regarding temperature increases since the start of the industrial revolution.
I can't provide everything that the vast majority of experts on global temperatures believe will have on things like drought, fire, sea levels etc. but there is nothing "clouding or misleading the facts" You're thoughts are unsubstantiated

And Druff, it's got nothing to do with liberalism or the left. That's really pathetic from someone who has an education.

[Salty_Aus]

I don't think there is any conclusive proof that global warming as a result of humans, has significantly increased/decreased the number and intensity of wildfires. Modern land management practises on the other hand certainly have.

These sort of arguments are just clouding, and misleading the facts.

You sound like you didn't read the whole article and have read nothing regarding temperature increases since the start of the industrial revolution.
I can't provide everything that the vast majority of experts on global temperatures believe will have on things like drought, fire, sea levels etc. but there is nothing "clouding or misleading the facts" You're thoughts are unsubstantiated

And Druff, it's got nothing to do with liberalism or the left. That's really pathetic from someone who has an education.

One man's proof is another man's conjecture.

Lot of experts are saying land that is now forest will become desert.

I can see plenty of tenuous links and some that are not so questionable... hardly proof when there are many more mitigating factors.

Blaming these wildfires on global warming is silly.

[limitles]

You sound like you didn't read the whole article and have read nothing regarding temperature increases since the start of the industrial revolution.
I can't provide everything that the vast majority of experts on global temperatures believe will have on things like drought, fire, sea levels etc. but there is nothing "clouding or misleading the facts" You're thoughts are unsubstantiated

And Druff, it's got nothing to do with liberalism or the left. That's really pathetic from someone who has an education.

One man's proof is another man's conjecture.

Lot of experts are saying land that is now forest will become desert.

I can see plenty of tenuous links and some that are not so questionable... hardly proof when there are many more mitigating factors.

Blaming these wildfires on global warming is silly.

I haven't blamed these fires on global warming. I will take the time to post what is being said by scientists world over however. I know there's a perfectly good thread about it here.

[Baron Von Strucker]

Don't you just love it when Pooh decides to post again. You know it won't be long before a mini rant based on ignorance is just around the corner. I'll come back to some of the gold here but alas, I'm taking the dog to the beach before it comes to me

n-word lover

i think its a scottie.... Black one tho

[Jayjami]

Any time we have any form of unusual weather, the left blames it on "climate change" and swears it's from manmade cause.

I brought up the fires in LA before. I had an argument today with some leftist on Twitter about this, who doesn't even live in the US.

They have fewer than 150 years of data for rain totals in Los Angeles. That's very little. What we do know for sure is that LA has always had high variance in the amount of precipitation received, ranging between 3 and 37 inches per year, with the average being around 15.

In the last five years, aside from the 2016-17 season, we've had far below average precipitation, which was a contributing factor (though not the main factor) to the fires.

Amazingly, the left is saying that this is climate change due to man-made factors.

How? Why?

Here we have an area with a very high variance in precipitation AND only 142 seasons' worth of data. Nothing can be concluded about the dryness of the 2010s in LA at this point, just like you can't say poker is rigged because you lost 6 of the last 7 hands you played.

But I've got tards insisting that this is permanent, man-induced climate change, and that LA will be far drier than average from now on.

I asked how LA had a record rain year in 2004-2005 (37 inches), and I got crickets.

Let's not forget the dire "hurricanes are going to be far more frequent and far worse" panic in 2005, only to have the following years end up quiet and below average intensity.

If the planet isn’t warming up, then why are the polar ice caps gradually melting away? The debate is whether humans are causing it, and I’ll take the scientists’ interpretation of the data over Druff’s “expert opinion”. BTW, I don’t give a shit if we are damaging the planet. I love the convenience fossil fuels bring to my life and have no intention of sacrificing for “the good of future generations”. Honestly, if humans destroy their ecosystem and become extinct (as many species have done over eons) the planet will go on fine without us.

[Sanlmar]

If Druff looks at the haze of pollution that hangs over LA and believes there will be no consequence that’s great.

However, offering any evidence regarding LA’s historical rainfall etc is astounding to me. LA really isn’t a naturally habitable climate.

From the epic movie Chinatown:

Gentlemen, today you can walk out that door, turn right, hop on a streetcar and in twenty-five minutes end up smack in the Pacific Ocean. Now you can swim in it, you can fish in it, you can sail in it but you can't drink it, you can't water your lawns with it, you can't irrigate an orange grove with it. Remember we live next door to the ocean but we also live on the edge of the desert. Los Angeles is a desert community. Beneath this building, beneath every street there's a desert. Without water the dust will rise up and cover us as though we'd never existed!

Someday Las Vegas will have a serious water crisis. You know what? Our reaction will be the same as the Cali fires, “no shit, coulda called that”.

So yes we are attacking our environment but in a parallel fashion LA shouldn’t be there in the first place cause the environment was already inhospitable.

I thought I heard estimates are $13b in damage. If one dime of Federal funds are spent that will be 10 cents too much.

[sonatine]

If Druff looks at the haze of pollution that hangs over LA and believes there will be no consequence that’s great.

However, offering any evidence regarding LA’s historical rainfall etc is astounding to me. LA really isn’t a naturally habitable climate.

From the epic movie Chinatown:

Gentlemen, today you can walk out that door, turn right, hop on a streetcar and in twenty-five minutes end up smack in the Pacific Ocean. Now you can swim in it, you can fish in it, you can sail in it but you can't drink it, you can't water your lawns with it, you can't irrigate an orange grove with it. Remember we live next door to the ocean but we also live on the edge of the desert. Los Angeles is a desert community. Beneath this building, beneath every street there's a desert. Without water the dust will rise up and cover us as though we'd never existed!

Someday Las Vegas will have a serious water crisis. You know what? Our reaction will be the same as the Cali fires, “no shit, coulda called that”.

So yes we are attacking our environment but in a parallel fashion LA shouldn’t be there in the first place cause the environment was already inhospitable.

I thought I heard estimates are $13b in damage. If one dime of Federal funds are spent that will be 10 cents too much.

the LV water crisis is an absolute bombshell and the disconnect between the water levels reaching historic lows in the reservoir and people giving the thumbs up about it not being an issue in their lifetimes is really jarring.

also not for nothing but dr burry of The Big Short fame is balls deep in shorting water markets / long water tech plays.

[Jayjami]

Any time we have any form of unusual weather, the left blames it on "climate change" and swears it's from manmade cause.

LOL, the right does the exact same thing during short term cold spells:

(CNN)A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars -- or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP -- by the end of the century.

The report's findings run counter to President Donald Trump's consistent message that climate change is a hoax.
On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century.

[devidee]

FAKE NEWS!