So 6 out of 11 of my state's representatives (Virginia) voted for this. Including this asshat, Morgan Griffith. No real reason to post this guy's pic other than to laugh at his bought ass. How do you even agree for this to be your official pic?


https://www.govtrack.us/data/photos/412485-200px.jpeg

All republicans. Go figure. The party that screams bloody murder about intrusions into a citizen's privacies.

ROFL, why didn't he just tell them to re-take the picture?

Also Planned Parenthoods are about to close down in mass.

Pence casts tie-breaking vote to advance bill that would let states withhold federal funds from Planned Parenthood - LA Times

75 days in:

Screw the environment - Check.
Take away women's rights - Check.
Fail on healthcare reform - Check.
Turn over the EPA to EPA corporate owners - Check.
Turn over Secretary of state to an oil baron - Check.
Nepotism already in the white house - Check.
Insults the **** out of his predeccessor - Check.
Inrease defense funding which may shut down to goverment - Check.
Pissed off China and Germany - Check.

I could go on.

Katie Walsh, the White House's deputy chief of staff, axed in the wake of the failure of repeal and replace.

Flynn and Walsh gone in the first 12 weeks. At this rate he'll renting out half the West Wing by the summer of 2018.

ok whatever, it ain't like we need a play-by-play.

Why don't you take a break from politics and post your Top 50 Led Zeppelin albums: http://www.musicbanter.com/general-m...50-albums.html

I'm bored out of my mind sitting in a large conference with 14 others listening to a Chinese women getting deposed through an interpreter.

TL:DR

**** off.

.

I guess Al Gore failed to brainwash Donald Trump into believing in "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming." Imagine the money Gore could had made if he only woke Trump to his Sasquatch-size carbon footprint.

Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype

If Al Gore is your resource for global warming, you're doing it wrong.

I said "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming," not "global warming."

Not a fan of the stuff Trump has been doing recently, especially regarding NASA and basically issuing quotas for women in STEM fields.

Bad Donald.

He's still not Hillary, so every day is a blessing.

Same thing really.

Well... no.

I don't know enough about the subject to give any definitive opinion (good cases on both sides) but there's clearly a difference.

There aren't good cases on both sides.. it's idiots vs reality.

and I've provided you with TONS of resources on more than one occasion now, but you never bother to actually look at it.

I even made a thread about it, that never got any traction, so interested people could have some good resources to reference: http://www.musicbanter.com/current-e...ange-ipcc.html

It ain't even worth it. At this point you either understand or you're retarded.

Flynn wants immunity before he speaks. Bye Trump.

Funny, the two things you mentioned are two of my favourite things he's done since entering office.

"Global warming" One could admit that average temperature of the Earth which would be "global warming" without coming to the conclusion that its primary cause is man-made. One is just admitting to the current trend of the average temperature increasing.

"CAGW" is a bird of a different feather. It primarily faults man-made carbon emissions thus the "anthropomorphic" aspect to it. It also predicts that AGW will lead to a catastrophic affect on the Earth.

Al Gore Despair as Global Warming Scam Fails


Look into Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Unlike Al Gore who likes to yell "bull****," he is very well spoken and provides quite a convincing arguments.

*facepalm*

we're so doomed

so ****ed

so dead

Capatalists would rather go down with the ship

When it comes to global warming I trust the cosmologists and meteorologists that spend their whole lives studying this and have absolutely nothing to gain from lying. Yeah, I've heard the bull**** about them lying to keep a job or what ever like we will one day decide that we don't give a **** about predicting weather or hurricanes any more.

They all say that the globe is warming and it is linked to the amount of C02 in our atmosphere which is directly linked to the C02 we emit mostly from huge factories and power plants and **** like that. I have searched and I cannot find one person who's occupancy specializes in the study of weather or atmospheres or anything like that that denies that global warming is real and a man made threat. Of all of them that say it's real, I've found one that says that even though it is a man made threat, it is no where near as imminent of a threat as media portrays and that we have plenty of time to fix it before irreversible damage happens. But yeah, none that out right deny global warming being a man made threat.


I challenge anybody to find a climate scientist, a cosmologist, a meteorologist or anybody that has anything to do with studying the specific fields of atmospheres or weather patterns that denies global warming. I put my faith in those dudes more than I do with your ****ing oil industries and politicians that still think talking snakes existed.

Nobody with any sense argues that the planets temperature hasn't gone up about 1 degree over the past 100+ years. The argument is what we should do about it, and to what extent humans are at fault for that. I'm all for preventing air pollution wherever possible, and let's look at alternate sources of energy.

Yeah

Let's do that before mankind is left without an energy source!

(It's kind of implortant- even without the little climate change dilemma)

Michael Flynn: People Granted Immunity ‘Probably Have Committed A Crime’

video

The jury is no longer out. We are responsible for the unique rate of change that we are experiencing.

This is a great resource that addresses pretty much all of the mainstream climate change denial arguments in both laymen's terms and more in depth scientific explanations. It is incredibly well-sourced and transparent.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Edit: frown beat me there

We have the means to start converting to sustainable energy but Exon is literally and figuratively in our Government

"RULE BY ORGANIZED MONEY IS JUST AS DANGEROUS AS RULE BY ORGANIZED MOB"

-FDR

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

So, if oil comes from the breaking down of fossils over millions of years then how would we run out? Like, aren't other dead things going to break down over millions of years? Is there just some huge gap in time where things didn't live and we will have an oil shortage for a time?

I just don't fully understand this oil crisis thing. Couldn't the oil industries basically just tell us there is a shortage just so they can hike up the prices and make tons of money?

The rate of consumption is a lot faster than the rate of creation, and there is also the caveat of finding the oil and safely extracting it. That last part is a bigger contributor to the situation than straight up availability.

You want to solve the crisis in the middle east move to clean energy stop pouring money into the hands of oppressive regimes

For those who aren't terrified enough of the threat of total extinction by freak weather

Travel ban ban has been appealed to a higher court. They will be on Trump's side because it is in no way unconstitutional (garbage, harmful policy or not).

FYI as far as I know most oil comes from algae, not fossils.

Yeah, I don't know **** about it was why I was asking questions. Probably better off doing my own research on it to be honest but I'm not really interested enough into putting forth that effort so I was hoping I could get an educated answer. And I think I did.

Abiogenic petroleum origin

Yeah me neither. Just kinda knew that one thing. Which is why I'm actually checking out a Frownland link for once.

****ing rich oil baron aliens! I knew it was them all along!

1. I think you're confusing comologists with climatologists.

2. It's CO2 (as in one carbon atom, two oxygen atoms), not C02.

There is also stuff like this. Fyi, I'm not a "denier"—just pointing out that parties on both sides of the debate can be biased and it's not as much of a black-and-white issue as it's usually made out to be.

No, cosmologists study atmospheres. It's one of the fields they study.

Sorry for my scientific faux pas though.