|
|
http://www.espn.com/college-football...ulldogs-writer
Very accurate article. MSU fans have been reading about this story for 2 years. Nobody else believed it or wanted to even look. It's surreal to see all these articles from national publications coming out today. Notice the crickets from Mississippi publications...... OM owns MS journalists. Lawyers too. Still lots of smoke the worst is yet to come.
Cheers TSUN! Love, MooU.
Very well said. Today, liberals are nothing more than modern day plantation owners. They seek to put as many people as possible on the government dole via government subsidies. These liberals want an underclass of low income voters to live below the poverty level, so they will be fully dependent on "Big Government" Democrats for their future healthcare, their minimum wage jobs, their Welfare/food stamps, their free education (don't mention pro-choice here, LOL!), their free abortions at Planned Parenthood, medicare/medicaid, daycare, Rent Control, and of course social security (which we actually PAY FOR, and are entitled to). With regard to "Science" and liberals, I thought this blogger nailed it well:Originally Posted by DJDAWG
The reality is, it's the liberal's like "theprofessor" that are science deniers, because it doesn't fit their narrative."There is an iron-clad scientific consensus on when life begins — conception — but progressives (or liberals such as "theprofessor") suddenly morph into ignorant science deniers when the topic of human life in the womb — life, by the way, that is actually observable — comes up. And why is that? Because admitting the obvious fact that human life in the womb is human life would do damage to the secular sacrament of abortion. That is why Bill Nye the “Science Guy” muses aloud that there should be a punishment for people who have “extra kids” due to the familial carbon footprint but also releases idiotic videos defending abortion, with nary a scientific fact to be seen.
On abortion, transgenderism, the mounting harmful health effects of the birth control pill, you name it — progressives (or liberals such as "theprofessor") deny it if it doesn’t suit their ideological agenda. And so when they come out bristling with the righteous indignation of a cat doused with a bucket of water over a climate change agreement, conservatives tend to be suspicious. Why do they suddenly want to use science as a cudgel? Why is this issue in particular so important to them? Why do they ignore observable embryology but obsess over theoretical climatology?"
This one is a good read.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/w...t-not-abortion
Why do we have thread titles on this board?
SMH
ruff, ruff, ruff, ruff
Come one guys. Cut him some slack. Afterall, is he really a journalist or just a sports' reporter?
I know climate change to be a very real phenomenon, and I have it on good faith that the largest contributors are a group of sisters from Bernice. Having spent time in Soonerdawg's house when he hasn't been particularly well behaved, and being married to his sister-in-law when I might have innocently transgressed some insignificant formality, I have been witness to the most dreadful and hasty change in climate one could imagine.
I knew there was something missing on this board for a while and this post is an example of what is missing!
I'm glad you are back on the board Dirty as I have missed your posts.
WWDog
La Tech
Region and hyphen free since 1894!
Flagship of the University of Louisiana System
Thanks, WWDog. I try to make it back when I remember. I find I get too easily distracted these days. Plus, I've found my new calling at keeping PaDawg honest on that Facebook.
I spent more time during my journalism career working outside of a sports department than inside it. I'm a sports fan. I wouldn't classify myself as a sports reporter.
the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor
Here's the problem with today's political environment. If you're not a conservative, you must be a liberal. There's no in-between. There's no middle ground whatsoever. Don't mistake my anti-Trumpism for liberalism.
the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor
Liberalism is not a badge most liberals are proud to wear now because it now translates to socialism. So now many liberal socialist claim to be fence riders. Which social or political issues to you consider yourself to be "in the middle" on?
I read the article you posted with this quote. He makes great points about the people most in power that are promoting climate are not following climate saving tactics and that is the reason why conservatives are so skeptical. He is right, if you are as worried about the environment as you say you are you should practice more environment-friendly living. Many are not doing that. But I would argue it has more to do with their position in society than an active disregard for the environment. Conservative Politicians are just as guilty. Lousiana had Senator David Vitter for many years who argued for family values but spent many nights with escorts and hard drugs in new Orleans. We could go back and forth on the double standard of what politicians (from both sides of the aisle) say versus what they do until next football season but it doesn't mean that what they advocate for is inherently wrong.
Now to the crux of his argument. Climate change due to human activity is not theoretical... it is actively observable and measurable. Although science is never "settled", that is what makes science the engine of society is that it is constantly self-correcting, there does exist quite a consensus among experts. In fact, surveys of peer-reviewed scientific papers on climatology and the opinions of other scientists consistently show an over 90% consensus that humans are causing global warming. Also, the surveys found the more that the scientists' expertise aligned with climate science the more likely they were to agree to the overwhelming consensus of global warming (97 to 98% agree). On the premise of his statement that life is at conception is not a question for science to answer. Science will tell you the what and the how but, when it comes to categorizing rather the zygote is life or not - remains a question for religious leaders, philosophy, ethics and law to decide. Thus, life conception is not a science topic you can "deny" like denying all the evidence to man-made global warming.
Climate change happens with or WITHOUT human activity. You tree huggers are welcome to pay as much you want to make miniscule improvements to the environment. I'd rather not particiipate in your wealth redistribution scam.
No kidding! Clearly you should have posted this to the "Comments That Don't Warrant A Thread" thread.
You're right it does. Why haven't all these egg-head climate scientists taking that into account? Surely, they wouldn't have published over 13,000 studies in support of human caused global warming without thinking of that tidbit... Or, perhaps they have. They have found to be a pattern of climate change over the past 400,000 years - and we have broken that pattern. we should be heading into the next small Ice-age (or cooling period) but, were not. We're warming and not only that - we're accelerating in that warming. I'm not a tree hugger. just a realist. But you're coming across as an ostrich with his head planted in the ground.
And - redistribution scam???? This makes no sense at all. Can you breakdown the economic mechanics of how such a scam would work?
You have to realize that the energy landscape is changing. We, as a country, can either hop on board so we can lead the effort (like we have with every advancement eg., industrial revolution, and the informational revolution) or, be left behind and let China and Germany soak up the entire fledging industry and every one of the extremely well-paying jobs that go with it. That is what I'm protecting. Not a tree. But the future economy and the jobs with it.
Clean air, drinkable water and unpolluted hunting/fishing grounds would be nice bonus
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
