It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Now I want to slap republicans for being stupid

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: olaru12

You're still confused... it isn't about party. Never was. Never will be. It's about holding politicians accountable and making sure they don't do stoopid. Crenshaw did stoopid... Crenshaw gets called out on it.

Get your Democrats to stop doing stoopid and they'll actually get support too.

TheRedneck


My Democrats? How did you get that idea? I've been a loyal Libertarian ever since I was hired to help Gov. Gary when he ran for the WH back in 2012 and I worked for the GOP in 2016 as a media geek. I was once a republican when I first went into business back in the 70s, I still may be, I haven't changed my registration. I still get form letters from the GOP asking for money.

Drawing kneejerk conclusions and/or making accusations, is Stoopid, btw. I thought we went over this once before....
edit on 7-3-2020 by olaru12 because: syntax repair

edit on 7-3-2020 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Crenshaw's publishers are telling him...

"You've GOT FOX, Dan...but if you could only say something that will get you interviewed on the Left-wing networks just before the release...we can promote the hell out of this bad boy."



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

He should have just come out as trans-gendered or something.

Anything other than involving the government in yet another scheme to ultimately grow its size, raise its scope.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Dan Crenshaw is a complicated fellow. In some regards, he seems pretty legit when it comes to Conservatism and common sense. Then, he has moments where he has amnesia or straight up acts like a mini McCain, and now this.


I can't call him a RINO, but I can't call him a Constitutional conservative either.

I do think he's right with "tangible solutions based on reason, science, and the free market", but I'd rather see something that incentivizes companies to run cleaner, without more government or Solyndra schemes.
edit on 7-3-2020 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Yeah, I know, and Bernie Sanders is an Independent too...

You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

punching kittens? that's tenderizing in china



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 10:41 AM
link   
link to actual op-ed piece.

www.nationalreview.com... U3plus1a3Oal73EZw



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

My issue is that democrats propose something, the republicans recoil in horror, then do the same thing just change the damned name of the proposal!


The way I see a lot of this is both sides kind of understand what is good or not, and you can pick any subject to see that both sides want something done, but it then comes to how do you get there and in what way.

Take climate change...

We do need to get a handle on our C02 production...is there anyone on either side disagree? Looking at data we have roughly 40 or 50 years before undesirable affects happen and so that is about the timeline we have to reduce. Like replacing the horse with the car it took about 30 years for the car to really take over. Back then the horse was an ecological disaster and the car basically saved us from some serious consequences.

The Conservative side in all this is to let technology do its thing, but you really can't rush it without other serious consequences to our quality of life. We also need to get the whole world on the same side, especially China, or our efforts are moot. I think in 20 years we can be at the same point in shifting to a new direction like when the car truly took over the horse as the main tool.

If we used today's democratic model on climate changed on the car/horse analogy then about a week after the first car was invented they would have said... KILL ALL THE HORSES! We can't just stop using cars, oil, coal energy etc... but we can replace all this without hardly a bump in the road if we let technology do its thing on its own timeline as it has done time and time again.

This is typically the same pattern in every top subject that comes up. Border control, DACA, infrastructure, student loans, abortions, voter ID, military, homeless, housing, jobs, pay, so on and so on... We can all agree ALL OF IT NEEDS FIXING or done better, but the left just jumps directly to the "kill all the horses" type approach and that is why the same things come up on both sides that seem to frustrate some as people say why are they fighting over all this when both sides agree with the underlining fundamental problem?



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Now I want to slap republicans for being stupid


You.......? just .... just now ??



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: VeeTNA
a reply to: DBCowboy


Now I want to slap republicans for being stupid


You.......? just .... just now ??


No.

But this latest attempt at stupidity just reinforced my desire.




posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Very nice essay. I was engaged and thinking of a reply...


This is typically the same pattern in every top subject that comes up. Border control, DACA, infrastructure, student loans, abortions, voter ID, military, homeless, housing, jobs, pay, so on and so on... We can all agree ALL OF IT NEEDS FIXING or done better,

and I was all "Yes!"
But then I came to this:


but the left just jumps directly to the "kill all the horses" type approach


Wait - how is this political now?


and that is why the same things come up on both sides that seem to frustrate some as people say why are they fighting over all this when both sides agree with the underlining fundamental problem?[


?? Can you leave politics out of it? It's a thing.

edit on 7-3-2020 by VeeTNA because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 07:27 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


We do need to get a handle on our C02 production...is there anyone on either side disagree?

Yes.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 8 2020 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: VeeTNA

Wait - how is this political now?

?? Can you leave politics out of it? It's a thing.


How can you... "kill all horses" = Pay off all student loans and give free college education to all... Even Sweden doesn't do that, or even come close to that.

"Kill all the horses" = Stop all fracking, stop all oil use now, don't use nuclear energy etc etc

My point was both sides understand that needs fixing, but it is extremely important how you fix it.



posted on Mar, 8 2020 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Yes.

TheRedneck


You don't think C02 emissions are going to really mess us up if we keep on the same path 100 years from now?



posted on Mar, 8 2020 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You call in 'leftist idealology' while educated people call it science.

Human activity is causing climate change and steps need to be taken to minimize the problems with it.

It is about time a Republican took his head of the sand and started to look for solutions to battle human induced climate change.



posted on Mar, 8 2020 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


You don't think C02 emissions are going to really mess us up if we keep on the same path 100 years from now?

No, I really don't.

CO2 levels may rise more, but the planetary feedbacks will set an upper limit, and I do not believe that upper limit will prove to be harmful in any significant way to the ecosphere. I also believe that, should the natural feedbacks become overwhelmed, we will develop technology to correct it. The worst things I expect to happen is that food will become more abundant due to the increased CO2 levels, and actual pollution/deforestation will continue because we are too busy looking at carbon dioxide to notice them.

Simply put: I do not see any reliable evidence of planetary warming becoming out of control, nor of significant oceanic rise, nor of widespread species extinction, nor of drastically changing weather patterns. Until and unless I see these things happening, I consider any concern over carbon dioxide as simple media-induced panic to fulfill political agendas.

We will eventually develop new and improved methods of generating energy; I have no doubt of that. That is a good thing. When it happens, I will gladly embrace it. However, I will be embracing it because it improves people's quality of life and the state of mankind, not because it gets rid of carbon dioxide.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 8 2020 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod


You call in 'leftist idealology' while educated people call it science.

There is a difference between "educated" and "indoctrinated." Different funny little symbols. That means they mean different things.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 8 2020 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I get it, you also don't think human induced climate change is a problem and you are wrong. I will not change your mind, but the information is out there, it is up to the individual to decide what is real, what is false and hopefully they don't fall for traps and believe something is a lie because it sounds good and strokes their confirmation bias.

The science, the data, the research says it is real and is a problem while a handful of think tanks mostly funded by oil conglomerates have waged a disinformation campaign against the science in order to cast doubt of the reality and threat of climate change that our fossil fuel addiction is causing.

You might think I have been 'indoctrinated' by a liberal power grab(or whatever), but the reality is you and many others in this thread have been duped by a disinformation campaign to cast doubt on climate change.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The campaign to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers to manufacture uncertainty about global warming.

The politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial and the political global warming controversy, undermining the efforts to act on climate change or adapting to the warming climate. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.

Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions. Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservative think tanks, often in the United States. More than 90% of papers sceptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.

Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by the tobacco industry.

edit on 8-3-2020 by jrod because: F



posted on Mar, 8 2020 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod


The science, the data, the research says it is real and is a problem while a handful of think tanks mostly funded by oil conglomerates have waged a disinformation campaign against the science in order to cast doubt of the reality and threat of climate change that our fossil fuel addiction is causing.

This is what I was referring to. The science, the data, and the research says we don't know. Spokespeople, some admittedly holding degrees, say Global Warming is real. The media has convinced you that spokespeople are science. They're not.

I was originally leaning toward it being real as well; the disinformation campaign has been quite successful. However, I was able to spot inconsistencies that caused me to look deeper into the principles and I soon discovered it is all a scam.

You have a "scientist" (in quotes to point out that all scientists are not experts) right here. He is telling you that the science is far from settled. So don't try the old "but science says so" line on me. Also, all scientific research is funded by interested parties. All of it, pro-Global Warming, con-Global Warming, the mating habits of the South American tse-tse fly... everything! That's just how it works. With most research, results that harm one industry help another, so funding simply changes origin if results are unexpected. Not so with Global Warming... it is financed by governments and if it doesn't say what those governments want it to say, it is defunded and discredited.

I haven't met a scientist yet who likes to be defunded and discredited.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join