DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Catastrophic Climate Change
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4631--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: trianglejohn Date: March 7, 2016, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I wish one day the countries will fight for who has better
controlled global warming that day human being will be safe.
#Post#: 5299--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: June 17, 2016, 8:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I just posted this at another forum called the Doomstead Diner.
Since it related to the above thread, I am reposting it here.
8)
[quote author=RE link=topic=688.msg106037#msg106037
date=1466205075]
[quote]My hope is RE will see the light someday and restore the
Diner to it's original form.[/quote]
I have seen the light. The light told me that as long as there
are people out there like Futilitist, MKing and Karpatok who
will disrupt a board with their own brand of Napalm, they will
be moderated. End of Story.
RE
[/quote]
HTML http://media.giphy.com/media/HjPbLbmep2aJO/giphy.gif
BINGO!
What too many people do not seem to be able to understand, in
their zeal to claim freedom of speech is somehow abridged or
curtailed by the admins here, is the fact that repetitious
propaganda is not, and never should be, classified as a
"contrarian" view.
When someone appears to be off their rocker, like Alan, then
they need to muzzled to ensure freedom of speech in this type of
forum. Alan went to my forum and, within a single day, descended
into repetition, rants, goal post moving and deliberate bold
faced denial of statements he had previously made.
I put up with that for about a week, warning him repeatedly to
stop reposting. I began to delete repetitious posts and he went
nuts trying to plaster his posts. So. I banned him for a year. I
have better things to do than spar with a thread hogging one
trick irrational pony.
Also, anyone. like GO, who considers this a platform for corner
bar BSing just for fun should certainly not get upset about
whether or not some other member of the peanut gallery is given
da bidness.
If there was no real merit in the discussions here, I would NOT
BE HERE. I resent any claim that we are just BSing here to pass
the time of day.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
MKing is, as Eddie surmises, a hired gun. He may have been
"outed" two years ago, but I was never in the info loop and I
never found out his NAME. If you know his name, Eddie, and it's
no secret, then why don't you just print it here? I doubt MKing
would sue you for doing that. Feel free to PM me with MKing's
name, since it is no secret. 8)
I agree that MKing is a hired gun. He is a hired gun for the
fossil fuel industry in general and the frackers in particular.
The term "hired gun", in regard to forum post activity, is a
metaphor describing a serial liar peddling mendacious
propaganda. How anybody can classify a person as a "hired gun",
and still value his posts as a "contrarian view", defies basic
logic and critical thinking, UNLESS one likes to stir up sh it.
I am not here to "stir up sh it". I think that is stupid OR
perfidious. I understand some people enjoy that sort of thing
because it is an excellent rhetorical tool in sophist
ammunition. They deliberately foster arguments to prevent the
discussion of solutions to a problem. MKing often has approached
a problem like climate change by claiming there isn't one with a
devious back door pseudo scientific allegation that the science
is "not settled".
He doesn't do that because he is crazy. He does that because he
is a liar for hire. Tolerating that sort of thing is almost as
irrational as tolerating Alan's rants.
As to Ashvin, he was right there in my forum cheering Alan on.
Ashvin is an expert at sophistry. He does not now, or ever did,
walk the Christian talk. I know that is irrelevant to many here
in the light of Ashvin's high intelligence and rhetorical
skills.
Well, integrity and honesty is far more important to me than
intelligence or a quick wit.
Ashvin comes to any argument completely devoid of objectivity
and thoroughly prepared to challenge any attempt by anyone to
alter his preconceived world view on anything and anybody. He
vociferously claims to be objective and quite willing to alter
his views if you can "prove your point". But as soon he cannot
counter any argument you make (and let me tell you, THAT is a
TALL ORDER!), he either goes away or pulls out his plethora of
sophist rhetoric and fallacious debating techniques. He is
relentless.
Bertrand Russell best described how Ashvin thinks.
[quote][font=times new roman]"If a man is offered a fact which
goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and
unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe
it.
If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a
reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept
it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
explained in this way".-- Bertrand Russell[/font][/quote]
For Ashvin, the evidence is NEVER (publicly) overwhelming. When
I tore apart his ridiculous claim that beef production was the
main cause of greenhouse gas air pollution, he said I "didn't
understand human psychology".
WTF!? I have to worry about ensuring some face saving clauses in
my arguments to prevent the sin of "offending" some high strung
sophist with his nose so high in the air that he drowns in a
rainstorm?
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif
RE is the only one that has ever pinned Ashvin to the wall in a
debate. Ashvin isn't here because of THAT, not because of any
alleged censorship by RE.
#Post#: 5332--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: June 20, 2016, 5:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: This is cross posted from another forum where
Ashvin attempted to counter a post I made about what he had done
here. As you can see in the thread above, Ashvin DID NOT bother
to even address the September 18, 2105 post. It is blatantly
obvious that he was only interested in supporting Alan's
erroneous and disingenuous argument.
[quote author=Ashvin link=topic=688.msg106209#msg106209
date=1466420685]
I think RE is correct in so far as my posts have not been
censored or relegated to the Dungeon. At least I don't remember
any instance of that.
Although it's not surprising for me to come back and find AG is
descending into ever more delusion and paranoia.
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=688.msg106041#msg106041
date=1466211179]
As to Ashvin, he was right there in my forum cheering Alan on.
Ashvin is an expert at sophistry. He does not now, or ever did,
walk the Christian talk. I know that is irrelevant to many here
in the light of Ashvin's high intelligence and rhetorical
skills.
Well, integrity and honesty is far more important to me than
intelligence or a quick wit.[/quote]
Anyone can see that AG is quick to call me a brother in Christ
when I agree with him, but call into question my Christian
character when I show signs of being critical of his
perspective. All it takes to draw AG's wrath and delusional
accusations is to have a CRITICAL THINKING mindset when
confronted with his theories, even if you are not really
disagreeing with him. Even if you simply say you don't have
enough information to make up your mind, he will accuse you of
being a shill or dishonest rhetorician. This indicates a
psychological defense mechanism that is clearly unhealthy and
unproductive.
AG, you will never convince anyone of anything you are saying by
being that much of a blowhard. As far as I remember, Alan was
being entirely reasonable on your thread before you started in
on your accusations and threats of censorship.
[quote]Ashvin comes to any argument completely devoid of
objectivity and thoroughly prepared to challenge any attempt by
anyone to alter his preconceived world view on anything and
anybody. He vociferously claims to be objective and quite
willing to alter his views if you can "prove your point". But as
soon he cannot counter any argument you make (and let me tell
you, THAT is a TALL ORDER!), he either goes away or pulls out
his plethora of sophist rhetoric and fallacious debating
techniques. He is relentless.
Bertrand Russell best described how Ashvin thinks.
[quote][font=times new roman]"If a man is offered a fact which
goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and
unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe
it.
If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a
reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept
it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
explained in this way".-- Bertrand Russell[/font][/quote]
For Ashvin, the evidence is NEVER (publicly) overwhelming. When
I tore apart his ridiculous claim that beef production was the
main cause of greenhouse gas air pollution, he said I "didn't
understand human psychology". [/quote]
Yeah, a lot of projection going on in that comment...
As for the meat production thing, WHY are you so damn reluctant
to admit it a significant factor and talk about it? Is it
because you ONLY want us to focus on the fossil fuel industry? I
have always had the feeling that you want to subtly steer us
towards your more extreme conspiracy theories about government
coverups and ETs and alternative "free energy" sources. Although
I have no idea when you became utterly convinced of such
theories, to the point where anyone questions them you label
them a complete ignoramus or a shill or a "hired gun".
[quote]RE is the only one that has ever pinned Ashvin to the
wall in a debate. Ashvin isn't here because of THAT, not because
of any alleged censorship by RE.
[/quote]
I see that even RE doesn't claim to ever pinning me against a
wall. I haven't been here for a variety of reasons, not least of
which I have been very busy relocating to NOVA. Also I'm not
eager to get into any online back and forth about something
other than philosophy or spirituality, because I just don't see
the value in it, especially when there are people like you
present.
[/quote]
[center] [img
width=300]
HTML http://memecrunch.com/meme/5L3XX/spiderman-bullshit-detector/image.jpg?w=544&c=1[/img][/center]
I realized, FINALLY, where you are coming from in that last bit
of cheerleading for Alan's totally biased views that you engaged
in.
Your obtuse refusal to blame the police for all the brutality
against African Americans before that made me question your
objectivity (to put it mildly).
Your evidence free assumption that meat production produced more
pollution than fossil fuels was one of the last straws.
Your predictable ridicule of anyone that brings up solid
evidence that the USA is an OLIGARCHY, not a republic or a
democracy, is evidence of your bias and lack of objectivity, not
critical thinking skills. You will, NO DOUBT, claim the
following is "blowhard conspiracy theory stuff". ::)
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig[/center]
As I said BEFORE, you are relentless in your prideful zeal to
peddle your world class doubletalk. You can word parse and
carefully and methodically take apart absolutely anything
anybody says with your well practiced, context and ethics free
sophistic modus operandi until the cows come home, for all I
care. I just happened to spot this here and I will answer ONCE.
I will not waste any more time on grappling with your lawyer
grab bag of sophist skills.
I will never, ever discuss Christianity with you again. You do
not now, or ever did, have the remotest idea what Christianity
is all about. You are a testament to that quote from the Bible
about the "letter kills, but the Spirit gives life". YOU are ALL
ABOUT interpreting the LETTER for your own self interest. The
claim that the "Spirit gave YOU life" is now, and always has
been, part of your TALK, but never part of your WALK.
Of COURSE, you will now rush to 2 Corinthians 3:6 and yammer
some more sophistic baloney about how I am the one that doesn't
"understand" the bible, coupled with some crocodile tears about
how "sad" it is that any person can be so "ignorant" of the
"truth" (in true Calvinist pseudo Christian form). Perhaps you
will even promise to "pray for me". That is, after you passive
aggressively question my mental health and drag out every post
where I lauded your prose as "evidence" that any credibility for
my views must be questioned because I am "wishy washy".
After all that, you will soberly counsel all, who are willing to
listen, that my credibility has ALSO been severely compromised
by these defamatory statements directed at you, a member in good
standing of the "royal priesthood".
As I said before, WORDS are your THING. YOU are relentless in
the defense, not of truth, but of your PRIDE. You are WISE and
PRUDENT in your own eyes. Have a nice day.
[center] [img
width=400]
HTML http://biblepic.com/53/17761.jpg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 5341--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: June 21, 2016, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashvin is a lawyer. :P
[center][img
width=540]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100215152646.png[/img]
[/center]
Obviously, the above cartoonish representation of bats debating
has nothing to do with bats. Bats, due to their fondness for
fruit, do not engage in fruitless debates. ;D
[center]
HTML http://www.kenjacobs.com/lawyer3ag.jpg[/center]
Lawyers NEVER give ANYONE the benefit of the doubt. Lawyers
ALWAYS deny responsibility for deliberately attempting to
position a debating opponent as one to be scorned, derided and
dismissed by any intelligent, reasonable, prudent (etc. you get
the idea ;)) person.
But that's what they are trained to do. And they LIKE doing it.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://katmichels.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sophistry-Quote.jpg[/img][/center]
And of course, they question the mental health of anyone that
claims they are trying to game the discourse with bullshit.
Don't you know, only a madman or an irrational zealot would
question the integrity and credibility of a lawyer...
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
George Orwell understood lawyerspeak quite well.
#Post#: 5342--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: June 21, 2016, 6:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Az is short of Azozeo, a good man who has some
beliefs that I do not agree with. I post this here because the
pseudo Christian lawyer Ashvin is engaging in ridicule and
dripping sarcasm that is totally unwarranted and highly
unethical. The name "Ashvin" is not an internet handle, it's his
real first name. 8)
[quote author=jdwheeler42 link=topic=7144.msg106352#msg106352
date=1466542979]
[quote author=Ashvin link=topic=7144.msg106348#msg106348
date=1466540251]
Lawyers also know when someone is trying to avoid the
substantive issues and distract from them because they have no
arguments. Read the title of this thread, and then tell me how
AZ has posted anything related to it, except his first statement
that "there is only one set of rules - physics".
Also, how about showing a little [I]intellectual honesty and
backbone[/I] and telling your pal AZ that you completely
disagree with his naturalist worldview. That is if you haven't
already given up core Christian theology for ET conspiracy
theories and Planet X annihilation any-day-now predictions.
[/quote]
LOL... was that this thread? I don't read threads, as a rule I
read messages in the "Most Recent 100" view, so I only respond
to the parts of the thread that are quoted in a particular
message. Heck, I don't even know if this comment is directed at
me, but I'll answer it anyway.
I don't completely disagree with AZ's naturalistic worldview, I
only fundamentally disagree with it. Kind of like with how when
once you understand and accept General Relativity, you realize
that Newtonian Mechanics isn't exactly true anyplace in the
universe -- but it's close enough most of the time. Like with
evolution: I believe in the fact of macroevolution, but from my
perspective it is the tool God uses to create new species. My
worldview is big enough to encompass both Jesus and little green
men.
[/quote]
Jd,
I recommend you take a step back and analyze the nature of the
post by learned counsel more closely. Since I am a "paranoid
whacko" (and that post came RIGHT AFTER MY post), I suspect that
it was directed at me in a clever goal post moving, attack the
messenger type of fallacious debating technique, RATHER than
addressing the issue of empathy deficit disordered sophistry.
To those who will claim, no doubt, that sophistry is not germane
to the debate here, I beg to differ.
The POINT Az was trying to make was that he was rewarded with
BILE. I explained, in my post, that attacking the validity of an
opponent's allegations is what lawyers DO. But when they see
that their methodology is being exposed, they then attack anyone
trying to expose it by attempting to sidestep the attack the
messenger bullshit they are engaging in with claims of the new
poster's hypocrisy.
This is most clever. It steers the thread away from the
Machiavellian dismissal of Az's discussion of Hopi prophesies
(etc.) to an attempt to silence anyone, like me, who disagrees
with some of Az's beliefs, but agrees with the importance of
taking seriously the validity of the scholarship on Hopi
prophesies and anything else Az says.
Any charge of using unethical debating sophistry can also be
countered with sophistry. That is the "beauty" of being an
accomplished goal post mover. The previous paragraph can be
parsed into sections with witty remarks like "Projection here",
"Paranoia over here", "hypersensitivity there", "I never said
that" AND, "where do you get this stuff?". All those remarks are
MORE attack the messenger type verbal guided missiles that
continue to serve the main purpose of the sophist; that is, to
avoid treating the opponent as a credible person, that whether
they are right or wrong, must be given respect.
The sophist will vociferously deny the above charge and claim
they consistently provide all debating opponents with respect,
as is their Christian duty. They will ask for a record of
examples of their alleged "lack of respect". They claim these
charges are ridiculous. When a detailed and irrefutable list is
not quickly produced, they accuse the accusers of being out to
lunch.
If that doesn't work, a clever sophist, when faced with a group
of people pointing out his sophistry, will claim he is being
unfairly victimized and refuse to continue the discussion. He
will pick up his marbles and go home because level verbal
playing fields are not something sophists are fond of.
The legal "profession" was founded on sophistry (lawyers will
vociferously deny this and claim it's all about providing the
wonderful legal system we "enjoy today" that evolved from
"humble beginnings"
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif).
The Sophists
claimed that any side of an argument could be won, if argued
"effectively" (regardless of whether it is true or not). Lawyers
are about wining arguments.
Ashvin is a lawyer.
[center][img
width=540]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100215152646.png[/img]
[/center]
Obviously, the above cartoonish representation of bats debating
has nothing to do with bats. Bats, due to their fondness for
fruit, do not engage in fruitless debates. ;D
#Post#: 5363--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: June 23, 2016, 8:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML http://climatenexus.org/sites/all/themes/climatenexus/logo.png[/img][/center]
[center]Survey Shows Strength of Climate Science[/center]
One of the first peer-reviewed surveys of scientists used to
determine the level of consensus on human-made climate change
was undertaken by Dennis Bran and Hans von Storch in 1996. They
used a standard survey response format known as the “Likert
Scale,” where respondents answer questions based on a scale of 1
to 7 to determine, for example, how confident they are that
warming is happening or that it’s human-caused.
They’ve repeated the survey a few times since 1996, and have
recently released the 5th International Survey of Climate
Scientists, for 2015/2016. Bart Verheggen helpfully goes over
the key consensus findings as well as a couple of issues with
the survey.
Because of the Likert Scale response format, though, describing
the findings in numbers isn’t as effective as just looking at
the graphs of responses. In many cases, the responses are so
lopsided that some very clear statements can be made.
We can see that, as science has progressed, the level of risk
associated with climate change has increased as has what’s at
stake. In contrast to folks like Judith Curry who play up
uncertainty as an excuse for inaction, the majority of
scientists think that since 1996, climate science uncertainty
has dropped.
Meanwhile, if society were to listen to voices highlighting
uncertainty, and fail to act because of them, the potential for
catastrophe for some parts of the world is fairly great.
To the point of the GOP AGs suggesting that Gore and others
could be held responsible for exaggerating climate risks,
scientists clearly think sea level rise will be just as bad as
we thought five years ago, if not worse. The same can be said
for other negative impacts. Over the last five years, the
urgency to act on climate change has grown.
As for the public, scientists clearly think they should be told
to be worried as we are already starting to experience the
impacts of climate change. For example, they agree that the
frequency of extreme events is increasing, as well as the
intensity of those events, and the probability that those
extreme events occur. Scientists expect these extreme events to
become more powerful, tropical storms to get more intense, and
certainly not any less frequent. Heat waves over the last 20
years are growing more intense as well as more frequent.
Most importantly, an overwhelming majority of scientists are
convinced that climate change poses a serious and dangerous
threat to humanity, with only 2% responding that they’re not at
all convinced. Again, with the Likert scale it’s a bit difficult
to put simply. Assuming a 4 out of 7 is the midway point between
“not at all” concerned and "very much" concerned, 8% of
respondents fell between 1 and 3, 5.667% right in the middle at
4, and 85.74% between 5 and 7.
So, deniers claiming the science is still too uncertain to take
action or that the public shouldn’t be worried need to take heed
of this survey (like they have in the past, if even just to spin
it) and accept that they’re a fringe minority at odds with an
overwhelming consensus. That’s the facts, whether they Likert or
not.
HTML https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/new-survey-of-climate-scientists-by-bray-and-von-storch-confirms-broad-consensus-on-human-causation/
Agelbert NOTE: SAMPLE of DIRECT QUOTES from a fellow named Alan
that Ashvin found "reasonable":
[quote]I don't know enough about the climate issue. But I've
been reading about it sporadically for 25+ years, and from
everything I can gather, the scientists doing the analyses and
projections are quite fallible, do not necessarily understand
with such certainty the things they claim to understand, and
cannot, in the end, be taken quite AS seriously as you seem to
be taking them. [/quote]
[quote]The environmental harm of something must be weighed
against benefits or desirable effects.[/quote]
[quote]the Doom overreactions and the propaganda spewing are two
sides of a counterfeit coin. Neither one reflect reality and are
counter-productive to real progress.[/quote]
All the above represent denier methods of temporizing, creating
false equivalences and ignoring the FACT that dirty energy
ENVIRONMENTAL HARM is greater that the alleged benefits.
Alan brought up a lot of the other denier happy talk about
"greening the planet with more CO2" (which I countered and he
ignored) while he refused to even consider the danger the sixth
mass extinction represents to humanity and the biosphere as a
cause for rejection of incremental reforms in favor of the
drastic government funded action climate scientists advocate.
In short, both Alan and Ashvin are world class foot draggers
that ridicule, disdain and disparage the action recommended by
97% of climate scientists as "extremist".
IOW, from Alan or Ashvin, do not expect intellectual honesty.
What you can expect is verbal goal post moving and a barrage of
ridicule, derision and defamatory 'attack the messenger' type
invective, along with continuous mendacity filled attempts to
undermine the seriousness of the validity of the climate change
threat.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
#Post#: 6865--------------------------------------------------
Re: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Pr
ocrastination
By: AGelbert Date: April 13, 2017, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Switzerland From The Air [/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/p0HGDHN22Gc[/center]
Published on Jul 25, 2014
Video brought to you by the Travel and Tourism Foundation
(
HTML http://TravelFoundation.org
) and Travelindex
(
HTML http://Travelindex.com
).
#Post#: 8290--------------------------------------------------
Voter Suppression, Republicans CanNot Win Honestly
By: GWarnock Date: November 7, 2017, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/virginia-aclu-sounds-voter-suppression-alarm-over-phone-calls-telling-dems-to-go-to-wrong-polling-place/
#Post#: 8294--------------------------------------------------
Re: Voter Suppression, Republicans CanNot Win Honestly
By: AGelbert Date: November 7, 2017, 1:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=GWarnock link=topic=243.msg8290#msg8290
date=1510079327]
HTML https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/virginia-aclu-sounds-voter-suppression-alarm-over-phone-calls-telling-dems-to-go-to-wrong-polling-place/
[/quote]
[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img]
And the genesis of voter suppression goes WAY, WAY back in our
"representative republic" (lol!).
But at present, the reason cretins like Ryan can continue to do
absolutely anything for the elite crooks while totally ignoring
the overwhelming majority of voters in this country is because
of gerrymandering.
[quote]Gerrrymander ger·ry·man·der
NOUN
1.U.S. Politics. the dividing of a state, county, etc., into
election districts so as to give one political party a majority
in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the
other party into as few districts as possible.
VERB (USED WITH OBJECT)
2.U.S. Politics. to subject (a state, county, etc.) to a
gerrymander.[/quote]
In a sane country that would be a crime against democratic
government. But we do not live in a sane country.
[center]
[img
width=640]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170317122516.jpeg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 13141--------------------------------------------------
America’s Very Violent President— Time for a morality check on t
he US presidency!
By: Surly1 Date: August 6, 2019, 7:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
America’s Very Violent President— Time for a morality check on
the US presidency!
When giving a speech in Florida this past May, Donald Trump
asked his audience “how do we stop these people (immigrants)?”
Someone shouted from the audience, “shoot them!”
HTML https://medium.com/@m_weddle/americas-very-violent-president-12ff1f23e1b9
HTML https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*I6Vxx3F-rZsiNjxTFoSxew.jpeg
[html]<p data-selectable-paragraph="">Donald Trump, when giving
a speech in Florida this past May, asked his audience
“<em>how do we stop these people</em>
(immigrants)?”</p> <p
data-selectable-paragraph="">Someone shouted from the audience,
“<em>shoot them</em>!”</p> <p
data-selectable-paragraph="">Trump, acknowledged this ignorant
and insensitive remark with his own ignorant and insensitive
laughter, quipping, “<em>Only in the Panhandle! Only in
the Panhandle can you get away with that!</em>” The
mesmerized audience broke into cheers, applause and even more
ignorant and insensitive laughter.</p> <p
data-selectable-paragraph="">Trump is also on record at a
campaign rally in Iowa in 2016, stating “<em>I could stand
in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I
wouldn’t lose voters.</em>”</p> <p
data-selectable-paragraph="">Folks, we have a US president who
easily could be rated R for violence.</p> <p
data-selectable-paragraph="">But this is only if you discount
the Triple X-rated proclivities of Trump’s past behavior.
It’s no wonder Trump was once mentored by mobster and
alleged pedophile lawyer Roy Cohn; he’s more recently been
associated with Blackwater mercenary soldier CEO Eric Prince and
convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein; and considers himself
buddy-buddy with murderous dictators Benjamin Netanyahu and
Mohammed Bin
Salman.</p> <div> <section> <div> <div>Trump to
Panhandle crowd: 'How do we stop these people?' Shocking reply:
'Shoot them.'</div> <div> <div>President Trump claimed
immigrants are mounting an "invasion" at a Panhandle rally on
May 8, 2019. He asked the
crowd…</div> </div> <div> <div>www.miamiheral
d.com</div> </div> </div> <div></div> </section>
</div> <div> <section> <div> <div>Governmen
t
by Blackmail: Jeffrey Epstein, Trump's Mentor and the Dark
Secrets of the Reagan Era</div> <div> <div>Appalling for
both the villainous abuse of children itself and the chilling
implications of government by
blackmail…</div> </div> <div> <div>www.mintpr
essnews.com</div> </div> </div> <div></div> </se
ction> </div> <h2
data-selectable-paragraph="">Sorry Gun-related
Statistics</h2> <p data-selectable-paragraph="">Five of the
top 10 deadliest shootings in U.S. history have occurred since
2016 when the full-blown Trump came onto the national political
stage. There have been 250 mass shooting in the United States
this year alone, and we’ve still got five months to
complete the year!</p> <p data-selectable-paragraph="">Trump
repeatedly deflects calls for gun control by blaming the problem
on mental health. But, again, his actions do not match his
words.</p> <p data-selectable-paragraph="">In Feb. 2017,
Trump signed HJ Resolution 40 to end the Social Security
Administration’s requirement for entering the names of
people receiving mental health benefits into the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System, the database used by
the FBI to determine who can purchase weapons.</p> <p
data-selectable-paragraph="">CNN produced some very interesting
charts showing exactly how dangerous it is for our president to
become loose-tongued and fancy-free with wrestling ring styled
language in public forums. Why would any <em>leader</em>use
threatening language against the backdrop as shown from the
below
charts:</p> <div> <section> <div> <div>America's
gun culture vs. the world in 5
charts</div> <div> <div>The mass shooting at a Florida
school has reignited the debate around gun rights in the US.
Here's how America's
gun…</div> </div> <div> <div>www.cnn.com</div
> </div> </div> <div></div> </section> </div
> <h2
data-selectable-paragraph="">Trump Respects Only Money and
Power</h2> <p data-selectable-paragraph="">Trump could care
less that Saudi Arabia, since 2015, has daily and
indiscriminately rained US-provided bombs upon innocent citizens
in Yemen, he could care less that this combined with sanctions
have killed 100,000 people and many are living under starvation
conditions. He could care less the Saudis exploit impoverished
Africans and private mercenary soldiers as a proxy army. Trump
continues providing weapons to Saudi Arabia despite widespread
worldwide opposition.</p> <p
data-selectable-paragraph="">The median age (half older/half
younger) of citizens of Yemen is 19.5, whereas the median age of
Saudi Arabia is 31. 8 and it is 38.2 in the United States.
Again, Trump could care less about the fate and well-being of
people from Yemen.</p> <p
data-selectable-paragraph=""><strong>Folks, I seriously think
it’s time to stop voting for Republicans! Only Progressive
Democrats who appeal to Independents can cure this. Centrist
Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Since JFK got shot it
has been right wing Republicans and centrist Democrats who have
ruled our
nation.</strong></p> <figure> <div></div> <img
width="500" height="500"
src="
HTML https://miro.medium.com/max/1000/1*N9se_eQ9s1b20ywMYv8bAg.jpeg"<br
/>/><strong></strong></figure> <p
data-selectable-paragraph=""><strong></strong></p>[/html]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page