Comments by "No One" (@joermundgand) on "Science Denying Politician Humiliated By Girls Question About Science" video.

  1. This is why its a good thing Hillary lost, now things can actually change, Clinton would have said nice things and done bad things.
    37
  2. Robert carl Clayton Does curbing climate change cost money, yes it does, and if it costs money it's political by default.
    3
  3. Edwin Deuning How to make a conservative angry, tell them a lie. How to make a liberal angry, tell them the truth.
    2
  4. johnmburt1960 All these mothers vote for me, all the mothers of the dead soldiers in the wars, did they all vote for her?
    2
  5. Darlene Pytlinski I know that all too well, but nothing I stated here in this entire exchange was a lie, I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal.
    2
  6. Robert carl Clayton Why is it a good thing. She's corrupt, she's deceitful, she's a war criminal, her economic policies are identical to the Republicans policies, her loss makes the bipartisan corruption visible for all to see, her loss prevented a no fly zone in Syria which would bring the Western world into a shooting war with Russia, Iran, China and eventually India. Her loss is the a rejection of globalism and the neocon/neolib agenda of destroying the power of the nation state. Her exploiting the grievances of disparate groups to use as voter cattle without actually helping anybody is rejected and exposed.
    2
  7. Robert carl Clayton Because Hillary would have said she would put a halt to for instance fracking, she would not actually do it though. Her donors like fracking, the Democrats are all into fracking the fuck out of the planet. She acknowledges science, sure she does and she's at the same time doing nothing to promote it. Her economic policies are Republican, she works for big oil.
    2
  8. Robert carl Clayton Hillary "cared" about the people of Libya and Syria, what a fucking joke, her donors wanted the oil.
    2
  9. No, the rich run the world and play games, they bribe a church to oppose a law for reasons that would benefit them, they bribe environmentalists to oppose a law for the exact same reason. The truth is simple, the powerful act according to their aims, if a oil producing entity with extraction facilities in the main outside the US covertly supports groups hostile to oil extraction within the US, that's just good business for them, nothing more. And vice versa.
    2
  10. The Republicans like Chaffetz pretend to believe in anti science fairy tales, Democrats acknowledge the theory of climate change, but just like the Republicans they are paid to ignore it. That's why this is political, corporations who own both parties won't do anything to stop it now, why is that, it is because their shareholders are interested in short term profits. And so nothing will be done to prevent it.
    2
  11. Russ Wilson Gold is the bone and sinew etc...
    2
  12. Robert carl Clayton The republicans are off course openly anti science on the climate change issue, sure. Neither side spends any funds or pass any laws to combat it, all hail the fracker in chief, Barack Obama.
    2
  13. Wow, that whole Vault 7 thing really gets all hands on deck, even dear old Shillberto answers the call.
    2
  14. Mr.Herbalist 420 Oh yes, let us pretend that actual sides exists, well the others guys do bad shit too, so what difference does it make. There are no sides, just the laughter of the cruel owners grinding us into the dust.
    1
  15. Mr.Herbalist 420 You are implying that a lesser evil is better. Here's what I think. The lesser evil is still evil.
    1
  16. Nathan Dehnel You still choose your definition of lesser evil, which is subjective and decided by fear.
    1
  17. Mr.Herbalist 420 Here is a lie they tell, all poor whites hate black and brown, vote for us, we will keep you safe. Here is another lie they tell, all black and brown are dangerous, vote for us.
    1
  18. Mr.Herbalist 420 He nixed the TPP, so he must be destroyed, they don't care about social issues at all, only about economic issues, anti-abortion, pro choice they don't care.
    1
  19. Mr.Herbalist 420 Conservapedia, the fact that you even brought it up proves you think one side is the lesser evil, that means the you have given into fear.
    1
  20. Mr.Herbalist 420 Let me give you a question, do you believe in the nation state and the US being a actual nation state?
    1
  21. Mr.Herbalist 420 Tell a liberal the truth...
    1
  22. Robert carl Clayton This is the main enemy of the US deep state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation
    1
  23. Robert carl Clayton Shanghai Cooperation Organization. See their military activities, the first line is this. "Over the past few years, the organisation's activities have expanded to include increased military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and counterterrorism." Followed by this. "There have been a number of SCO joint military exercises. The first of these was held in 2003, with the first phase taking place in Kazakhstan and the second in China. Since then China and Russia have teamed up for large-scale war games in 2005 (Peace Mission 2005), 2007 and 2009, under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation." This is a pact to fight the United States, where ever the US intervenes in Asia they will face this alliance.
    1
  24. Robert carl Clayton I'm not trolling, I merely question the validity of either option being the better one. Seems to me it was a choice between two frightening prospects, either an obvious foe or a wolf in sheep clothes.
    1
  25. Mike C I agree, but it is necessary to tear down the delusion that either binary choice was the lesser evil.
    1
  26. delorb delorb The subject is propaganda, this entire segment is propaganda. Does climate change caused by humans seem plausible, scientific evidence evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of that conclusion, are any of the two major political parties prepared to tackle it, no they are not.
    1
  27. Robert carl Clayton No more compliance, I am aware and noncompliant, globalism is the enemy of the nation state.
    1
  28. Here you are, the context for aware and non compliant. Dear John: "Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn't all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we're off and running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his "George" magazine saw celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are dealing with now is dead serious. How does this get handled in the general? Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging. Rubio's press conference yesterday AM was good and should be repeated in its entirety, not just in nibbles. I will attend the Clinton fundraiser here next week but as I can only afford the low level of participation may just get to wave without a "hello." I fear we are all now trying to navigate a set of forces that cannot be simply explained or fully understood, so it is and will reamin interesting! Sent with a handshake, Bill" https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
    1
  29. Terry Tater It's because i'm not liberal, a proscience non liberal breaks his fragile psyche apparently.
    1
  30. Robert carl Clayton But, but, but, but, but, muh narrative, yeah Roberto your narrative is all broken into tiny little pieces.
    1
  31. Robert carl Clayton He did no such thing my man, he could have banned fracking on federal land, he did not, whenever a pipeline crosses state lines it becomes a federal matter, he did nothing to stop it, all hail the fracker in chief, all hail the president who gave big oil a thumbs up and said go frack to your hearts content. Who was prez in 2005, who controlled congress in 2008, oh sharona.
    1
  32. Robert carl Clayton 110th congress, a federal ban on fracking come up and the fracker in chief squashed it like bug, badabing badaboom.
    1
  33. Robert carl Clayton Just as he left office, but all the while he was in office in the preceding 8 years he did absolutely nothing. zero, zilch, nada.
    1
  34. Squash, you mean like the game or the vegetable, otherwise no Roberto.
    1
  35. Here you are Shillberto. https://www.c2es.org/federal/congress/110
    1
  36. 20. January 2009, Obama's first day in office, that's 39 days to give this piece of legislation the presidential seal of approval. Too bad Shillberto, you lose again.
    1
  37. As of July 2008, lawmakers had introduced more than 235 bills including the frac act, it was on the desk of the incoming president. You fail again Shillberto.
    1
  38. 39 days to sign this Shillberto, but he forgot it because his donors told him to forget. Carbon Tax H.R. 2069:Save Our Climate Act of 2007. This bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a carbon tax based on the carbon content of primary fossil fuels. H.R. 2069:Save Our Climate Act of 2007. This bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a carbon tax based on the carbon content of primary fossil fuels. The tax would be imposed on any taxable fuel—coal (including lignite and peat), petroleum and any petroleum product, and natural gas—which is extracted, manufactured, or produced in the United States or entered into the United States for consumption, use, or warehousing. H.R. 2069:Save Our Climate Act of 2007. This bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a carbon tax based on the carbon content of primary fossil fuels. The tax would be imposed on any taxable fuel—coal (including lignite and peat), petroleum and any petroleum product, and natural gas—which is extracted, manufactured, or produced in the United States or entered into the United States for consumption, use, or warehousing. The tax would be imposed on the manufacturer, producer, or importer of that fuel, and would start at $10 per ton of carbon in such fuel. The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Energy to determine the carbon content of taxable fuels. For each calendar year beginning after 2008, the tax will increase at a rate of $10 per year, until the level of US CO2 emissions does not exceed 20% of 1990 levels, as determined by the Energy Information Administration. Sponsor: Rep. Fortney Stark (D-CA) (1 cosponsor) H.R. 3416: America’s Energy Security Trust Fund Act of 2007. This bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on the carbon dioxide content of coal (including lignite and peat), petroleum and any petroleum product, and natural gas, which is extracted, manufactured, or produced in the United States or entered into the United States for consumption, use, or warehousing. Beginning in 2008, the bill would impose a tax of $15 per ton of CO2 content, increasing incrementally each year thereafter. The bill provides for tax refunds for generated CO2 that is sequestered or offset by a qualified offset project. Revenues generated by the tax would fund the America’s Energy Security trust fund, which would be used for clean energy technology research and development, industry transition assistance, and payroll tax relief. Sponsor: Rep. John Larson (D-CT)
    1
  39. Shall we go on Shillberto?
    1
  40. No it was not passed and it was not vetoed, Georgie boy left it on the desk for Obama to sign, but he did not did he Shillberto. You see sometimes a law is not vetoed, it's just lost in Limbo and scrapped as a new legislature de jure or executive is sworn in. Which was happened to this excellent law Shillberto.
    1
  41. Face it Shillberto, both sides are bad, both sides are full of hollow buzzwords and duplicity, you still believe in the Easter Bunny and a the hard working wench called the Tooth Fairy, I know it's hurts that your "side" is full of shit and that they never ever do what they preach. But Dubya did leave it, like you leave a turd to foul up the rug, it really is amusing to me to discuss these things with a fanatic like you.
    1